Show of Hands

The people who work the wheat fields and tend the cattle

The farmer works the field hence the term "farmer". What cattle?

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're the Farmer's sons. They get steaks, too.

So, for only 10lbs of meat, the family has to work to harvest 30lbs of wheat? What if they want clothing? Another 30lbs? What about electricity? Another 30lbs? What about seed? Already only very basic supplies and this family is working quite a bit.

How long till their fields run out?

What I'm saying is that your scenario is novel but it doesn't have really any basis in reality. Economies are far more complicated than that simple scenario. Especially the larger they get. Of course it might work for the farmer. So would communism

Things are simple on the small scale. But the more numbers you throw into the equation, the more complicated and unstable it gets

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.

They contact a local producer, Jerry, and contract with him to provide several cameras, screens, projectors, and skilled operators.

Jerry, in turn, subcontracts with me–a camera operator and AV technician-and a few other local technicians to provide labor.

Eventually, the trade show goes off without a hitch. The trade show company makes money. The attendees are able to move more product more efficiently. The venue makes money, Jerry makes money, and I make money. Who loses?

Again, this is an extremely narrow view of something much larger. We can do that with just about every economic system. Focus on one very narrow perspective and declare the entire system a success? C'mon now. Even in your own scenario, someone is

getting screwed... Maybe not you, but someone down the line. The people making your cameras, for example, or the people making minimum wage to work such an event. My point is, capitalism is a lot bigger and more dynamic than a local trade show

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.

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.

That's completely false. People don't engage into this labor because they necessarily want to. They do it because they don't have any other options. These people are abused and overworked. They entered into that labor due to economic coercion

Food, water, and shelter don't rain from the sky. You can't call people who work for their living a "loosing class," just because their only other choice is to starve. No economic system frees us from the fact that you need to work to live.

(I mean, obviously, water does rain from the sky, but it doesn't carry food and shelter with it.)

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

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,

I'm talking about the people who work in the sweatshops to produce the electronic goods YOU require to make a profit.

What sweatshops? These cameras are made by skilled technicians in cutting edge factories in first world nations. The only reason you have to claim they're built in sweatshops is your ideology demands it!

Lol easy enough to find out. What brand is it?

Pretty sure these were the Ikegamis.

I couldn't find anything on that particular company but that doesn't mean it doesn't use cheap labor. My point is, there's a loser class in this system. If there weren't, we'd all be rich, no one would be starving and people wouldn't be dying of

preventable causes.

No. Your argument is invalid. The premises of the existence poor people does not necessitate that a loser class caused by capitalism exists.

How is my argument invalid? If anything, yours is. Your argument about a very narrow scenario involving only TWO parties doesn't prove capitalism is fair.

Here it is: capitalism can't run without losers. It's a winners and losers system

It's certainly not winner-winner. That has probably been disproven to death on both paper AND in real life.

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.

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.

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!

Lol even The Price is Right let you keep the odd items you won when you didn't win the Showcase Showdown

That's the reason I voted Disagree. I don't think it HAS to be the way it usually is.

I think human nature demands it. Greed is natural.

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.

You hit the nail on the head zod. Good comment.

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.

*whose

Damn good point!

It's hard to remember that the world is much larger than what we see on a daily basis here on the US. Even when we see the 3rd world slums on TV it is hard to perceive the world as a whole the way it truly is.

Very well put!

Apple started from a freakin garage, now it's the most valuable company in the world. IBM is not.
Apple created a better and smarter product. Therefor I voted yes.

"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.

Ugh autocorrect always defaults to "their"

I meant *there

A combination of the two systems is what's best, more capitalism but some socialist policies, wealth inequality is a huge problem here

m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DQPKKQnijnsM

I have seen that video a good amount of times and yet I have never heard of a solid way to create a more equal America

A good start would be to accept that the social programs democrats support are needed

Can you provide some examples?

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

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

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

But how would you define a loser? I bet there are plenty of workers who could be deemed as winners

@thomas there are people who work their butt off their entire lives and yet they remain poor. Poor people are not necessarily lazy, their just dealt a bad hand. They deserve help from all of us

I never said that they shouldn't I just said that saying that all workers are losers is not true... I do believe in social programs but I rather support those who push everyone up without pulling others down

Let me clear up what I mean. How I define the "loser" this question refers to is someone who is beat by the system despite his hard work. Pure capitalism is an unfair system that requires some luck to become successful

I'm not saying all rich people are lucky, lots of them work hard, but not necessarily harder than everyone else

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

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

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?

Don't worry, even the economists are not very good at economics.

True, but at least they're interested.

Economics is one of my least favorite subjects too. I know I should be more interested but I am just not.

Yeah it gets called the Dismal Science for a reason.