Greed - 20/20

[DrewKaree]

Greed is Awesome.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1303587

Wal-Mart gets trashed a lot.  They don't pay diddly, the benefits are bad, blah blah blah.  Funny thing is, you here that most from competitors and unions, not from customers or the overwhelming majority (if not near universality of employees). 
20/20 told the story of a woman who was on welfare, had lost her kids and had no skills when she got a job at Wal-Mart.  The manager took a chance on her.  Today, she is off welfare, she has an apartment, has regained custody of 2 of her kids, and now has 2 people working under her at another Wal-Mart.

Although it wasn't brought up on the show, I think Wal-Mart is a boon to any community.  You often hear how Wal-Mart comes in and drives mom and pop shops out of business.  That may well be true.  But consider most mom and pops aren't open 24/7.  Most probably aren't open much more than 9-5.  Odds are they are run mostly within the family.  If they do have more employees, they probably aren't paying much more than minimum wage and benefits are probably pretty scarce too.  Odds are good, most are so small they don't even come under government regs for a myriad of worker issues that Wal-Mart is required to provide.  That doesn't even begin to mention the consumer benefits Wal-Mart brings to the table.

Another story that struck me was about 3 wealthy people who have given away vast amounts of wealth. 

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=1300757

One guy is a college professor.  He drives an old car, lives in a small apartment, gives away much of his money.  The story is that he is doing such a wonderful thing giving away all his money. 

But is he?  To my thinking, not really.  He has the capacity to buy a new car every few years.  Buying the car is demand.  Someone has to build that car.  Someone who can't afford a new car, can now buy his 4 year old used car.  Maybe, the 10 year old car that person was driving can now be bought by someone who didn't have any car.
Instead of living in that small apartment, he has the means to buy a house, maybe even have one built.  That would provide jobs.  The small apartment he lives in now might go to a young couple just starting out.

While charity is nice, and it indeed does help someone, is that not just giving a fish rather than teaching someone how to fish? 

The next story of the night was about a former import/exporter who went into teaching.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1304577

That story went on to talk about how capitalism is the great equalizer.  Money doesn't care what color you are.  The poor in this country have the most to gain from capitalism. 

Economist Walter Williams says we usually benefit more from for-profit companies. "Normally in our country," he said, "those areas where people are motivated the most by greed are the areas that we're the most satisfied with

[duffjr]

in the second story, it would cost him say 500k for a new house.  most of that money would go to the construction company.  the money that went to the workers would be further divided for necessities, occasional splurges, and savings.  the savings wouldn't go to anyone.  if he donated it all, most of it would go to charitable acts. 

[AllisterFiend]

Dang Drew,

Now you've going and done it, you posted an article about that evil word "capitalism", all hell is going to break loose now.


Allister Fiend

[patrickl]

LOL, it's always amazing how people can twist their greed into something noble.

When I was on vacation in Thailand I they have something similar with there worship of Budda. His teachings say you should help others. The thai have changed this into, I first need to help myself because if I ever get rich I can help others much better. Amazing logic.

[Hoagie_one]

Its an economic fact that the more a dollar circulates, the more it boosts the economy.  Spending is good.  Thi is why Bush gave us all that money early in his administration, to get us spending.

[DrewKaree]

LOL, it's always amazing how people can twist their greed into something noble.

When I was on vacation in Thailand I they have something similar with there worship of Budda. His teachings say you should help others. The thai have changed this into, I first need to help myself because if I ever get rich I can help others much better. Amazing logic.

Not ragging on you, just asking, because everyone seems to have different levels, and I find it interesting where people draw that line.

When SHOULD you stop helping yourself?  What is the definition of "rich"?  What makes your choices for how you live "right"?  Why do you believe the answers to these questions (for the person answering them, no one in particular) are the "right" answers for everybody?  Why do you believe the answers to these questions (again, for the person answering them, no one in particular) are NOT the "right" answers for certain people?

