Is more or less capitalism better for most people? Or just better capitalism?

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 11
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,264
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
As chatgpt argues below, it's not about more or less capitalism but better capitalism. Mixed economies are better with a free market but basic safety net. Automatically if we're deviating from developed country Norms and dismantling even basic welfare and essentials like basic affordable Healthcare how is that reasonable? Right off rip we can get rid of libertstianism. Perhaps from the other end we can get rid of unbridled socialism. It's always about smart policy, we've lost the policy in politics as al I always say. This stuff is self evident. A little more polarizing, how dies trump fit this model of smart policy for the poor and working class? How does he even begin to help average people, or the poor and working class? Let's not make this a sideshow thread about trump tho. More, less, or better capitalism within civilized norms and how our political system and parties fit into that


Whether *more* or *less* capitalism is best for helping most people depends heavily on what kind of capitalism we're talking about and how it's balanced with other social mechanisms. Let’s break it down:

---

### ✅ **Where More Capitalism Helps Most People**

**Capitalism** can be a powerful engine for:

* **Innovation**: Competition drives new ideas, technologies, and services.
* **Economic growth**: Incentivizes productivity and entrepreneurship.
* **Consumer choice**: People can choose products, services, and jobs that fit their needs.

Historically, **market-based systems** have pulled billions out of extreme poverty (e.g., post-1980s China with market reforms, or the rise of South Korea). But that success often came alongside *state planning* and strong social frameworks, not laissez-faire capitalism.

---

### ❌ **Where Less Capitalism (or Regulated Capitalism) Helps Most People**

Unregulated capitalism tends to:

* **Exacerbate inequality**: Wealth accumulates in fewer hands.
* **Exploit labor and the environment**: Race-to-the-bottom dynamics hurt workers and ecosystems.
* **Undermine democracy**: Excessive corporate power can distort policymaking (regulatory capture, lobbying, etc.).

In many wealthy countries, **regulated capitalism** or **mixed economies** (e.g., Nordic models) have provided the best outcomes. These systems use markets *plus*:

* Progressive taxation
* Universal healthcare and education
* Strong labor protections
* Social safety nets

---

### 📊 What Works Best for Most People?

**Mixed economies**—not pure capitalism or socialism—consistently rank highest on:

* Well-being
* Longevity
* Education
* Social mobility

These societies combine **market freedom** with **state responsibility** and **community values**.

---

### 🧠 Guiding Principle

**The goal isn’t more or less capitalism—it’s better capitalism.**
That usually means:

* Keeping the efficiency and innovation of markets
* Correcting their failures through democratic institutions

---

If you're asking this question from a moral or spiritual perspective, or with regard to sustainability, we can explore those angles too.


TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 1,407
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
Pure capitalism is almost as dumb as pure socialism now. Both ideologies are dumb.

Stupid people think ideologically. Smart people think solutions.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,994
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
One of the ideas about creation of wealth that has always intrigued me is how many Christians approach the story from Matthew 19 about the young rich man who asked Jesus what he [the young man] must do to inherit eternal life, and we tend to misunderstand Christ's initial response, knowing the man's heart already, tells him to keep the commandments. The man replies he has done so since being a child. But have  we ever encountered before, before this meeting of the young man and Christ, that what Jesus will reply when told the man already keeps the commandments, that Jesus tells him to give away all his wealth to the poor, as if that is already a commandment given to all? No, we have not encountered that command before. So, why now, and was it a commandment for all to give all they have, or was it advice just for this one man, whose  wealth engendered jealousy in him for not understanding that charity is also a command which may have slipped by him? Answer that question, and you will know why the "command" to give all away is not a command for all. Remember the incident that people were horrified by the small donation an old woman gave when they they were making a show of the volume of their "charity." When told the few pennies the woman gave was "all that she had, the others were shamed. 
No, we're not asked to all give all that we have, but to be as generous as we can, given the relative wealth we have. If all of us did at least that, we would not need to depend on government for our sustenance.  Did Jesus ever command "Government, render unto the people?" No, he did not. But he did qualify the necessity to give of ourselves in prudence.
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,264
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@fauxlaw
it's just a fundamental difference in political philosophy. jesus didn't tell the government to give, he told us to give.but he didn't say the government couldn't be part of the solution. and, it's arguably more important that the hungry man eats than to split hairs about how he eats, within reason. as those GOP jesus memes and videos argue, 'my how cunningly the gop twists jesus' words and philosophy to suit their political agenda'. i mean i guess it's plausible to insist that taxation is theft, and that even a basic welfare state is sinful... but it's so outside the bounds of civilized society, that it's not really worth considering too much other than as a curious philosophical point. chatgpt and the rest of civilized society have spoken, a basic welfare state and smart regulations are critical. the only question is which welfare and regulations we have. like i say, they've lost the policy in politics and the devil is in the details. libertarianism is right off rip too radical, that's why i always say libertarians are clowns. 
you have good points that giving what we can afford is better than impoverishing ourselves to help others. but that's pretty tangential to this thread's point. and, if most people can't give too much, living pay check to pay check and such, if anything that stregthens the argument that the social contract is such that basic services should be provided by the government. 
yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 154
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
-->
@n8nrgim
The family should be our government, with God at the center of it.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,994
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@n8nrgim
I am not arguing that government not have a safety net, and I don’t mind that government feature that as a valid use of taxes as long as it is used by citizens - I emphasize illegals here are not citizens - of legitimate need and not for lazy people who can but choose not to work. I have no patience for laziness and illegals. My argument is Christians who honestly think the wealthy do not deserve to keep what they have legitimately earned. I have no patience for the wealthy who have not earned or inherited it. I have some wealth, but give about 20% to charitable causes of my choice and time to help neighbors and people in temporary need when traveling when I encounter them. 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,470
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Stupid people think ideology.
In spite of the fact that ideology is a thought based activity.

One feels the need to point out that deistic theism is also ideological.

Perhaps it was a tad stupid to say that stupid people think ideologically.

Everything is essentially ideological...Even the way you put your socks on in the morning.
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 1,407
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4
You dont get it.
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 434
Posts: 2,383
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@n8nrgim
Just capitalism all the way. Today is a time like no other for entrepreneurship.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,470
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
You don't get it.
Don't get what?

Your four simple words are neither concise nor succinct.
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 1,407
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4
Fine.