General

[quote=MaikuX3]So you don't believe in 100% full capitalism and are ok with some socialistic programs. I guess you're stumped playing devil's advocate huh?

So what do you suggest if the parents still can't afford to take care of their children on their own after being on those safety-net programs (whether they have jobs or not)? Have the children starve?[/quote]

I never was playing Devil's advocate.

If they can't support children? Don't have children. If you get r@ped? It depends on the conditions of the r@pe. If you were dumb enough to walk down a dark alley at 3am, I have no sympathy for you.

[quote=Caelestys]are you kidding me? if schools were private, tuition for grade school would be nearly as much as for university. people with not as much money couldn't afford to send their kids to school, which would cause them to not get high paying jobs, which would further increase the wage gap causing an aristocratic society where bosses and corporate chiefs control everything.

The proletariats and bourgeosie were classes of people during the industrial revolution. The proletariats, or the working class, made hardly enough money to support their families while the bourgeosie took all the money, living luxurious lifestyles they didn't lift a finger for. Government intervention is what fixed it, and right wing policies aim to deregulate businesses which pushes society back to such a model.[/quote]

There will still be private schools for poor people, just as there are cheap colleges. Private schools would create competition, leading to better education.

Policies to deregulate business don't aim to send it back to the industrial revolution. You may have missed part of my economic system-NFP media groups. If part of the media is run by non-profit groups, they won't accept bribes, and will report problems with certain companies, leading to a rise in standards.

[quote=wagwan]
"I'll help you once you make an effort to help yourself"

Some Americans i know have 3 jobs, and still cannot afford health care. When will you consider someones "effort" to be enough to get governmental help? When they collapse out of exhaustion after working 3 jobs and coming to home to take care of their children?[/quote]

Try getting one job that offers health care instead, if it's that important to you. If you can't live off of three times the minimum wage, then you've got other problems.

[quote=Jovial]I don't know what you really mean by this, but isn't that not the case...
-When there is a monopoly? Like with pharmaceutical companies and the elimination of competition? [/quote]
If it's not a monopoly on an inelastic item, then we'll be fine.
[quote=Jovial]-Or if they overprice? Like in Best Buy and their fancy cables?[/quote]
If they overprice, no one will buy it.
[quote=Jovial]-Or lie about thier mistakes? Like when BP didn't clean up their oil spill?[/quote] The government needs to protect the environment.
[quote=Jovial]-Or lobby against laws that prevent them to get away with unethical practices? Like cigarette companies, meat industry, etc?[/quote] NFP media groups mean they will know the risks. If you know the risks and buy anyway, it's your own fault.

[quote=Jovial]It's great that they offer the product. But really, who can afford it? Upper class people of course! [/quote]
Isn't that a great incentive to work hard and become an upper class person?

[quote=Jovial]I don't there there will never be a objectional basis of whether something is a high cost. What would determine an objectional cost? I also don't think most Americans consider something like electricity as something that they can simply choose not to have, like a computer or a purse or whatever. [/quote]
An objectional cost is one that no one buys a product at.

[quote=Jovial]Like i was trying to say before, just because you are providing a service doesn't mean it makes people "better off." Plus you even said that people need it; then why is having unethical practice like lying a benefit? Why is having a private company controlling such an essential part of life today a good thing for the people? How is lying about not cleaning up the oil and destroying the fishing industry in the South okay? Because they are providing oil to people as a private company; profiting off of peoples needs? What? [/quote]
If people still buy it, society is saying that they're fine with unethical practices.

[quote=Jovial]So their unethical advertising practices (now currently outlawed) are okay because people "chose" to buy these things? Was it okay for company reps try to advertise smoking to children? To poor black communities? You have a bunch of college-educated people, who know all about marketing, advertisement, and consumer psychology, against the general public. These "short-term benefits" were the messages these companies were pushing to the population in the first place. [/quotes]
NFP media groups will provide information about the risks. If you know the risks and do it anyway, I'm not going to feel sorry for you.

[quote=hardballer]Human greed is never ending. Also the economy is unable to restore itself on its own from recessions without the government aiding it. Also, with no rules or regulations a company is free to pay you whatever they want and that wont usually be generous because of greed

many things can will did and do go wrong with capitalism....even with our mixed capitalism economy many things do go wrong(recession depression bank failure strikes low gdp high unemployment high prices etc etc)
[/quote]
The government is not needed to get an economy out of a recession.

