How does a capitalist country solves their economic problems ?
104602
by increasing the money supply, that would make more money available for loans which would lead to more people buying houses, which means higher sales of durable goods(furniture, appliances), which puts money in a lot of employee's pockets that they then go spend on durable goods/foods that put money in other people's pockets. and so it keeps going until people don't want to spend and then you have a problem. that is what works in the states, alan greenspan made a career out of doing just that.
526768
Most of human history suffered the same, until the enlightenment. Steady growth in freedom from that point on till the peak in capitalism ~100 years ago is the foundation of healthy economies. The ideas of the enlightenment are lost on the countries above (and fading here too).
386499
CAPITALISM!\n\n\nSeriously... How could you live in country that has \n"In god we trust" on its MONEY??????
381254
Capitalism is commonly understood to mean an economic or socioeconomic system in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned and operated for profit, often through the employment of labour. Other systems would include monarchism (the monarch owns everything), socialism (communities own everything) and communism (the state owns everything).\n\nIs it good? The capitalist mode of production is capable of tremendous growth because the capitalist can, and has an incentive to, reinvest profits in new technologies. Marx considered the capitalist class to be the most revolutionary in history, because it constantly revolutionized the means of production. But Marx argued that capitalism was prone to periodic crises. He suggested that over time, capitalists would invest more and more in new technologies, and less and less in labor. Since Marx believed that surplus value appropriated from labor is the source of profits, he concluded that the rate of profit would fall even as the economy grew. When the rate of profit falls below a certain point, the result would be a recession or depression in which certain sectors of the economy would collapse. And when it collapses (eg as in the Great Reccession of the 1920's and 30's then things are very bad).
885887
Capitalists would probably say yes, but with an unrestrained free market and no mechanism for wealth redistribution the rich tend to get richer and the poor get poorer.  It takes money to make money.
444564
The economy and middle class are indeed growing at a fast pace in China, but the majority of Chinese still live the way they did 30 or 40 years ago.  I think the chinese government is trying to slowly convert the country into a capitalist - or at least a french-style socialist - society without making the mistakes Gorbachev made in USSR 15-20 years ago.  Time will tell if they succeed, though there are rumors of increasing discontent in the rural areas.  The same thing happened in the US in 1920s - right before the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.  Hopefully China will not suffer the same fate.
134115
There is lot of long term advantages in resolving the country's economic and financial crisis
788717
Easy, with Socialism!\nConsider minimum and maximum wages. That way no one earns absurdly more than anyone else.
1164299
it works for the communists...lol..seriously...it is not an easy type of government to live under... most communist countries have a  horrible economy.. there is a sense of hopelessness among the people... the majority  live in  poor conditions, while the government officials and special elite   citizens  like  athletes etc  are treated like royalty..it could be thought of as an idealized society... where everyone is equal  but unfortunately  everyone has no food or money or decent housing except the special few...
1081438
It's a very kind hearted suggestion that you have.\n\nUnfortunately with a capitalist society I don't think it will work that way. You see, the idea is to become richer and richer. There's no point helping others unless it somehow helps yourself. Why does the US focus on the Middle East? Oil. It's not because the govt is so kind hearted.\n\nAnd in the poor countries they are poor because of mismanagement (eg Zimbabwe under the Mugabe regime). There are bound to be leaders who bankrupt the country while making themselves filthy rich (eg Suhartio in Indonesia), or are power hungry.  And when they are given aid, there are often factions that struggle over power and aid using guns.\n\nCountries give aid because there might be economic benefits in the future eg oil, mineral deposits (eg Iraq). Or to prevent problems that may affect them in the future eg Australia giving medical aid to Indonesia to avoid possible epidemics that might spread to Australia.\n\nWhen you get older you will realise that people aren't as kind hearted as you are now. But what a wonderful place it would be if we were all willing to help each other :-)
23440
It goes by the world systems theory of dependency.  This says that a country in debt will always be in debt, third-world countries will always be third-world, and elite economic countries will always be elite.  See, Africa has to accept loans and aid from the economic "North", or richer countries, to pay off other loans.  This just makes a vicious cycle.  The worst thing is, no one really knows how to fix the problem.
