This is a quote by Hjalmar Schacht in his book The End of Reparations written in 1931.
Still as valid today as it was then.
Posted Mar 21, 2011, 3:50 PM UTC
Not even close to being correct in 2011. Capitalism has eliminated starvation in the free world. It's only in countries ruled by despots where the free flow of goods is restricted.
Day off from work?
Capitalism has eliminated starvation in the free world
Seriously? I'm going to ask the homeless guy sitting in front of my office if he's hungry. The bastard must have lied to me when he asked me for a few dollars to get some food - he's probably spending that money right now on drugs.
Also, if Capitalism has eliminated the problem of starvation in the "free" world, I wonder why I see commercials on my TV every night telling me how many children go to school every morning without eating breakfast or lunch because their parents can't afford it.
I guess those kids just don't matter, or maybe they choose to go to school hungry every day. Yeah, that's it. You're right, starvation = eliminated.
I stand by my statement. Most all of the homeless people in this country either choose not to work, are addicts or have some mental deficiency. Giving these people money only perpetuates their condition by making it economically feasable. You're not helping them, you're hurting them. There are plenty of city & church programs to help these people get back on their feet should they choose to do so.
If there are children going to school hungry the problem is with the parents. I believe if you really looked into these cases you'd find parents spending money on drugs, alcohol & tobacco at the expense of the child. Again, there are too many programs that give away food to say that lack of food is the problem. Capitalism has allowed us to produce so much food that we have an excess of it. One of the true measures of this success is in the amount of food supermarkets throw away. Not only can the industry afford to do it but the losses are actually built into the proifit margin.
Hungry != Starvation.
Look up how many kids in the United States starve to death each year. You obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about.
Good call. Suppose I had the wrong definition of starvation :)
Did you not understand the quote?
It's saying capitalism needs to help the working class as opposed to aligning itself with the wants/needs of the rich and powerful.
Any economic system can be subverted by policies of imperialism and militarism. Look at Stalin's Russia.
The key is to distinguish the economics from those policies and to overturn those policies.
People are utterly and inexcusably ignorant.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/more-adam-smith-please_518380.html
Fascinating. So which economic system has resulted in peace and prosperity for everyone? We should just go with that one, problem solved.
Replace "capitalism" with "communism/socialism" and then your statement will be correct. The Soviet Union was violent, they were imperialist, and militaristic. http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/museum/musframe.htm
Still as valid today as it was then.
Probably true, because it wasn't valid then, either. What is the alternative, socialism? LOL, how did that do at feeding people?
The truth is, capitalism feeds more people more effectively than all the central planning big government programs in the world.
History matters.
Capitalism is not the be all and end all. It has been the most successful implementation of a "system" but it certainly hasn't solved hunger or food distribution, certainly not resource distribution as a whole, and it is certainly not a system to be praised by any means. Also, there are actually numerous proposed alternative systems out there, and none of them fall in to your scary blanket term (socialism), but even if there weren't... don't you think it would be more valuable to spend your time designing a societal system beyond capitalism that addresses the problems that capitalism has failed to address, rather than taking the stance that you are fed so fuck everything and everyone else?
History does matter; So does addressing the problems that capitalism hasn't addressed (and never will address) if we are to move forward as a species for another little thing that matters: the future.
So your theory is that capitalism sucks because there may be, despite the failure of a thousand utopian dreams, a theoretical system that theoretically could do better?
Uh, OK, that's nice.
I'm not sure what problems you think capitalism hasn't and will never address. That's what capitalism does: it finds efficient solutions to the most pressing problems at any given time.
LOL. No, I never said that; not even close. I was merely pointing out, in response to your comment about alternatives and your mention of socialism, that there are many proposed alternatives to capitalism. Socialism is one of many alternatives, many that haven't even been attempted. I didn't say capitalism sucks because there are theoretical systems that might do better.
Capitalism sucks because it's a self defeating paradigm.
Oh, and Capitalism does not find efficient solutions to problems by any stretch of the imagination; that's why a new TV or car breaks down after the warranty expires; it's not because the manufacturing sucks in 2011, it's meant that way. It's called planned obsolescence, and it is anything but efficient. It's part of a throw-away society that capitalism helps to create and it is not sustainable in the long term.
Also, there are actually numerous proposed alternative systems out there,
a theoretical system that theoretically could do better?
No, I never said that; not even close.
Um, OK....
that's why a new TV or car breaks down after the warranty expires
LOL, the fact that nothing lasts forever is called "physics".
It's called planned obsolescence, and it is anything but efficient.
And yet societies that have tried it have long life-spans, greater health, and better results on pretty much any measure of well-being that you would care to measure.
But hey, there may theoretically be something out there in some alternate universe that is better, so therefore capitalism sucks.
[deleted]
Capitalism addresses the issue of scarcity by allocating resources to where they are most highly valued monetarily.
And in free markets, what decides how they are valued?
There are plenty of pressing problems that will not be addressed by capitalism, simply because the return on investment would be low or non-existant.
In other words, they are not addressed because they are not the most pressing problem, and we are better off spending our scarce resources pursuing more valuable projects that help more people.
Merck wasn't looking for a treatment for river blindness when they created Ivermectin, they were looking for a vet drug.
So one of the by-products of capitalism is accidental discoveries that benefit millions. You're right, that is a terrible system.
To assume it is without flaws is naive.
The "flaws" you've pointed out so far are flaw in the nature of the world, not in the most effective system of allocating the limited resources of that system. Capitalism doesn't produce perfect results because the world is not perfect, but where it's been tried it produces far better results than anything else. The reason is because given the chance to trade freely, on average, people make the decisions that will have the greatest impact on their life.
Yes, capitalism is a wonderful system, but not when policies are made by the ruling class to unfairly help the ruling class. Schacht is saying the leaders of the world need to make the working class the priority.
Yes, I agree, crony capitalism is not a good thing. It's still better than socialism, but it's a long way from ideal.
Yep.
I knew some idiot would post something about him joining the Nazi's without reading the rest of the article.
So he was a disaffected Nazi? Is that your argument? The point is that his socialist beliefs led to him accepting Nazi economic doctrine. That is a very short walk for most socialists.