[quote=reaps]similar to the industrial revolution, companies will pay workers very very low wages and will hire women and children

unsafe conditions to save $

then the company who can do this stuff the quickest has a monopoly
[/quote]

I'll steal your labour by offering better conditions. Then, I'll drive you out of business with my improved production.

[quote=LEGENDiary]A pure capitalist society won't work...already you have monopolies/oligopolies controlling large sectors of the market (eg. Microsoft with Windows). Using anti-competitive behaviour (drastically dropping prices for example, driving out the competition and then drastically rising prices again), they can pretty much choose any price they want. By having the government step in, that reduces the effects of capitalism, and introduces a socialist aspect into it. So basically, the best system is a mix of the two.
[/quote]

They can choose any price. However, the perfect price for them is at equilibrium. The perfect price for consumers is also at equilibrium.

A pure capitalist society won't work...already you have monopolies/oligopolies controlling large sectors of the market (eg. Microsoft with Windows). Using anti-competitive behaviour (drastically dropping prices for example, driving out the competition and then drastically rising prices again), they can pretty much choose any price they want. By having the government step in, that reduces the effects of capitalism, and introduces a socialist aspect into it. So basically, the best system is a mix of the two.

As big business increases, the wealth distribution becomes uneven among the corporate and it's workers.
Eventually, unless regulated, we would end up with huge corporations paying its workers next to nothing; while they bath in gold flakes.

i see this man flat out ignored my argument

he is a phony

a big fat phony

good night!

[quote=finkle]Cut throat competition[/quote]

John D. Rockefeller

Human greed is never ending. Also the economy is unable to restore itself on its own from recessions without the government aiding it. Also, with no rules or regulations a company is free to pay you whatever they want and that wont usually be generous because of greed

many things can will did and do go wrong with capitalism....even with our mixed capitalism economy many things do go wrong(recession depression bank failure strikes low gdp high unemployment high prices etc etc)

I was taking about how ethics =! profit, and you just said that companies can only be profitable by making people "better off." I don't think doing unethical things make people better off. I think it is manipulation of the population under the guise of providing a service.

[b]You said pharmaceutical companies. Kind of contradictory, wouldn't you think?[/b]
I am referring to the monopolization of products. Like in http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-premature-drug-03092011,0,4847507.story
It's great that they offer the product. But really, who can afford it? Upper class people of course!

[b]But if we were to take your supplier for electricity, you do have a choice to pay the electric bill or not. But... you'll pay the electric bill because having electricity makes you better off. If goods are objectively overpriced, people wouldn't buy them. People aren't gonna be silly and pay for something when they don't think the marginal benefit is greater than the marginal cost. But in this case, the prices are just subjectively high.[/b]
I don't there there will [b]never[/b] be a objectional basis of whether something is a high cost. What would determine an objectional cost? I also don't think most Americans consider something like electricity as something that they can simply choose not to have, like a computer or a purse or whatever.
[b]They could lie, but they're still providing oil for people who need it to get to work among other thigns.[/b]
Like i was trying to say before, just because you are providing a service doesn't mean it makes people "better off." Plus you even said that people need it; then why is having unethical practice like lying a benefit? Why is having a private company controlling such an essential part of life today a good thing for the people? How is lying about not cleaning up the oil and destroying the fishing industry in the South okay? Because they are providing oil to people as a private company; profiting off of peoples needs? What?

[b]Cigarettes might be terrible long-term, but it's the short-term 'benefits' that people pay their money for. I'm not gonna respond to the meat industry since this economic principle applies only to people, not animals. =/[/b]
So their unethical advertising practices (now currently outlawed) are okay because people "chose" to buy these things? Was it okay for company reps try to advertise smoking to children? To poor black communities? You have a bunch of college-educated people, who know all about marketing, advertisement, and consumer psychology, against the general public. These "short-term benefits" were the messages these companies were pushing to the population in the first place.

And with the meat industry I'm not talking about the treatment of the animals (which is a whole other problem)
I'm talking about the laws they would lobby against, like safety regulations, working conditions, etc.
Another example from the food industry: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin's_law]Kevin's Law[/url]

This has gone off topic-ish, but please feel free to PM me.

"[Companies] can only be profitable if and only if it makes people better off."