396749
I feel that it is to get them started. It encourages competitiveness and the desire to improve on your product. It helped us get our industrial revolution going. However I feel that once a country becomes stagnant and lazy, resting on the accomplishments and inventiveness of the past...then it's outgrown Capitalism and should transcend it to another level of government. If you look at all the great civilizations of the past, Greece, Rome, Egypt and now America, they all reach a point when they lose that drive, desire and hunger to stick together and make things better. They sit back and let their empire crumble around them. Too self-involved with their own successes and monetary gains. If I had to put my finger on the next "America" it'd be a toss up between India and China. Watch the winds shift....you'll see it.
496949
A capitalistic society retains ownership in private hands.  Even the economic planning in a capitalistic society is mostly a non-governmental function.  The courts exist to achieve justice.  The fundamental value persued by government is FREEDOM.\n\nIn a communistic society, there is no private property, the economy is centrally planned, and the courts exist to serve a social function rather than justice.  The fundamental value persued by government is supposed to be EQUALITY but normally is actually RESENTMENT against anyone more successful than the norm.
333241
This question........I could answer so many ways.....but I will just pick one facet.\n\nI think a democracy with bits of socialism would work very well....just as a previous poster noted with some of the Scandinavian countries. \n\nI think one main issue, if not THE issue is economics.\n\nI'll even break it down....I think we need democracy with a collective revenue sharing.  Those familiar with major sports leagues in the US, specifically the NFL, may know what I'm speaking of.\n\nBetter distribution of funds across the board would help our economic bottomline, especially if the excess money given to the "lower classes" are used specifically for encouragement of small business, health care, better schools and teachers, upkeep in neighborhoods, and find ways to not only fight the drug trade inside of neighborhoods, but also (and more important) stop them from ever reaching these at-risk neighborhoods.\n\nIt would help encourage people that moving up in the world, doesn't mean you need to hit that home run.  For parents to know they have quality backing and support, even kids from the lower class have a good chance at life, that means a lot.\n\nNow the rich would suffer a bit....because in the revenue sharing concept, the top teams are penalized for being over the cap line.  With this you would not have a person whose bank account looks like the gross national product of small countries, i.e. Bill Gates.  They would still be wealthy, but not to the detriment of the lower class.\n\nSo.....you would have a top line and a bottom line....but you would maintain all of the other capitalist prinicples, you find in democracy.  There are so many things that go to this, I won't even pretend my idea is foolproof.....but I do think it would help.
657519
First of all, they need to find a way to solve poverty in their country.
472104
I don't think capitalism is the problem exactly. We could still have capitalism and provide the necessary social services for our countrymen/women if that's what we wanted.\n\nBasically, it's Protestant Work Ethic run amok. Everyone has the illusion that work makes you moral, so when someone can't find a work or is disabled, that can only be because they are a bad person and deserve what they get. Christians in the US have lost sight of the compassion they are supposed to espouse in favor of a work philosophy that lets them pat themselves on the back more easily. It's their reluctance to provide help to those they deem unworthy or immoral that has led to this predicament.\n\nReligion, not money, is the root of this evil.
278615
Economist always look at the bottom spectrum of the scale, which never includes people or their welfare. In a perfect world like the Romans had for Centuries even will collapse. They used War and slavery to build their empire. The Slave owners of the DEEP SOUTH, During the Confederacy used these same principles to build the DEEP SOUTH of America. The Republic of China, and the Communist are a mirror of this same type of Government. Same thing in India. World Markets can't compete with an in-slaved Government system, and I say it should be opposed. China right now is putting pressure on the U.S. Auto-makers with this labor situation. I think it was poor investment; because you gave all your bargaining power away, and are at their mercy now to what they will. I believe that with a free market, which includes the vote of the populous, and their concerns. The market will thrive, and you attain greater returns back into the market. That's my observation.