While I do not agree that the guy getting paid 40 million dollars is overpaid, I can see how others WOULD think that.  I just want to know at what point does someone BECOME "overpaid", and why have you set the criteria at that arbitrary point?  If everyone gets closer to "overpaid", does the criteria for being "overpaid" shift?  Why?

I haven't even watched all the video myself, but 20/20 does a lot of stories I like, not because I agree with them, but because they make me think.  There's another one about "merchants of cool" or something similar that I really enjoyed as well.  Mebbe someone else might check that out and start a thread about it, or I might in the future.

[patrickl]

There is no matter of levels. It's just that the Thai twisted a "religion" of benevolence into one of greed and I thought it was a nice case to illustrate how greedy people will do anything to explain their greed as a good thing.

[RetroJames]

I can earn it, consume it, spend it, invest it with the best of them, and I do love competition, but I worry about the amount of waste capitalism produces as well as effort for effort's sake.  It is a system that does not, on a large scale, reward the best products made to last a lifetime, buy rather the next products built to last just up to the end of the warranty. 

The system (and the greed of some involved) is also conduit for exploitation of one's services, labor, talents, etc. 

Lastly, and maybe most importantly, a capitalist system does not encourage the free transfer of knowledge which hold us all back as a species.

Some of these same downsides are eveident in other systems as well, I think capitalism is for the most part the lesser of a group of evils, but it is not perfect and could always stand to be improved.  How you go about that is anybody's guess.

I aint' ready to take my marching orderes from Bejing, but I for one get sick of buying a new toaster every few years when I know my sister still uses the one she got from our granparents!

[patrickl]

Just remember, that poorly engineered toaster you replace every few years brings work to the people who make them. So in fact it's better that they break down as often as possible.

[Crazy Cooter]

If his toaster didn't break, he wouldn't have to work overtime in the toaster factory and could spend time with his kids.  Then they wouldn't be selling drugs on the coner to avoid the OT in the factory themselves.

That's how the greed of some can ruin the lives of others... in an overly simplistic view.  ACME toasters builds shoddy toasters, you have to work more to replace it every 2-years, your kids get ignored and turn to organized crime because they want to live like the manager of ACME toaster, not their parents.

[DrewKaree]

your kids get ignored and turn to organized crime

Are you saying John Gotti might have turned out differently if his parents hadn't left him for the fast life that the toaster factory seduced them with?

[jbox]

If his toaster didn't break, he wouldn't have to work overtime in the toaster factory and could spend time with his kids.  Then they wouldn't be selling drugs on the coner to avoid the OT in the factory themselves.

Until we eventually reach - THE SHOE EVENT HORIZON! 

[Crazy Cooter]

I think Gotti had his mind made up about what he wanted to do  .

There are people that are required to put their jobs before their family or lose it... at all levels of wealth.  Not the only cause of drug use/abuse, but a common thread to it.

[patrickl]

BTW I was kidding with the toaster remark. Just showing how you can twist everything around.

I have to say there are good things and bad things that come from greed. It's fine just as long as it is is managed properly so it doesn't run out of control and only a greedy few benefit from exploited masses. I'd say in China and Russia it's way out of control and to me the US is slightly over the edge into out of control territory too. Wasn't it so that like 37 million US citizens live in poverty (even when the poverty level is set extremely low)?

[DrewKaree]

I have to say there are good things and bad things that come from greed. It's fine just as long as it is is managed properly so it doesn't run out of control and only a greedy few benefit from exploited masses.

That's what I mean about the questions I mentioned above though.  Your level of "greed out of control" is different from mine, mine is different from Chad's, Chad's is different from yours, and so on.  To say that it's fine as long as it's managed properly has to have some level of "too much" or "too little" assigned to it in order to assess whether or not it's being managed properly.

And I haven't defined my level of what the levels are either

[Crazy Cooter]

The only way to call it managed is if everyone has the same.  You'd have to get rid of the "keeping up with the Jones'" complex.