I don't know what you really mean by this, but isn't that not the case...
-When there is a monopoly? Like with pharmaceutical companies and the elimination of competition?
-Or if they overprice? Like in Best Buy and their fancy cables?
-Or lie about thier mistakes? Like when BP didn't clean up their oil spill?
-Or lobby against laws that prevent them to get away with unethical practices? Like cigarette companies, meat industry, etc?

For large countries with a large population full of uncivilized people, it's not going to go well and you'll often see the class differences between the people of a certain country. For example: China, USA, etc.
And it leads to corruption of the nation. But as for small countries, there are less people and are often more civilized (debatable; depends).

@MarxMaster Nonetheless there are a decent amount of people that I personally know who have jobs (Out of school and working) that don't give enough for (editrivate) health insurance (we have a public option now, which is obviously funded by taxes). Age doesn't really matter when it comes to it really, as long as they are independent.

On the other hand I have friends who are terribad with money, but it doesn't mean that there are honest people out there that barely scrape by.

Oh, and putting money into preventative care really saves us for the long run.
Ex. Denying insurance=no preventative care=progression in bad health=costly treatment. Wamp

I would like to go into more detail but I have to work on this paper on obesity :I

@MarxMaster

I worked 3 jobs once...
Job 1: Office Slave - Minimum wage - 8hrs/week
Job 2: Research Assistant - 9$/hr - 8 hours/week
Job 3: Waitress - Depends because of tips - 10 hrs/week
Extra: University Student

What I spent majority of it on...
1: School
2: Food
3: Transportation

I get Public Insurance + live on student loans. Yay for living in Massachusetts!

@LightIIStruck: damit i was thinking about one thing and typing another. sorry i meant capitalism.

similar to the industrial revolution, companies will pay workers very very low wages and will hire women and children

unsafe conditions to save $

then the company who can do this stuff the quickest has a monopoly

[quote=guydudeasian]First of all, communism never existed. Never had and never will on a widespread scale. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian, extremely socialist country. Same goes for Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea or any other "communist" country.[/quote]
True. But that doesn't mean it works...

[quote=guydudeasian]Second of all, any argument for absolute capitalism with no government regulation at all is purely theoretical. Anarchy is dangerous. There are many other factors involved, like human greed and carelessness for others. Get real, monopolies will always set prices high, especially on essentials like food and clothing. People will still buy a sucky product for a high price if the product is the only one available. Besides, you'll be sure monopolies will either buy out or sue (because of possible patents) new businesses that provide an alternative.[/quote]

You're right about one thing-monopolies will keep prices for needs, like food and clothing, high. However, prices on other goods will remain at equilibrium to maximize profit for the monopoly. (Equilibrium=the happy place) Monopolies in areas such as food/clothing should be removed. However, other monopolies are fine.

[quote=guydudeasian]Now since you're just only acting as a devil's advocate, what's your ideal economic system for a country?[/quote]
I'm not acting as Devil's advocate. My ideal economic system would be unregulated capitalism, except for regulations on environmental issues, NFP media organizations, a system to remove monopolies in markets that sell needs, price ceilings on certain food items, and safety-net programs lasting for a year.

[quote=CowPoop]Cons:
-Very hard to maintain for long periods of time (thus, you get periods of great business, and then periods of recession)[/quote]
Business cycle, should be expected.

[quote=CowPoop]- INDUSTRIALISTS get richer and FARMERS get poorer (the farmers can get richer too but it might require some government regulation because usually pro-business laws have a negative affect on agricultural laws, and there are many instances in which farmers can make themselves successful, but often the period of recession for them is too long, and this is also often due to natural causes)[/quotes]
Actually, unregulated capitalism is better for farmers. Regulations such as price ceilings on food hurt them.
[quote=CowPoop]- As stated above, if let untamed, capitalism can really hurt the farmers and even the poor (though the poor can still make it through and help their children become rich, they will be exploited for work)[/quote]
Poor people are necessary. However, in capitalism, anyone can become rich.

[quote=CowPoop]-Materialism[/quote]
Could be a pro or a con, depending on your point of view.

[quote=CowPoop]Pros:
- You can get very rich!
- Country is very strong when based on capitalism
- Easy (relatively) to go from rags to riches
- Pro-business, industrial environment

Though it seems there are more cons, the pros highly outweigh the cons because it gives people more economic freedom and class flexibility (for better or worse, mostly better, though).[/quote] Pretty much.

