Is Capitalism the best economic system to develop a country?
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.
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 :-)
3743
"America" is not a country, it's a continent formed by three sub-continents (north, central and south america).\n\nNow about the question, since it's about the USA... Marx's wrote his works more than 100 years ago, with Germany in mind (the fact that Russia was the place where the revolution took place and was successful is still a high topic among historians) --by then, the USA was an underdeveloped country, without a big proletarian base or an industrial/urban developed production system, which was the requested condition for the revolution (again, Russia was a contradiction to this request). Therefore, you cannot apply Marx's theory 'directly' to a country today. The capitalist system has developed internal restraints and "decompressing" mechanisms that ensure that, even when the inequality and the poverty or the income distribution are ignominious, the system is not under danger of disruption.\n\nCapitalism, as Marx said, might have the seed of self destruction, but it also has selfpreservation mechanisms (corporations, NGOs, formal democracy --even in non-democratic countries--). Also, it offers what some people might call a 'messianic' or 'religious' promise: the best of the worlds is here, on earth and while you are alive, and you need money and success to attain it (I am talking about the protestant capitalism, not the catholic one, which came later): therefore, the success of capitalism is guaranteed by the fact that the lower classes want to become middle class, and middle class wants to become high class. This ensures all of them, especially the middle class, is ultra-conservative, fighting to keep the status-quo, so they can (someday) be high-class and enjoy what the system promises (of course, the status-quo needs to be based on inequality, so you have classes and people fight to escalate in the social chain).\n\nwhat do I know?...
561959
no, because the majority of people always want more than they have and the way to get more then you have is to enlist capitalism.  For example, if you are smarter than Juan and you work harder then Juan, but you both are paid the same, you will be upset and not like the system. You want to be paid for being smarter and working harder.  That's capitalism.  Unfortunately, we don't live in a pure capitalist society and it's about who your parents were, what connections you have, who is in power, all of which skew capitalism.
458580
Really, it depends on your definition of "best".  If you believe that the majority is always right and the minority has no rights, democrocy is best.\n\nIf you want a strong economy and maximum production, again with a minority with no rights, choose fascism.\n\nIf you want a planned economy with little economic growth, and where everybody is guarenteed a wage no matter their production, choose communism.\n\nIf you would rather have a free market economy, where majority rules but the minority is protected, a federal republic is the best.\n\nOr if you want a hodge-podge of a little bit if this and a little bit of that but mostly federal republic , choose the current system that the United States is laboring under. \n\nBTW for an elected government to work, the people of that country have to have a tradition of freedom.  Look at Eastern Europe.  After the Cold War, when the USSR pulled out of the Eastern Block countries, Czechislovakia easily transformed from Communism to a Republic, whereas Yugoslavia had ten years of bloodshed.  The former had a tradition of freedom whereas the latter had been a country for less than 100 years and had been ruled by the Turks for 400 years.  Iraq is much the same.  So although a federal republic may be the "best" government for economic growth and protection of minority thought, it is also the hardest to keep because it takes effort by its citizens to maintain properly.  Sorry folks, but the USA has been neglected by its citizens and, in my opinion, is in decline.  It saddens me to say it, but it is true.  The United States has fallen into the "bread and circuses" phase just like the Romans did before us.  Most citizens refuse to join the military and according to polls, would avoid a draft. Our national morality is at an all time low, and our selfishness is at an all time high.  The barbarians are at the gates and we fight amongst ourselves.
438699
Based on the following I don't think capitalism exists anywhere.  Even the US has it's controls on business and it's welfare agencies.  Prior to it's turn over to China, Hong Kong was probably the closest thing to pure capitalism on the planet.  At least that is my opinion.\n \ncap·i·tal·ism (kăp'ĭ-tl-ĭz'əm) \nAn economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.\n\nSocialism, general term for the political and economic theory that advocates a system of collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods. Because of the collective nature of socialism, it is to be contrasted to the doctrine of the sanctity of private property that characterizes capitalism. Where capitalism stresses competition and profit, socialism calls for cooperation and social service.\nIn a broader sense, the term socialism is often used loosely to describe economic theories ranging from those that hold that only certain public utilities and natural resources should be owned by the state to those holding that the state should assume responsibility for all economic planning and direction. In the past 150 years there have been innumerable differing socialist programs. For this reason socialism as a doctrine is ill defined, although its main purpose, the establishment of cooperation in place of competition remains fixed.