Greed leads to jealousy leads to crime leads to spite leads to entitlement leads to more greed.

In my mind, something that is "good" benefits another person more than it benefits the person doing the deed.  Donations to real charities are good.  Making Patrick work OT cranking out toasters so I can make a deadline I imposed is not.  It benefits my business more than it does him.  Unless he specifically asked for OT anyhow.  My Mom works a ton of "mandatory OT".  It's a complete joke IMO.  Hire more people or quit making promises you know can't keep.

[patrickl]

I have to say there are good things and bad things that come from greed. It's fine just as long as it is is managed properly so it doesn't run out of control and only a greedy few benefit from exploited masses.

That's what I mean about the questions I mentioned above though.

[DrewKaree]

Even the debate between keeping research hidden or not (mentioned earlier) I wouldn't know to be against or for it. On the one hand I'd say that research results should be publicly available because that would spread the knowledge. But if that would always be the case then big corporations would not spend so much money on research (they would have no means of making back the money they spent) and then noone would not have the knowledge. So in the end we might suffer from being too open.

This is currently the reason people are angry at drug companies for "making so much profit" on things they've done research on, have patented, and are selling for whatever the price they've set. 

See what I mean about "greed" being in the eye of the beholder?  Those who can't afford a drug because of its cost, but may recieve the same benefits from another cheaper drug, albeit more slowly, or having to take more of the cheaper drug to achieve the same results, aren't happy because they want "the best" and think that evil drug companies are screwing them over by making obscene profits on their products. 

My parents are the type of people who "can't" use generic ibuprofen because "it just doesn't work as well or the same as Advil or Motrin".  Bunk.  There ARE instances of this being the case due to some small improvement in a drug, but I know of many people who feel that since they have insurance to cover a drug, they're gonna get "the best", and let any other poor sap without insurance take the "inferior" medicine. 

Who's to blame in a situation like that?  Who do you assign the "greedy" label to?  The drug companies for charging more for the research/testing/production of the small-improvement "better" drug?  The insurance companies for not making everyone use the same "brand" of drug (in a case like mentioned above, that is) unless a doctor SPECIFICALLY prescribes a "name brand" and has a valid reason?  Or the person who sees no problem in trying to "get the most bang for my insurance buck"?

In pro sports, for some more instances, I don't see Peyton Manning as greedy.  He negotiated what he felt was a fair price for his services, and the team agreed.  I DO see Terrell Owens as greedy.  He negotiated what he felt was a fair price for his services, and for a length of time which he was comfortable with.  His view changed DRASTICALLY, and not in the 13 months since signing the contract, but in the 6-8 months since the season ended.  Ricky Williams.  I see HIM as greedy as well.  He's playing this year so he doesn't have to give back 8 million dollars.  He left under his own terms, but he didn't like the fact that his actions had consequences that cost him money, so he's punching the clock in order to keep what he views as "his", instead of standing by the decision he made originally.  He also realized it wouldn't be a huge sacrifice, since he would face a mandatory suspension of a fourth of the season, and he wouldn't be thrown back in to face a heavy workload for probably another fourth of the season as well.

Interesting topic so far.

[jbox]

Just remember, that poorly engineered toaster you replace every few years brings work to the people who make them. So in fact it's better that they break down as often as possible.

Funny, this is actually the complete reverse of the capitalistic principle - namely that the more free capital is, the faster the economy grows. By contrast, if I don't have to buy a new toaster I spend that money on something else like a kettle, so now my economy has a kettle factory and a toaster factory. The situation you describe is bordering dangerously close to a boondoggle, which is one of the things true conservatives hate about big government.