[quote=MaikuX3]gath: Shared wealth hurts an economy.
Very few children die in a capitalist economy. If they need food, it will be provided at an affordable price.

Do you realize how many children are raised by unemployed parents? Do you realize how many families need welfare to provide for their children? Do you realize that what you may think is cheap food is may be very expensive for many families in the lower class? Do you realize that many families everyday need to make the hard decision between paying for shelter or paying for food?

I have nothing against capitalism in the sense of working for what you earn. But a nation with only capitalistic values is a VERY bad idea....especially when trying to provide for a country containing 300 million individuals, with 50 million of those living below the line of poverty. If basic socialistic programs like welfare and medicare were to be completely removed, the middle class would cease to exist and would lead to a divided nation. Socialism alone is also a very bad idea. That's why there is a need for balance to accommodate the basic needs of all living individuals. If you still believe the best answer is pure capitalism and you still believe it is ok to take away food stamps from parents of young children, then it shows the type of person you truly are.
[/quote]

If someone is extremely poor, the government should provide safety-net programs, like food stamps. However, these programs shouldn't last as long as they do. The idea that you can live your life on food stamps is one that decreases incentives to work.
[quote=Thiela]gath: I don't think you're giving us valid arguments, you basically saying "Yes" or "No" just with more words.[/quote] Well, I'm on an iPod and have a ton of arguments to adress, so I'm making it quick.

[quote=Thiela]You also said "This gap (between rich and poor) is necessary for a healthy economy." Could you explain that?[/quote]
Certainly. What is a healthy economy? An efficient one. So, the economy has to be efficient. If we had no rich/poor gap...that means that no matter what, your just the same as everyone else. It doesn't matter if you sleep all day or work 80 hours a week. Obviously, everyone would choose to sleep all day, if working didn't give them any benefit. If you can't improve your condition, you won't work, and if there is no rich/poor gap, you can't improve your condition. Therefore, if there is no rich/poor gap, no one will work, and the economy will not be efficient.

[quote=Thiela]How come that society NEEDS poor people that have to live in missery? Maybe you you're saying this cause you have no economic problems and you have everything you need. [/quote]

Well, if there are no poor people, that means you don't need to work to succeed. See the above.

And you're right, I do have everything I need.

[quote=Thiela]We're all human beings.
Empathy.[/quote]

I'll help you once you make an effort to help yourself.

[quote=LightIIStruck]gath: By getting rid of public schools, how will those that cannot afford private schooling get an education? That's unfair. How will they ever be able to get a career without an education? In regards to the standard of living, wouldn't less economic inequality bring up the standard of living even higher?[/quote]

If poor people deman education, someone will provide it for them.

No, economic equality hurts the standard of living. As I explained above, economic inequality encourages efficiency. Efficiency leads to a lot of things being made, and therefore sold and distributed. Therefore, economic inequality=economic efficiency=more stuff being produced=everyone gets more stuff=an increase in the standard of living.

[quote=Helot]the fact of the matter is that left to their own devices, businesses will want to maximize yield while minimizing expenditures, and employees/sensible business practices/minimization of negative externalities are all considered expenditures. Thus in a true free market with no regulation you get tyrannical monopolies that pay crap wages while spewing out toxic waste products with little to no regard with the safety or health issues that the by-products of whatever they manufacture can cause.

Face it, history shows that the bourgeoisie cares very little about the proletariat in any sense that doesn't concern productivity. It makes sense that Communism was such a popular idea back in the turn of the century.[/quote]

However, capitalism is all about profit. Creating a company with better wages/standards means you can get more labor, improve productivity, and beat out your competitors. The same goes for safe products-safer products have higher demand, and you make more money producing them.

Then again, economics as a study wasn't very advanced in the 19th century, so few, if any, people understood this concept during the industrial revolution.

Cons:
-Very hard to maintain for long periods of time (thus, you get periods of great business, and then periods of recession)
- INDUSTRIALISTS get richer and FARMERS get poorer (the farmers can get richer too but it might require some government regulation because usually pro-business laws have a negative affect on agricultural laws, and there are many instances in which farmers can make themselves successful, but often the period of recession for them is too long, and this is also often due to natural causes)
- As stated above, if let untamed, capitalism can really hurt the farmers and even the poor (though the poor can still make it through and help their children become rich, they will be exploited for work)
-Materialism

Pros:
- You can get very rich!
- Country is very strong when based on capitalism
- Easy (relatively) to go from rags to riches
- Pro-business, industrial environment

Though it seems there are more cons, the pros highly outweigh the cons because it gives people more economic freedom and class flexibility (for better or worse, mostly better, though).