474234
COMMUNISM IS A MUCH BETTER CHOICE IF HUMANS WERE NOT GREEDY. THE CONCEPT OF COMMUNISM IS EVERYBODY IS EQUAL . THE PROBLEM WITH COMMUNISM IS THERE  ARE LIMITED  ECONOMIC RECOURSE , FOOD WATER CLOTHING OIL NOT ENOUGH TO GO AROUND, IF EVERYBODY IS EQUAL THEN WHO GOES WITHOUT?  CAPITALISM ON THE OTHER HANDS SAID THE MARKET SHOULD SET THE PRICE FOR THESE GOODS AND SERVICE ,  THE TOUGH IS IF YOU CHARGE TOO MUCH FOR AN ITEM THEM YOUR COMPETITION  WILL COME IN AND TAKE ALL YOUR BUSINESS AWAY, THE PROBLEM WITH  CAPITALISM IS THE MARKET HAS NO HEART,  HOW MUCH WILL A DIABETIC PAY FOR INSULIN?  THERE IS NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD THAT PRACTICE EITHER  ONE IN ITS PURE FORM, SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS A HYBRID BETWEEN THE TWO.
1141513
It's not only reasonable, it's necessary.  Like all good things, capitalism becomes detrimental when taken to extremes.  Specifically, a completely unfettered market inevitably tends toward a concentration of economic and political power into the hands of fewer and fewer people, until the system becomes undemocratic and oppressive.
423212
Something like this, I think:\nCapitalism is an economic system where the will of the market is law;\nDemocracy is a system of government where the expressed will of the majority of the people (or even, in states with more than two active political parties, often the will of the single largest minority) governs the laws that are made.\nPure capitalism allows for no system of checks and balances, no social intervention, no subsidised industry, healthcare, national assistance etc.\nPure democracy is the art of social engineering, essentially - people vote for a thing, the government makes a law, and suddenly there are things you can or cannot do. Capitalism, in its pure form, views this as an illegitimate restiction on the operation of a perfect market. So democracy really only works alongside capitalism as long as capitalism is compromised to let it work. Deomcracy could be said to be worried about being in bed with capitalism because if given its head, capitalism would put power in the hands of the market, rather than in the hands of the people.\n\nMake any kind of sense?
108581
The only way you reform Capitalism is to move toward a Socialist or Communist type of government then you will find Capitalism practicing the largest self control to the point of becoming noncompetitive.  Under those types of government most people are poor and without hope.  In a Capitalist Economy maybe everyone is poor, but there is hope of climbing out of it.  It is Capitalism's Greed that feeds the machine and makes it healthy.
14787
Depends on what viewpoint you consider "working best" to be looked at from. \n\nBy this I mean that if you look at it from a Western perspective, based on the values of liberal democracy, then India's democractic political system has "worked best." By this I mean that it has developed over the past 50 years since Indian independence to become closer and closer to the working Western definition of a vibrant, healthy liberal democracy.\n\nIn addition, it is possible one could argue that India's political system will benefit its economy in the long run in comparison to China's. Yes, China has seen explosive economic growth recently, but this growth is largely unsustainable and artificial. India's economy, on the other hand, is very open and becoming much more service-oriented - a sign of a developing nation at large. With the information revolution, this will largely benefit India more than China, where economic power is centred in the manufacturing sectors.\n\nAlso, I think one could argue that India has had much more success with the legitimacy of its system of government - that is, the lack of threats to that legitimacy. China, on the other hand, is constantly looking to solidify the government's legitimacy through forceful means, such as imprisoning dissidents or those who oppose the Communist regime. \n\nHowever, it all comes down to what approach you plan to take in terms of what "working best" means. I highly suggest you figure this out before you work the rest of the paper out, it will contribute greatly to the paper's value in terms of a linear, concise and clear set of arguments. \n\nHope this helps!