Myself, I think capitalism is the lesser of the known evils, but that far too often companies use the word "free market" to mean "let me break the law and smash my opponents and rake in mega profits". Government's role should be to regulate those industries which are not free markets (for whatever reason) so that one side or the other is not abused by the imbalance of power. For supply weaknesses, we have tax cuts, land packages, etc... and for demand weaknesses we have legislation, watch-dogs, etc... The oil companies may have every right to make money, but they certainly don't need government hand-outs to help them. Big Pharma on the other hand needs to be told it can make money, but that life-saving drugs need to be kept in reach of the people who need it most. The WTO clause for emergency patent abolishment is a good example where the threat can be leveraged as well as what can be done when the market force are unbalanced.

On the whole I think this balance works reasonably well, and looking at it as a question of market balance is far easier than picking some random $$ number to go after. Now personal tax deductions, there is something I really want to see axed though. 

[jbox]

Sorry - forgot to add this. A good example of market failure is non-compete contracts given to everyone's favourite punching bag. A good example of market success is that I can get thirty kinds of frozen chips in the supermarket, for whatever combination of animal/vegetable/gluten/cholesterol/potato I want. And software patents are evil.

[patrickl]

I wish people wouldn't quote my "toaster reversal joke". Makes it look like it was meant as a serious remark.

[jbox]

I wish people wouldn't quote my "toaster reversal joke". Makes it look like it was meant as a serious remark.

Actually it is. It is a good business strategy to build things that fall apart, because they are cheaper and guarentee future business. It's called "Planned Obsolence", and the only thing that counts against it is a consumer's ability to choose a manufacturer who decides not to do that. Competing companies only *don't* do it because one of them is willing to *not* do it to get the customers.

Hence it is only the competition that keeps the market efficient, not the manufacturers themselves.

[patrickl]

See what I mean about "greed" being in the eye of the beholder?

The greed itself is not something I have a problem with, but more when it leeds to exploitation.

Exploitation is something that should be visible even to the most greedy people. Like the chinese guy tearing down a chinese village (I think it housed 30.000 people!) for building his french castle. He should be able to understand that he is doing something wrong.

People charging lots of money for products they developed sounds greedy, but I guess that's not exploitation. If they hadn't made their product it would not be there. So people should be able to do without it (like they did before) or cough up the dough if they want better quality.

I also have no problem with athletes or entertainment people making obscene amounts. Although I have to admit that when I see "Cribs" on MTV I cannot always suppres some jealousy when I see a completely unkown guy/girl/kid showing of a multi million dollar home. But really, if people get paid that much then I guess they earn it. Someone had a choice to either pay them or not.

I guess the issue of choice would be my deciding factor (but I'll admit I haven't completely thought it through). Getting 30.000 peoples houses demolished because some nut wants to build his grandiose castle is 30.000 people being evicted without choice = exploitation. Or workers having to stay in an underpaid job because they have no choice (no other work available) while the owner makes huge amounts of money.

[Crazy Cooter]

I don't think medicines/hospitals should even be in private business.  I think the government should foot the bill for that because it's just as necessary as police & fire.  Things that are essential to life should not be operated as profit based companies.  They should be funded by all and enjoyed by all.  If the government can't run it as well as a businessman could, then we have the wrong people in the government.  Medicines should be distributed as needed in a manner most beneficial to the person, not his or her health plan or lack thereof.

Let's assume that we pass a law tomorrow for socialized health care.  Why can't the government make the money that the insurance companies do?  If the name on the workers paycheck suddenly changes to US Gov. instead of XY Insurance, none of the workers have lost a job.  None of us would notice a price increase and the government would be making more money than ever.  Who loses?  Why hasn't this been done?  Because then people that don't have insurance now would suddenly have it and go to the doctor.  Then the "profits" of the Gov go down.  If you can answer why we as a society have chosen to ignore the health care of the less fortunate (those without insurance), you'll come to the true definition of greed.

[DrewKaree]

If the government can't run it as well as a businessman could, then we have the wrong people in the government. 

