would Capitalism be able to adress the issue of world hunger?
961676
Only if it can profit from it.
438997
World hunger - no - it stayed at about the same rate.  Here in the US - it dropped dramatically for a short time, but it's back up again more than ever.
879713
Wow I had to really think about that. Poverty is a good one, World hunger would be mine.
33218
So far it is, the problem with it is that it's evil.  Why is it evil?  capitalism thrives on excess.  Which means that it makes more than neccesary, thus putting strains on natural resources and trying to squeeze as much work out of your workforce with for as little money as possible is another thing that goes along with capitalism.  Consumerism is the offical religion of capitalism.  The practicioners are labeled consumers and the preachers (marketers) push consumption more and more to make it more and more successful.\n\n  I'm doing my best to come up with another one.  So far, my best one is integrating robots in the workforce and after that people then work at being the best people they can be, like the ideal society those long dead philosophers talked about.\n\nBasically, in the system, the majority of the labor will be performed by robots leaving people to do just what they'd like to.  (possibly) The govt would ration everything kinda like communism, but the robots would produce a slight excess kinda like capitalism.  One thing I see the need for is a reduction of the human population to take the stress off our resources.  With robots doing all the work,  there's no worry about who's gonna support our pensions etc.  because the workforce is always adequate.  So after reaching an ideal population, having enough robots to perform the labor we dont want to, then rationing off the resources in some manner, we'll finally be free to not only pursue our own interest, but we'll also not have to go find poorer countries to go outsource anything to which will hopefully mean no more recessions!\n\nHere's some variables, families own robots, they pay maintaince and they repair the robots, that's their job, and they get the revenue the robots make for whatever company.\n\nYou'd have to call these robots something else so you could define them from the other ones.\n\nAnyways, I should work on this idea more, but I hope we can make it possible.\n\nI'm also gonna work on other new govt ideas.
208180
no!welcome to the real world,communism is just a theorie..the countries they had communism suffered from hunger and luck of opportunities..their goverments tried to manipulate the people and the ''big heads''were sharing all the wealth while the others had almost nothing.as long as money exists nothing can be shared equal in this world.
1142413
Pure Capitalism, that is all property in private hands, is yet to exist in mankind's history.\n\nSo Capitalism has not failed...it is yet to truly exist.\n\nWhat has failed is Communism, Socialism, and Fascism. All three are attempts to "control" the economy with State intervention. \n\nSince Capitalism has yet to exist, it means that we still live in a world filled with Communism, Socialism, and Fascism.\n\nThe best way to improve a Capitalistic economic system is to actually have one in the first place. \n\nHere's why Capitalism is so important:\n\nWe live in a world with scarce resources. Wood is scarce. Steel is scarce. Human labor is scarce....etc..etc. The resources on this Earth are not infinite.\n\nDue to this scarcity of resources, the main question of economics becomes "Where do we apply these scarce resources?"\n\nCapitalism is the only system that can answer that question. And it does it with two simple words: \n\nProfits & Losses.\n\nProfits are an indicator. They tell property owners "Apply your scarce resources here. This is where the demand is."\n\nLosses are also an indicator. They tell property owners "Remove your resources from this area. Apply them to where demand is greater."\n\nIn order to have Profits and Losses, you need "Prices." \n\nIn order to have Prices, you must have "Private Property."\n\nPrivate property owners exchange their goods and create Prices. And Prices give us Profits and Losses.\n\nAll forms of Communism and Socialism fail because there is only one property owner (the State).\n\nOne property owner cannot trade with itself, so under these forms of government you have NO private property, NO prices, and NO profits and losses.\n\nAnd as we know, without Profits and Losses there is no way to know where our scarce resources should be applied. Hence massive poverty in all places who live under such systems.\n\nThe best way to improve Capitalism is to bring it about once and for all.
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.
169267
I assume you are speaking of the United States when you say "America".  If so, my answer is NO.  The U.S. has always been a capitalist government.  Since it has been capitalist from the beginning, the ethics and morals of capitalism have always been present.  The ethics and morals of capitalism are what shaped the country in the first place so they cannot be viewed as an outside force.  What has corrupted the country is the movement away from being a Christian society.  Capitalism MUST be balanced by a concern for the well being of others.  The capitalism of today is the same capitalism practiced by our forefathers, but many of today's capitalist lack any moral compass.  They are driven only by a selfish desire for profit for themselves.  They are not even concerned for their own company, just what they can take out of it.  That my friend is NOT Capitalism, that is GREED.  Many people confuse the two, but they are NOT the same.  Capitalism is a grand dream of building, greed is a sick desire to tear down for one's own gain.  Children are not taught morals or ethics in our public schools anymore.  They have been outlawed from the classroom.  The result is a generation that worships greed.  Look at the lessons taught by the top television programs like The Apprentice and Survivor.  Lie, cheat, steal and win.  Win at all cost.  Betray your friends, make false alliances, be sneaky and get the gold.  That philosophy is greed and it destroys all who buy into it.  In the final analysis what is corrupting our country is that we have elevated self gratification above all other concerns.
