Why so much hate for Capitalism?

Two words in Paraseniorita's post say it all: "compared to."

People are better off the freer the economy - comparisons to cherry-picked years at the peak of an interest-rate cycle notwithstanding. That has always been the case, the data show it, I've posted the data that show it, I'll do it again.

But we're better off to different degrees. What Churchill said rang true: with capitalism you get unequally shared plenty, and with collectivism you get equally shared misery. The tradeoff is - do you want to be better off than you are, knowing that CEOs are MUCH better off? Or do you want to be worse off than you are, but find comfort in CEO pay being slashed?

But most of us are not macroeconomists. Most people don't realize the tradeoff. Most people take the benefits of capitalism for granted - - - - - the low unemployment, low inflation, and low interest rates, along with increasing economic mobility (in the absolute sense) and life-improving inventions coming to market seemingly on a monthly basis, we think that just happens regardless of how high or low tax rates, which interfere with the flow of capital, are. We assume that these things would have happened if income tax rates and tariffs had been left unchanged since the late 1970s. We notice the RELATIVE differences. Also, because of the mobility, there's a lot more new money, we rub elbows across classes a lot more because the classes are more fluid - - the KPMG senior CPA who grew up the son of a coalminer sees what the Partner who is a 3rd generation CPA has that he himself doesn't have, long before he reflects on the fact that his Dad would never have even known that that lifestyle existed or the fact that under 1930s-1970s-era economic policies he would probably have never escaped the coal mines.

This is exacerbated by the media's constant manipulation of the numbers - comparing what a 20-something grad student makes tending bar at night to what 40-somethings who went through the same grad school program 20 years ago now make as research scientists, and tell you that's the difference between white and skilled blue collar workers, who actually make somewhere in between.

The vast majority in the US is not that well off either.

Unbridled capitalism is EVIL.

It is the law of the jungle translated into economics. It is destroying the earth all our children will have to live on, for the short-term profit of a few.

Germany, for one country I know a lot about, (and to my knowledge most other Continental countries) has never had it. They have always had a very strong social component to their politics, and just now the capitalists are moaning about that and want them to follow the American model, which has no attraction at all to any wage earner who has lived in both countries and knows the difference, or those that can see the facts of people's lives behind the statistics that tell them that the US are the richest country in the world.

Communism as Marx, Engels and Luxemburg envisaged it has never been tried, it seems not to be in the nature of humans to share equally and work for the common good for the sake of it. Every time it was tried it ended as a tyranny of the functionaries, but that does not mean it is intrinsically bad.

Edit:

I see that some people give the thumbs down for quoting statistics,(!) Can't you cope with the truth?

If we were talking about capitalism that weren't tempered with social devices like healthcare, anti-trust laws, welfare, the dole, and other things, you would be dead wrong.

Pre-FDR capitalism was self-cannibalistic. Capitalism unchecked leads to oligarchy and monopoly.

However, as we started to implement social programs and regulation, capitalism grew more healthy, but its core principles are very dangerous if a society is not careful about it, and no matter how much regulatory devices a society implements, there is always huge damage on huge groups of people.

Much of Western wealth is made by exploiting poor labor laws in third world countries, for example. Capitalism directly harms these people.

That is why the theories of socialist thinkers like St. Simone, Marx, Engels, Kojeve, Lukacs, Lenin, Trotsky, Bakhunin, and many, many others are so important to people all over the world. It's about finding a way to move capital into popular control, rather than autocratic, to cut out the harmful side effects of capital.

UPDATE (after having read your updates): Let me ask YOU a question to get you thinking in a new direction. If everyone in the world had an IQ of 140, and EVERYONE was disciplined and had lots of different and valuable skills, would there still be poverty? Poverty is necessary for capitalism to function, and it doesn't do a very efficient job of sifting out what you seem to describe as undesirables (I hate that word)

The answer is simple: JEALOUSY!!! The have-nots hate the haves because well, they have what they want! The main difference between the two is the have-nots aren't willing to work as hard and make the same kinds of sacrifices as the haves.

Wealthy people aren't that way by accident. They have a desire, they plan, and they work that plan until they have what they desire. Where in any of that do you think they COMPLAIN that they DON'T have? Probably not a whole lot. Instead of thinking "I don't have any of that" they are probably thinking "I will have all of that." But then again, wealthy people are probably too busy worrying about themselves to worry about what someone else is doing.

Then there's the feeling of entitlement I seem to see present in ALL poor people. They think it's some inalienable right they have to be financially stable, and they think the government should give them such stability. The only inalienable right you have as far as I am concerned is the right to an opportunity. What you do with any opportunities given to you is up to YOU and there's no one to blame but yourself. But the good news is you can always pick yourself up and try again.

Excuse me!!! Capitalism has created a vast amount of wealth for very few individuals... so much so that they are the one's who control and dictate the trickle-down effect for the rest of us. All those capitalist countries you mention have universal healthcare. I'm not knocking capitalism, just saying that it should be in partnership with government in a constructive and collective manner to enable the populace to enjoy a little tiny bit of the resources that are so abundant to the holders of massive and morbid wealth. If all men of great wealth had a history and conscious for being fair and generous, I wouldn't have answered this question.

I think most people confuse wanting to balance a system with hating Capitalism. Most people won't deny that Capitalism is in and of itself the best system of monetary management for a Nation. But pure Capitalism (which does not exist and was never intended to.. not even by Adam Smith, the creator of Capitalism) has no protection for the little guys.. and would eventually fail.. so you have to balance the system. All most people are saying is that we can balance the system with a few more Social programs and a few more of the right policies and make for a smoother, better and stronger economy and lifestyle.

The problem is UNRESTRAINED capitalism, not capitalism by itself.

Large corporations control large amounts of money, which gives them disproportionate influence in government.

Some of them seek to exclude their business from proper taxation and legal oversight.

Corporations SHOULD BE held to rule of law, just as individuals should be. This is not communism.

You have oversimplified the views of your opponents - and will continue to spin the "we say" - "you say" rhetoric wheel without understanding.

Because it works better than any other form of economic policy or political philosophy.

And America has mastered it.

Jealously and envy is a powerful negative emotion.

I don't hate capitalism, but there needs to be limits put on it to ensure that human beings are not abused in the pursuit of profit....watch "The Corporation" one day or read up on bovine growth hormone...it will turn your stomach what people will do in the pursuit of maximizing profit.

because worker wages are stagnant compared to executive gluttons.

from the house financial services committee website:

"In 1965, U.S. CEOs at major companies made 24 times a worker's pay-by 2004, CEOs earned 431 times the pay of an average worker.[1] From 1995 to 2005, average CEO pay increased five times faster than that of average workers.[2] While CEO pay continues to increase at rates far exceeding inflation, wages for the vast majority of American workers have failed to keep up with rising prices. In fact, real wages for the 90% of Americans who earn under $92,000 a year have actually fallen since 2001.[3]"