But that's what's wrong with government at its root.  He who controls the money has the power, and I don't know of a better example of greed than the knob from Alaska who can't figure out why building a multimillion-dollar bridge to connect to a community of 50 people isn't a good thing when people from LA went through a friggen hurricane!  I KNOW there's conservative examples too, and I don't care who pisses away money, but if you've EVER been through West Virginia, you'd think Robert Byrd INVENTED West Virginia!  The money brought back to the states by these guys gives them power in their state, which in turn gives them power in varying measures nationwide.

Bloat, mismanagement, and spurious "oversight committees" already demonstrate WHY the government would be a piss-poor insurance company, in addition to a piss-poor many-other-companies.  Continuing to throw money at the government in hopes of them someday getting it right somehow continues to be in vogue, when they're some of the best examples of greed there are.

[DrewKaree]

If you can answer why we as a society have chosen to ignore the health care of the less fortunate (those without insurance), you'll come to the true definition of greed.

Because we as a society have chosen to take care of the UNfortunate, who have demonstrated exactly why the government is a piss-poor insurance provider.  If we didn't take care of the UNfortunate, I'd agree with that being a "true" definition of greed, but we've shown that we, as a society, have a level at which we expect people to start taking care of their own lives.

It again shows what I'm talking about.  How did we (and WHO, for that matter) decide what level to stop giving government-funded health care to people?

[AllisterFiend]

I don't think medicines/hospitals should even be in private business.  I think the government should foot the bill for that because it's just as necessary as police & fire.

Noooooooo....

Let's assume that we pass a law tomorrow for socialized health care.

Double Nooooooooo......


Please, no government anything, nothing they get their hands on works.



BTW, since Walmart was brought up in the first post, here is an interested article from John Stossel on Walmart.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-11_16_05_JS.html


Allister Fiend

[Grasshopper]

It's ridiculous to assume that a privately run organisation will always automatically be more efficient than an organisation run by the government. There is simply no evidence to support such a sweeping generalisation.

What creates efficiency is not being in the private sector per se but competition. However in certain walks of life it is difficult to create genuine competition. In other cases it is possible to create competition but the side effects are deemed to be too severe to make the benefits of a competitive environment worthwhile.

Take medicine for example.

The entry requirements for medical schools are unnecessarily high and getting through medical school is very expensive. Because of this many people of adequate intelligence who want to become doctors are prevented from doing so. The medical profession will argue that this helps keep standards high which I suppose is true but it also conveniently means there are barely enough doctors in the workplace to meet demand. This keeps doctors' salaries artificially high and also means they are almost guaranteed employment unless they do something absolutely outrageous or criminal. When is the last time you came across an unemployed doctor?

Basically once you've qualified as a doctor you are not subjected to the same level of competition in the employment market that most workers face. All professions play this game, but the medical profession is particularly good at it. 

Also doctors have a captive audience. By law only people with appropriate qualifications are able to practise medicine. You can't even purchase a drug unless you get a doctor's prescription first. This is a bizarre anomaly in our so called free society. Doctors will argue that this is necessary to protect patients but again it also conveniently distorts the market in their favour.

A third problem is that competition only works when consumers have access to the necessary information to make an informed choice and this often doesn't apply to medicine. It's very difficult for a layman to judge whether treatment x is better than treatment y or whether doctor a is better than doctor b. This situation is improving thanks to the internet but there is still a long way to go.

At the moment the US healthcare system seems to have the worst of both worlds - the greed, inequality, and profit-above-all-else mentality of the private sector without the benefits that genuine competition brings.

Of course a case could be made that all the restrictive practices that shield the medical profession from true competition should be removed. But until that happens it will not be possible to treat hospitals like say supermarkets and it's better that they are government run.