1025425
Capitalism - it provides incentive for people to improve their situation, and in doing so, the rest of society.  Socialism allows everyone to depend on someone else to do the work.  There is no incentive to go beyond the minimum required.\n\nIf you appeal to a man's noble side, you won't get much.  Appeal to his self interest, and he'll accomplish a whole lot more.  Capitalism (with certain builtin safeguards) works a whole lot better.\n\nPS:  Go green!
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.
380596
Someone else is asking pretty much the same question.  As I replied on the other question, the biggest indicator of what ones economic status will be during their lifetime is to simply look at the economic status of their parents/grandparents.  The majority of the wealthy had a head start due to better education and other opportunities and then simply built upon the vast assets they inherited.  My solution (I know it sounds like communism) was to seize everybodys personal assets when the pass away and redistribute them to pay for the deficit, healthcare, taxes, and better school districts/educational opportunities for everyone.  This would certainly even the playing field and provide for an incentive to compete (which is the basis of capitalism isn't it?).  The capitalist system wouldn't suffer because everyone would still be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor during their lifetime and may actually be enhanced by the the fact that the best/brightest/most ambitious would continually be the ones that prosper each generation.
386499
CAPITALISM!\n\n\nSeriously... How could you live in country that has \n"In god we trust" on its MONEY??????
824408
Well the most socialist that includes a free market and democratically elected government that I know of is Sweden.. Their gov. guarantees all of what you said Housing, Education, Health care, retirement as well as child care. This government has gotten so large that  65- 70% of all workers work directly or indirectly for the government. then again close to 70% of their paycheck goes to taxes. \nThis is the best unbiased example I can give of a free socialist state.\n\nThat choice is a perfectly valid choice for some people and the Swedes seem reasonably happy with it.\n\nThat said, I am not an advocate of a similar system here. Here are my reasons why\n-The Swedish economy per capita went from being one of europes strongest at the turn of the century to one of the weakest\n- High taxation rate drives private capital elsewhere and is one reason why the Government itself is the majority employer in Sweden. This has greatly reduced individual opportunity  to make any significant improvement in economic status..\n-with the Government providing housing health care and child care there is little use for marriage as an institution. The primary purpose of marriage is to provide a financially stable and nurturing environment in order to raise a family. In Sweden the Government has taken over these rolls  You may disagree with me but the statistics speak for themselves close to 50% of all couples in Sweden do not marry and the numbers are increasing. This in turn has lead to a negative population growth the birthrate in Sweden in among the lowest in the E.U.\n- In the end with a negative population growth and huge entitlements from the govt the populace ages and the whole system begins to collapse on itself. this is already starting in Sweden. this to a much lesser degree is happening here when it comes to social security to give you an example.\n\nI chose Sweden because it is a Socialist society born of democracy and not of totalitarianism as in such places as Cuba. this most embodies the path advocated by American socialist. I have tried to relate in an honest and unbiased  presentation the facts and why I object to that type of system and left the rhetoric to others. My point is a socialist state such as Swedens when transfered to a much more populace state like the US has even more difficulty sustaining itself. Sweden has managed to do it only by having a modest population and having the good fortune of substantial Oil revenues to bolster the tax base. My other point is that The big brother government tends to break down basic social structures over time, stiffel entrepreneurship and personal wealth generation and lessen opportunity that is the back bone of what has made America what it is.\n\nYou might look at Sweden and say sounds like paradise and you are entitled to that choice it is as valid as mine. I am not saying socialism is wrong. I am saying it is wrong for me and I believe wrong for my fellow citizens.
344344
In its pure form, I don't think it will ever be successful.  Given human nature, if you get something for "free," there's no real incentive to work.  Capitalism isn't perfect, but it provides a method for those who are driven to reap some rewards.  There's the other side of the coin with providing social benefits in a limited form for those who really need it.  The problem is dividing up those who need it and those are being taking advantage of the system and being lazy.