Pure Capitalism With Basic Needs vs Marxist/Social Socialism Dbt 3

I find it best to start with the statement "everyone within the system has the perception that a wrong move, a wrong career choice, a wrong economic choice, could lead to financial ruin, poverty, embarrassment, ruin, homelessness, loneliness, sadness, or death." This is incorrect. And for a lot of reasons. For many people when they make a wrong career choice, they do not get fired. If a programmer accidentally gives his boss the wrong code, or a salesman doesn't close the sale, or an economist forgot to include China's GDP, or a computer IT installs Mac, they will not be fired. They have a lot of room for error, otherwise the business would lose money. To some businesses in very high demand such as a rich NYC law firm, they can afford to fire paralegals if they make a few mistakes, but they are not going to fire a lawyer if he makes them. Room for error allows growth, too much error, although, curtails it. Wrong economic choice; well let's see, one would have to be extremely unintelligent for this to happen. If one invests all his money into a penny stock, then honestly, I think he should lose it all, and learn his lesson. If he is smart, he will use his money wisely, and a wrong choice or choices will not cost him much. Dave Ramsey is a great example. He became a millionaire selling houses, but lost it all because he was buying on borrowed money. He got smart, capitalism allowed him to learn from his mistakes (another reason why having a system like capitalism that gives consequences for unintelligent choices is a good thing) and he proceeded to make over 50 million dollars. He is only one of the 80% of millionaires that are self-made. So no, wrong economic choices do not cause ruin, but allow growth. Now let us take the scenario that one does not speak English, or Spanish, or any language except Portuguese in a native town. There is one company, and they happen to be very greedy, telling him that if he makes a single mistake he will be fired. He doesn't have much money so he is unable to leave the state, or country, and thus he must take the job, but is fired after he spills coffee. He still has the same rights to the community--he is not lonely. He is given benefits so he is not homeless. He has healthcare so he does not die. Embarrassment in this case is temporal and not very large--in cases of high popularity it may be larger, but that would be due to a mistake that he/she made. He has many benefits, and has it better than most countries in his upper scale poverty. And lastly, sadness, depending solely on what makes him/her happy--people and religion make me happy, so I would be perfectly content in his situation. The other part of your argument was companies and people will kill to maintain a profit/popularity. People still perform terrible acts in socialism, the only difference is that in capitalism people have more incentive. You may argue that the government could intervene and save lives. The Ford Pinto exploded on rear impact and Ford did not recall them, and people pay to hide detrimental effects as in your baby milk example. But in the first example people would find out about it and not buy it, hence capitalism, or take the risk, hence freedom; and in the second, if the people don't know, how will the government. The last thing I want to point out is freedom makes things work properly. When we intervene and try to be smarter than our human nature, things worsen. A great example is zebra mussels. We added fish to kill them after they were hurting other fish, but in-turn set up a chain reaction of events which moreso lead to the eventual deaths of the fish we tried to save, and others. In capitalism problems will work their way out. Profit does not kill people, people do, and a way to counter this nature according to you is to take away people's freedom, everyone's freedom, and stunt the country's growth. But remember, socialism is not the remedy to the freedom that you didn't like. It will still happen!