[Jess--]

As profits, pharmacutical compamies and helthcare have all cropped in one thread I shall make one small (off topic point)

with the increases in aids / hiv all of the pharm companies are supposedly working on a Cure.
Ask yourself this, If you are making Millions (or billions) selling drugs that treat the symptoms of a disease, and these drugs can keep your customers alive for Several years longer than they could otherwaise have expected (ensuring repeat business for as long as they live), How much effort would you really put into finding a cure (cure being a course of pills / injections that is required ONCE by the customer / patient with no need for repeat custom)

Let me see, Make money by selling the same people the same thing every month for as long as they live OR Sell the people the cure ONCE knowing they will never buy again.

Sorry guys.... guess I wouldnt be putting that much effort into curing the disease thats earning me $$$$$$$$ (looking at it purely from a business perspective)

[patrickl]

On the other hand, Imagine how much money you could ask for a drug that would cure people instead of just letting it drag on. You would wipe out the competition and make all the money yourself.

[Dermbrian]

Funny, this is actually the complete reverse of the capitalistic principle - namely that the more free capital is, the faster the economy grows. By contrast, if I don't have to buy a new toaster I spend that money on something else like a kettle, so now my economy has a kettle factory and a toaster factory. The situation you describe is bordering dangerously close to a boondoggle, which is one of the things true conservatives hate about big government.

Myself, I think capitalism is the lesser of the known evils....

Freeing up capital, growing the economy....are these always good things?  It seems to me that much of the things that capital is then used for are of value for only one reason:  the sale or creation of those things lets the people that sell or create them earn a living.  They can eat and stay warm for another day.

But in the larger picture, those extra kettles or Wega TV's or tub spas or personal gyrocopters take energy, resources to create.  Their creation and disposal generate waste.  An economy based on mass consumption in order to have jobs so that people can eat does seem like a vicious circle.

I have yet to see communism without gulags.  But somehow we as a civilization need to come up with some economy and government structure that serves us well and assures sustainability of our planet.  I don't think we're there, yet.

Personally, I'm beginning to think that key lies in the constitution.  If our forefathers had added some bits about sustainability and protecting the endowment that future generations inherit from us, maybe we'd get some attention paid to the future instead of our immediate need to eat and stay warm and produce and consume.  I think what we see as greed is often just trying to ensure their own survival, since the future isn't looking very bright in terms of quality of life and opportunities.

Brian

[Jess--]

Patrickl

there is no real competition because all of the drug companies are doing the same, if one company decides to release a cure yes they will make big money and hit their competition hard but with no repeat business they will lose at the end of the day.

it goes back to the example of the kettle that lasts one day longer than its warranty Vs the kettle that lasts forever. Repeat business is the best way of making money, from a business point of view a repeat customer has little or no cost, whereas a new customer comes in from advertising etc which costs money

yes the company selling the kettle that will last forever will sell well to start with but once everyone has one (or the majority has one) who will buy another?

[Crazy Cooter]

I can't believe I missed this:

Economist Walter Williams says we usually benefit more from for-profit companies. "Normally in our country," he said, "those areas where people are motivated the most by greed are the areas that we're the most satisfied with

[fredster]

Let's see, if we don't have capitalism, then we have what exactly?
Communism?

If we just say everybody is going to be okay, and you don't have to work, then I guess that's what? Communism?

And if you work hard and you make lots of money because you come up with something everybody likes, then you shouldn't profit from it?

If you work for years and years on a project and you come up with something that is great, cheap to manufacture, and then you are forced to sell it for the manufacturing costs and you get NO profit, would you do it again?

I can't see all this crap about Walmart.  If somebody else could come up with a store that competes, great. Nobody is stopping them. Walmart is running people out of business that really shouldn't have been in business.  Let's call it economic evolution instead.

Walmart isn't the only place you can buy toothpaste.  It isn't the only place you can buy a TV or a DVD.  Besides, there's SuperTargets and Meijer stores and a few more "supercenters" that run people out of business too.

If you make a widget, you don't have to sell it at Wallyworld.

If you want a widget, you don't have to buy it at Wallyworld.

It's not like people are forced into the store, or forced to supply the store, or forced to work at the store.

