Agree or disagree: Capitalism must have a "loser" class in order to survive.
People are lured into the game by promises of riches and success. Everyone is winner!
But that's not the truth. There is a group of losers... Consider this: perhaps the group of losers doesn't reside within set borders anymore
After World War 2, the loser class was increasingly globalized and exported to the third world. We have our own local exploited class who's sweat and labor is needed to lubricate our economy so that fat cats can give themselves 20 billion dollar
bonuses... But the American loser class is still winners because even they enjoy relative luxury from the labor of people who truly have little hope. On the global scale, capitalism has a clear loser class: 3rd world laborers.
By "loser" class I really do mean losers. People who lose. Capitalism is a dog eat dog system. It's said that everyone one wins in capitalism, but I don't believe it. There has to be a class of losers who have their labor exploited, no?
And also, there's no such thing as a "small" loser class. By definition, in capitalism, the loser class has to far outnumber the winners. Labor always outnumbers management
Don't worry, even the economists are not very good at economics.
In order for the person at the top to make the maximum profit possible for himself, doesn't he squeeze every last drop of usefulness out of the little guy at the bottom and pay him the minimum amount possible?
In practice here there is almost always a loser, but there doesn't have to be. Capitalism by itself does not require maximizing profit to the detriment of others. Capitalism without greed is rarely seen here, but it exists and is still capitalism.
That's the reason I voted Disagree. I don't think it HAS to be the way it usually is.
Not everyone wants to succeed. I think capitalism gives people what the really desire. If you want it (and put it above all other things) more than anything else, you will probably get it.
I know there are only 24 votes as of right now but the results boggle my mind. It seems most people agree that their is a "loser class" except for the lowest income bracket!
palindrome I'm not sure I agree with you, but even if it's true, we don't have to give in to our instincts or base nature.
I'd rather have one small loser class with capitalism then everyone being a loser in socialist/communist societies
I don't know about a loser class - but a poor class seems to develop with capitalism - yes
The workers will always be the exploited class -- Workers of the World Unite!
Yes, everyone has a equal opportunity to succeed in capitalism. The robber barons started from the bottom and they got rich. So did bill gates and many other capitalists. You just got to know how to manipulate people and capitalize.
It's certainly not winner-winner. That has probably been disproven to death on both paper AND in real life.
The people who work the wheat fields and tend the cattle
Lol the same can be said of ANY system. Oh, you can't say negative results happen in ALL of communism so it MUST be good!
Can you provide some examples?
Only in conservative logic.
Pretty sure these were the Ikegamis.
Economics is one of my least favorite subjects too. I know I should be more interested but I am just not.
Your argument is invalid because your premises do not yield the conclusion. The fact that losers can exist in a capitalist system does not mean capitalism creates a class of losers.
The farmer works the field hence the term "farmer". What cattle?
Meanwhile, the fact that an instance of capitalism can exist without losers proves that capitalism does not necessarily create or need a class of losers.
You can have a capitalist system in which everyone wins. The primary reason you usually do not, is that capitalism does not try to force losers to win. Your fate is in your own hands, and liberty is always dangerous.
But it's always worth it.
There's got to be a good amount of people working the fields to get 30lbs of wheat for just ONE trade (let alone all the other needs). Not all those people get to eat meat.
They ARE the losing class lol they sure aren't winning. They aren't thriving. Their kids are dying of preventable causes. They're completely abandoned if they injure themselves or are no longer useful.. Then they die. That's not anywhere near winning
Well the regulations we had in place like Glass-Steagall that at least tried to restrain savage capitalism from tearing us apart. Responsible social spending programs like elderly care, health care, finite welfare assistance and consumer protections
Only if we don't put in safety nets to make sure they aren't too big of losers that they put the winners in danger. All species evolve to survive. Take away there safety nets like a lot of republicans want and I bet crime increases exponentially.
Student loans so more people have access to an education. Universal healthcare so poor people are not drowned in medical bills. Welfare and food stamps so the less privileged have a safety net
They're the Farmer's sons. They get steaks, too.
I think whoever said that Capitalism is the least-worst system we have got it right. It basically doles out most resources to those who need it least while those most in need stay needy. Still works better than anything else we've tried though.
Nope. See, in a capitalist system, people own their labors and the fruits thereof, and are free to exchange them as they see fit. That freedom is an inherent buffer against getting screwed. The people working there agreed to work there for that wage.
Yeah it gets called the Dismal Science for a reason.
They might define themselves as such, but nobody dreams of living paycheck to paycheck dreading the random illness that will wipe their and their children's finances out. Nobody dreams of not being able to send their kids to college. Nobody dreams of
Damn good point!
A farmer wants meat. A hunter wants wheat. They agree to trade 30 lbs of wheat for 10 lbs venison steaks. The farmer has delicious steak with his bread. The hunter has delicious bread with his steak.
Who is the losing class?
No. Your argument is invalid. The premises of the existence poor people does not necessitate that a loser class caused by capitalism exists.
But how would you define a loser? I bet there are plenty of workers who could be deemed as winners
working for the minimum amount of money or being enslaved by mountains of debt. These people aren't "winning" in the economic sense of the word. They're very much slaves to the economic system. You can't realistically retire when you're tired anymore
Who are you talking about now? The event staffers aren't nearly so poor off as you suggest, even if they actually do make minimum wage.
And where the hell is the line for winning/losing anyways,
Aren't we ALL winners just for being part of the system?
Nah, I'm not buying it either.
I would argue my scenario is rooted in reality, but rather than proving the hypothetical, let me instead posit the historical:
A local events center hosts a big trade show in town. Their normally meager needs for staff and equipment are stretched.
"You just got to know how to manipulate people and capitalize."
So you agree that their has to be this group of losers, or patsies, in order for the winners to exist.
Likewise, the camera makers were a bunch of Japanese technicians, and the price of their labor is what makes the camera so expensive.
The only way someone gets screwed in capitalism is if the contract is breached or compelled by force—crimes.
They contact a local producer, Jerry, and contract with him to provide several cameras, screens, projectors, and skilled operators.
Ugh autocorrect always defaults to "their"
I meant *there
Jerry, in turn, subcontracts with me–a camera operator and AV technician-and a few other local technicians to provide labor.