[quote=LightIIStruck]gath: So far, all you say towards discrimination is that if you discriminate - it's your loss.
Now, what do you have to say to someone who is discriminated against?
[/quote]

As long as somebody doesn't discriminate, (very likely) you'll be fine. Your skills are still in demand, if one person doesn't want you, they'll take more skilled workers out of the pool. As long as your skills are useful, someone will hire you.

[quote=daniel3b]Since when is it possible to have an ideal capitalist society? Capitalism will never be ideal, when implemented there will definitely be the "Life isn't fair" adage to describe perfectly how some people are born into wealth without doing anything to deserve it, and some people who would otherwise be hard-working and successful, are born into a low-income area where they have no way under their own ability at success.[/quote]

I didn't say it was possible, I said a perfect capitalist society would adress the problem. In other capitalist societies, it hurts efficiency.

Moving as fast as I can, I'm on my iPod. (Technology-one benefit of capitalism!)

[quote=Caelestys]It's a great means of production, but extreme capitalism under right wing government is dangerous.
-companies form monopolies, which take jobs from competing companies and essentially control the consumer[/quote]
You can't create a market that's impossible to enter without government intervention. Monopolies aren't all bad-in fact, the monopolists dilemma means they can't raise prices too high. (Sometimes, a firm makes money by lowering the price)

[quote=Caelestys]-focus shifts from humanity to the individual.[/quote] True, but the invisible hand watches over humanity.
[quote=Caelestys]-wealth accumulates within families so that descendants don't have to work in order to be wealthy.[/quote]
Yes, this is a flaw.

[quote=Caelestys]-the wage gap can and often does get to dangerous extremes[/quote]
How are these extremes dangerous?

[quote=Caelestys]-encourages cheating people, such as offering a sucky service for a high price.[/quote]
If you try to sell a sucky service at a high price, no one will buy it.

[quote=Caelestys]-things like the environment and human rights are disregarded for profit.[/quote]
That's the governments job. Besides, human rights are automatically protected. If you don't give workers rights, I will, and you'll lose all your labor.

[quote=Caelestys]examples:
look what happened to Russia. the rich got richer while the poor starved. a revolution took place where millions of people died.
industrial revolution. bourgeois vs proletariat.
[/quote]
As in the Soviet Union? That's communism.
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with bourgeois vs proletariat (court case?) Could you elaborate?

[quote=Caelestys]if you ask me, democratic socialism is the way to go. It allows the competition of capitalism to encourage production, but still works to equal out wealth and reduce poverty.[/quote]
It still decreases efficiency by lowering the incentive to work.

[quote=LightIIStruck]@gath: How does the standard of living increase directly because of capitalism? If anything, the income inequality in the United States in only rivalled by the income inequality of Uganda. (Much worse than Pakistan, Ethiopia, Norway, Sweden, and other nations).[/quote]
Standard of living is not the same as economic inequality. The standard of living goes up in a capitalist society, because everyone constantly gets more, because people want new stuff, and the economy provides it.

[quote=LightIIStruck]@daniel3b: I really don't think that the privatization of education and healthcare is 'more efficient' than a government regulated system. People are more important that profits.[/quote]

Private Universities are much better than public ones. TBH, I think the best way to fix education in America is to get rid of public schools.

[quote=gath]Definently a problem. An ideal capitalist society would have everyone start in the exact same conditions.[/quote]Since when is it possible to have an ideal capitalist society? Capitalism will never be ideal, when implemented there will definitely be the "Life isn't fair" adage to describe perfectly how some people are born into wealth without doing anything to deserve it, and some people who would otherwise be hard-working and successful, are born into a low-income area where they have no way under their own ability at success.

Communism is bad because it focus's on demand and income. They try to meet the demand (or make more demand) for their product so that they can get more money. Well this is bad most of the products that are made are made of cheap parts and are build to break down fast (aka computers).

[quote=Thiele]The wealth is not shared.
Some people keep gaining millions of millions a day, and at the same time, children are dying cause they have NOTHING to eat[/quote]

Shared wealth hurts an economy.
Very few children die in a capitalist economy. If they need food, it will be provided at an affordable price.

