Mr 0,

It would appear that your ability to think has withered to 0.

Capitalism is the free exchange of goods, services, and information. Capitalism contemplates the exchange of value for value; in the modern world, the value given is usually money, but it can be other things— goods, services, information, etc, as the parties decide. In economic terms, each party exchanges to receive something they value more highly than what they have. By means of the exchange, each party increases their wealth— possession of things of value. The free exchange creates incentives to produce, and thus the whole community becomes richer and better off. Capitalism arose when the first two people traded something. Capitalism is still rooted in the free exchange of value for value.

Even in the time of the early Romans there were traders and merchants 1000 yrs BC.

Another epic fail Mr zero.

Shadow Minister,

Thank you. It is always good the get an engineer's perspective on subjects in which they have no scholarly training and qualifications.

Maybe one day you will enlighten us knowledge-starved participants of the The Forum on such amazing engineering topics as the electric motor, sludge sedimentation pumps, and stormwater run-off.

The ideals of communism with its "all in" philosophy of everyone working for the common good, with all that is being collectively produced rationed according to individual needs, not wants or desires, with no private property, and everything being "borrowed" by the individual from the collective as a whole. Under communism there is no need for money as a means of exchange, as there is no private property, only public property or collective property, which is all that is exchanged through need. Although socialism adopts some of the aspects of communism, particularly public ownership and welfare support, but it still allows for private personal ownership and the use of capital as a means of exchange.

Capitalism like communism is both a fantasy and an ideal, since there has never been a society that has ever legalised or practised a totally capitalistic free market. Ideals are hard, or even impossible to implement in practice, that's why they are called ideals. On the other hand, proponents of both communism and capitalism brought about numerous positive social changes, while being unattainable, both ideals have worked for the common good. This is demonstrated by Australia's mixed market economy, with its capitalistic drive being tempered with a socialistic support network through government intervention.

Of course Paul, communism appeals to greens, with their desire to reduce population.

After all communists in the USSR & China actively eliminated millions of their own population in death camps, gulags & forced labour camps for dissidents. But even better they both starved tens of millions with their collective farms, which produced almost nothing. It was only when they gave the peasants back the self improvement motive of personal reward for personal effort they started to be able to feed themselves.

Gosh, Paul, I wonder if anybody has ever tried communism ? It sounds so gooooood!

Oh that's right, the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Mongolia, North Korea, Rumania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Cuba, East Germany, Angola, Mozambique, Togo, Burkina Faso, the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville), Venezuela, Ethiopia, perhaps Tanzania and Chile. More than two billion people have experienced its infinite benefits. With so much experience, how is communism going in any of those Paradises ? Everybody works and shares ? It must be like heaven there.

I recall the news item that Solzhenitsyn quoted in the Intro to his 'Gulag Archipelago' about local people finding the frozen remains of a prehistoric beast whose meat was so fresh that they could tear off pieces of it with their bare hands and eat it raw. They must have been so happy and contented under communism.

Thanks for reminding us.

Joe

Mr 0,

You always surprise me with how feeble your critical thinking is. Greece and Rome about 350 BC were prime examples of capitalist states where the vast majority of the means of production were in private hands and individuals took risks and invested.

You are either a very poor historian, and the only sludge pump you are involved in is the daily muck that oozes from you onto OLO.

Paul,

To some extent I agree with you, however, socialism is the state ownership of the means of production and is not necessarily welfare. Similarly, capitalism relies on Labour which without health care and education are worthless.