419783
Your concept is not how economic work. In a very simplified way, you are assuming every potential consumers wants or demands what limited resources cannot supply.\n\nMarkets do not work this way, in practice, and this is the main reason Marxist economic doctrine failed. To each according to his need is a great concept but some people cannot work and represent no productivity and others are extremely productive, far beyond any need they would ever have in a thousand years. With no market to balance outputs you have a system bound for disaster like the former Soviet Union.\n\nA doctor who earns a lot of money and does research that eventually created jobs by way of new technologies and techniques can afford to pay higher taxes as do the people who win new employment because of his research, to help  pay the cost of the care for the individual who is not productive, say because he or she is disabled.\n\nEven in a seriouly distressed situation, like drought or famine, markets can come to the aid of the suffering region because some elements of the market will have surplusses. Also in this day, there are no real famines because transportation can get any amount of food to any point on the globe in little time therefore the real issue is politics and culture not economics.\n\nUntil there are literally too many proplr to fit on the planet, there will be resources to meet the supply and demand marketplace. Maybe not in all commodites but in general.
320431
A simple yes/no answer should really suffice. The answer is no. There are a number of clearly identifiable factors which render this osrt of action unachievable (whether desirable or not, which is not the question posed) in the US or anywhere else for that matter.\n\nThe biggest single factor is public disinterest. Organisers of any event that they feel passionate abotu will find it hard to understand that people, being intrinsically selfish, don't want to participate for numerous reasons inlcuding inconvenience, laziness and apathy, belief that the action is flawed or doomed to failure anyway etc.\n\nOther factors contributing to the "no" answer include information distribution (how do you communicate effectively) and dealing with counter-information from those who would not want such an event to take place.\n\nOrganisers of demonstrations and protests know these things, and therefore they ensure that there is a groundswell of support long before the event is announced. In the case of the fight by Bob Geldof and others against the G8 and their stance on African poverty, mobilising the media and getting them onside is also critical.\n\nNeither of these would apply for the given scenario.\n\nThanks for exercising my brain for 5 minutes.
92923
There may be a conflict here, however  you can not have one with out the other.  True Capitalism will only work in a true democracy.  Whenever the government steps in to control all business you will usually find one type of totalitarian government or the other running things and this takes capitalism out of the equation and make for a very dreary life for those working in that country.  Capitalism is a system of hope, if you are poor in a capitalist society you have hope of climbing out of being poor.  In a non-capitalist society if you are poor that is where you can expect to stay.
30031
i thionk the answer is pure greed. the world produces enough food to feed us all. unfortunatly, there are governments that refuse help in feeding their citizens( n. korea) and countries that are so corrupt, that the leaders accept the aid and seize it and sell it on the open market, allowing their citizens to starve (somalia) i dont believe that hunger will ever end on this planet.
388170
i believe they already have. just look at today's issues.\n\ngun control??? abortion??? income redistribution to such an extreme?????  secularization????\ncommunist countries typically have these things.\n\n\nwe are flirting with communism.
290333
Capitalism at least gives people the chance of getting out of poverty.  Communism only the upper party leaders have money.  In communism everyone is poor, everyone has to wait in lines for goods, merchandice is poor quality.\n\nMillions have died because of communism.  Freedom of speech is non-exsistent.  Famines due to government controls.  Communism essentially makes government god.  Give me capitalism and give me freedom.
1111451
No, I did not know that.\n\nAs a matter of fact, I believe your thesis is incorrect.  "There is enough / for everyone" as Midnight Oil's song goes.  Of course enough food is produced to end world hunger.  Yet hunger exists -- mostly because of corrupt governmental interference.\n\nMillions of Chinese starved in the so-called Great Leap Forward when Mao screwed his country's agricultural practices.  Hundreds of thousands (or millions) dead in Ethiopia, then Somalia, then North Korea.  Most availed themselves of corrupt governments that allowed their people to simply starve.  The western world has often made humanitarian attempts to help alleviate the suffering of people in those places.  Either the government refuses to acknowledge a problem (China, N Korea) or local militant forces / warlords (Somalia) take the resources for their own.\n\nThat's the way that goes.
1112176
Not if someone or some country can find a source of energy other than fossil fuels. A source so vast that it cannot be depleted. The history of the world is dominated by search for energy. Pretty soon China or India will come up with an alternate fuel that won't require the burning of fossil fuel. With that event will come the end of corporations that are built around the fossil fuel business. And that will bring about the end of capitalism. It is all about energy and the manipulation of energy.
591849
not every country. some nations can't even afford to feed their own people. They should concentrate on earthly needs first.\n\nBut the ones that can afford it, sure.