[quote=EenRite]in a true free market there would be no regulations, so you'd inevitably have powerful monopolies and numerous ethical/safety violations since businesses can't realistically be expected to police themselves[/quote]

Then someone will improve efficiency by hiring more workers with better conditions, stealing the workers from other companies. Also, it's not profitable to kill your customers.

[quote=pr3stig3]-> Competition for profit, leading to greed.[/quote]
Greed is good, it encourages efficiency.
[quote=pr3stig3]-> Unequal distribution of resources, leading to the gap between rich&poor[/quote]
This gap is necessary for a healthy economy.
[quote=pr3stig3]-> Overlook issues like environment and human rights[/quote]
True. Human rights can be overcome (I can start a company with better working conditions, attracting skilled workers from other firms, thus giving me market power-it's efficient to treat workers well) However, the environment needs another force to protect it. Definently a problem, but that's what a government is for.

[quote=pr3stig3]-> To combat those issues, Politicians create certain policies, which leads to corruption and biased politics.[/quote]
Such as?

[quote=daniel3b]- Often times the poor get poorer, rich get richer[/quote] Actually, everyone gets richer.

[quote=daniel3b]- The very wealthy are typically only that way because they were born into money[/quote]
Definently a problem. An ideal capitalist society would have everyone start in the exact same conditions.

[quote=daniel3b]- Businesses do only what is best for profit, and may provide poor quality services/goods or dangerous services/goods, at a ridiculously high price[/quote]
Low quality goods/high prices will encourage new firms to enter the market, providing better products at cheaper prices, driving the original firms out. As a company in capitalism, you need to provide good products, at the equilibrium price.

[quote=daniel3b]- Allows for more discrimination[/quote]
If you discriminate, it's your loss.

[quote=LightIIStruck]How is socialism worse when put into practice? Back up your statements.

[/quote]

It's worse as in there's never been a successful socialist country due to lack of human control and presence of greed. It only works if everyone's fully committed, which sadly, isn't the case.

[quote=Masinko]Because for one to prosper, one must suffer.[/quote]
that applies for every social system. there is no such thing as a utopia.

Because for one to prosper, one must suffer.

[quote=LightIIStruck]How is socialism worse when put into practice? Back up your statements.[/quote]Well for one, the private sector is more efficient than the government

[quote=z00ty]Everything belongs to the government[/quote]

That's communism.

[quote=Sparxxors847]it starts with a C like Communism.[/quote]

Excellent point.

[quote=LightIIStruck]
The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.[/quote]

The standard of living goes up for everyone. So, the rich get richer, and the poor get richer too.

[quote=ClementZ]-Creates another area for discrimination.[/quote] If you discriminate, it's your loss. Someone else will be happy to hire all those skilled workers you denied because of race.
[quote=ClementZ]-Focus shifts from people and their needs, to profits[/quote]
True, but profits are made by providing for needs, therefore people can buy what they need.

[quote=ClementZ]-Creates gaps.[/quote]
If there were no gaps, there'd be no incentive to work and the economy would fail. Economic gaps are necesary in a healthy economy.

[quote=ClementZ]-Corruption[/quote]
How so?

[quote=ClementZ]-Rich get richer, while trying to keep the rest at their level.[/quote]
However, as I mentioned before, 'their level' is necessary, and it constantly gets better. The poor in capitalist economies live better than the rich in other economies.

[quote=finkle]Cut throat competition[/quote]

That's the point.

As much as I love debating (being a debater myself) I hate arguing "K". Also its hard to argue something you thrive on

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Capitalism.

Capitalism sucks, but communism and socialism are much worse when put into practice.

Well I think capitalism is the way to go, but some downsides to it:

- Often times the poor get poorer, rich get richer
- The very wealthy are typically only that way because they were born into money
- Businesses do only what is best for profit, and may provide poor quality services/goods or dangerous services/goods, at a ridiculously high price
- Allows for more discrimination

-> Competition for profit, leading to greed.
-> Unequal distribution of resources, leading to the gap between rich&poor
-> Overlook issues like environment and human rights
-> To combat those issues, Politicians create certain policies, which leads to corruption and biased politics.

-Creates another area for discrimination.
-Focus shifts from people and their needs, to profits
-Creates gaps.
-Corruption
-Rich get richer, while trying to keep the rest at their level.
-Wealth isn't shared.
-etc.

[quote=LightIIStruck]The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.[/quote]

The pimps get pimper and the hooks get hookers.