What's the difference between a conservative and a capitalist?
Adam Smith is considered the founder of Capitalism, which he authored the Wealth of Nations. In this he alluded to the "invisible hand." The invisible hand refers to the idea that the markets can self-regulate,without the government. His overall idea is that greed is good, and ones greed can lead to the personal wealth, but other people's wealth.He does stress that, which people forget, that as a society we do have to watch out for the "business man" because their personal greed can work against the society as a whole, so self regulation is a no go. Also, in the Wealth of Nations he points out that no matter which profession you are either shoemaker, lawyer, teacher, etc... that they should get an honest wage. This means no matter which job those individuals should have enough of an income to afford shoes, a place to live, and food at the table.What is a conservative?The definition according to Webster either as a non or an adjective "holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion." Capitalism would be one of those "traditional attitudes."A conservative can fall into different sects such as:A) Religious or Cultural ConservativeB) Fiscal ConservativeC) Neo-ConD) LibertarianE) Tea PartyF) RepublicanFor the most part each one of these fractions or terminology supports the idea of Capitalism, and also the majority of Democrats.The religious or cultural conservative does believe in the invisible hand, or the laissez faire notion. There was a religious idea that evolved in the 1900's (maybe sooner or later) that if God wanted you to have money, that God would have helped you. Wealth = Righteousness.Political definitions of what is a Republican, Democrat, Liberal, and Conservative has changed over time. The first modern day liberal was FDR. Before that liberal meant a unfettered capitalist, which were linked to the Republican party. That is part of the reason libertarian is so close to liberal, because they were referencing the "classical liberal."For the most part no matter which part of conservative one mentions they will say Capitalism is their best buddy. Capitalism is an economic system that conservatism uses and supports.
Do you think conservatives are angry because they are history's losers?
You speak but all I hear is -6 db of white noise. Your words have been digitally re-mumbled for inaudibility ()
Do conservatives mistakenly over-value personal responsibility as a solution to problems?
Conservatives do operate on a poorly-baked assumption that people should look out for themselves and never be a burden to others. Conservatives tend to believe that financial independence is achievable by anyone who can work at a job, if only they accept responsibility for their own success.Conservatives do not believe that your financial independence is determined largely by the zip code you were born into, by the color of your skin, and by the educational level of your parents. Conservatives generally believe that any failure to achieve financial freedom is completely the person’s individual responsibility. They believe it has nothing to do with whether some capitalist decides to close down his production lines and move them to China, or whether the banking system has destroyed the economy and put all of the good-paying jobs in the tank.
Why do Liberals hate capitalism?
Seriously Michael Moore is a millionaire because of capitalism, he is a millionaire, his movies are across theaters cashing out at hundreds of millions of dollars in box office hits. I applaud him for his success. Not his views. Honestly if Capitalism is so bad, tell me where is the incentive to come up with new technological ideals if you can't make a profit. I don't think anything would be invented nor would this website exist if the person who manages it can't make a profit. Even in the work force when it comes to employment the job you look for isn't handed to you. You have to work for it, compete in interviews and sell your self as the best person for the job. Also when you're offered a raise, would you turn it down because it's not equal as your co-workers? I really have a hard time grasping how greed is in the equation. CEO's pay rate is determined on the company's out put. A CEO can't make millions if their company doesn't make millions. Is the person who runs the company really selfish because they run everything and the employee is at the bottom with not much at steak. I mean really a CEO has to talk to so many people as the employee just does a small task. Just think about it logically, how is it greedy to want to earn more money based on success. Even with getting grades in school you earn a better grade on how well you do individually, your GPA isn't split with your classroom. Competition is what Capitalism is all about. You keep what you earn and accomplish. If you're successful you can donate your money to help others at your will. Charity is supposed to go unrecognized, it's not a bragging right, so to just bash millionaires even past CEOs like actors, is just silly. We don't know what they privately do with their money, and so what, there will always be an upper class or rich class. If money doesn't determine class and everyone had the same amount. We would still want to try to make our selves feel superior, through knowledge, social cliques, or some other form to feel superior. It's human nature.
Why did Marx think that capitalism exploits workers?
Marx was mistaken about a lot of things. This is one example.Marx believed that only labor can add value to an economic good: a baker making bread, for example. Or a factory worker screwing two pieces together.He believed that persons who do not add labor do not create value. For example, a business owner. Yet business owners make money from their business, which according to Marx only gets its value from its workers. Thus, says Marx, the business owner exploits the worker by stealing a piece of the value added by the worker.Of course this is flawed thinking. Value is not determined by the work done but by the law of supply and demand. What determines the value of a bucket of water? Is it the labor needed to fill it? If you are in a desert and there is no water available, what would that bucket be worth to you? Wouldn’t it be more valuable than a bucket of gold that you’d dug up?Furthermore, a business owner facilitates workers to earn a living. If it were true that the business owner exploits the worker, then why would the worker, out of all the options out there to make a living, choose to sell his labor to this business owner? And if it were true that the business owner is exploiting the worker, then wouldn’t it be morally better to close the business? Would the worker then be better off without that option to make a living?
Why isn't capitalism essentially exploitation of your fellow man?
Great question. Before I answer it, I recommend reading this: Does Capitalism Really Hurt The Poor?Capitalism is a system of voluntary exchange. It’s possible to exploit, but it’s not easy. Why? Because I can’t force you to buy from me.Sometimes we talk as though we’re being “forced” to buy something. We say things like: “I can’t believe I’m forced to pay $1,000 for the new iPhone.” But that’s just a mistake of speech. You’re never forced. Simply don’t buy it.When you purchase that new iPhone, you’re actually making an agreement with Apple — an exchange. You’re agreeing to the $1,000 price. If nobody agreed, Apple would have to lower prices. Go buy an LG phone or an older iPhone model. They practically give those away for free these days.Free markets can become exploitative if one company eliminates its competition. Google is almost a monopoly because it controls 90% of search. But there is still Bing and Yahoo, if you wanted. If Google suddenly started charging $50 a month to use Google search, Bing would become the number one search engine in a snap.True monopolization rarely occurs in the United States. When it does, we have anti-trust laws. Standard Oil became too powerful in 1906, so Teddy Roosevelt broke them up into several smaller companies. Those “small” companies are known to us today as ExxonMobil and Chevron, among others. By breaking up Standard Oil, Teddy Roosevelt prevented the company from devouring its competition and charging obscene prices.(That is the nightmare scenario that many people think socialism solves. Ironically, it doesn’t — socialism causes that scenario. Every socialist country creates its own versions of Standard Oil, such as Chinese Petrol.)The problem with socialism is that it treats every luxury as a human right: iPhones, cars, expensive food and clothes. It ignores the hard work required to produce those things. Which is why, as soon as socialism is implemented, producers stop producing. They can no longer be rewarded for their efforts.So, no, free markets aren’t exploitative. They can be, but most of the time they aren’t.
What type of Person has trouble making it in a Capitalist Society? Who Flourishes?
Isn't this the 64K question? Liberals AND Democrats constantly tell us about how well educated they are, how smart they are and how hard working they are, so what' the problem? .