Just because somebody thinks they "can" pay more, it doesn't mean they "should" pay more.

The going rule in hiring in any company I have been involved is that they must be smart enough to do the job and dumb enough to work for the pay we offer.

[Crazy Cooter]

The going rule in hiring in any company I have been involved is that they must be smart enough to do the job and dumb enough to work for the pay we offer.

Exactly my point.  Why not pay them what they deserve?  Because it cuts into the owners profit margin.  Greed at its finest.  That's how people get taken advantage of.  Keep them ignorant of the fact that they could do better for themselves somewhere else.  Keep them happy enough so they come back the next day.  Is it employment or suppression?

I wonder how many times a great idea is lost because an employee says to themselves: "I'm not about to make this company any more money".  I know I've had that thought numerous times.  No respect for the employee = no respect for the employer.

Whoever said communism was bad?  China has a better economy than we do.

[fredster]

That's employment.  If they can do better, they can leave. It's not suppression.  I can't even imagine somebody thinking along those lines. I mean, it's beyond reason to think of it that way.

Don't tell me "they can't leave, they can't afford it".  I grew up poor. You can have nothing in AL or you can have nothing in IN or TN.  If you have the will, you can move.  Look at all the illegal aliens moving.  It just depends on what you are willing to do.  People make opportunities.

Sam Walton started at the store at the bottom, sweeping floors, and learned the business to make Walmart. 

I wonder how many times a great idea is lost because an employee says to themselves: "I'm not about to make this company any more money

Well, get another job.  Sell that idea to the competitor.  Start a business and market it on your own. Make a better company and found it on your principles.  What's stopping you? Your imagination? Your drive? Your willingness to make a sacrifice?

Whoever said communism was bad?  China has a better economy than we do.

Wow. How profound. I'll forgive you because I know you aren't serious.

[patrickl]

If we just say everybody is going to be okay, and you don't have to work, then I guess that's what? Communism?

Communism is about everybody working just as hard and everybody getting paid the same.

[btoddkelley]

If we just say everybody is going to be okay, and you don't have to work, then I guess that's what? Communism?

Communism is about everybody working just as hard and everybody getting paid the same.

And thats why it doent work. See "The tragedy of the commons"

[Grasshopper]

Let's see, if we don't have capitalism, then we have what exactly?
Communism?

If we just say everybody is going to be okay, and you don't have to work, then I guess that's what? Communism?

This is a good example of the ridiculous statements some people make to try and justify extreme capitalism

Since when did mankind only have a choice between pure communism and pure capitalism? What about for instance socialism? And what about hybrid systems?

History shows us that extreme systems tend not to work in the long run and extreme capitalism is no exception.

No country on earth has ever tried a pure capitalist system for the simple reason that it wouldn't work. Even the United States has incorporated socialist elements into its system. For example free (for the consumer) education for all children funded through taxation and a police force also funded through taxation. Of course no one uses the 's' word but these are definitely socialist ideas. And before you start saying how inefficient the state education system is think how long the US would survive without it. Ditto the police service.

I'm certainly no fan of communism but to simply dismiss it as a system where people don't have to work is retarded. In any case it's debateable whether true communism has ever been tried.

At the end of the day it's best to be open minded and use whatever approach works best in practise. There will be different solutions for different circumstances. Sometimes a free market approach works best and sometimes a socialist approach works best.

[Grasshopper]

That's employment.  If they can do better, they can leave. It's not suppression.  I can't even imagine somebody thinking along those lines. I mean, it's beyond reason to think of it that way.

Don't tell me "they can't leave, they can't afford it".  I grew up poor. You can have nothing in AL or you can have nothing in IN or TN.  If you have the will, you can move.  Look at all the illegal aliens moving.  It just depends on what you are willing to do.  People make opportunities.

So if your job opportunities are limited because you've got a low IQ, or you're sick, or you're disabled, or you're too old to retrain then it's basically tough $h!t. Great system.