It's not a trick question. You'd be surprised how differently people think of what these are. A sociologist may define it differently than an economist. Even then there may be variations within those two groups. Each definition leads to associating certain current outcomes with either one group or the other. What if a slight difference in definition actually showed the problem to be lying not with one but with the other? That's the whole essence of figuring out the truth, unless one prefers just typing stuff to vent frustrations (not at all a reprehensible pastime in itself). Gringo
By the way, in case you have ever volunteered in your life or truly put in the time to help someone in need, you don't impact someone's life by putting couple bucks into his/her pocket. Those bucks disappear but will not change someone's life. impacting people's lives costs effort, time, sweat, and above all, patience. Imagining a hedge fund manager to touch ground with the copter in Manhattan for a quick show up in za hood to be celebrated to have paid for couple kids education is hopefully not considered to be as effective nor honest an investment into someone else's life than a life long of service with a cheerful heart. I can answer your question therefore very straightforwardly: I am sure the money is appreciated but a true investment and show of love and care goes a million miles farther. But let me sum up my impression: Paul Tudor Jones was a weapons manufacturer and warlord who sold and greatly benefitted from selling weaponry system to certain African nations and right before the ensuing genocide almost wiped the last person off the face of the earth as a result of the use of such weapons Paul Tudor Jones tells the world that he reformed himself and that he started to build schools and hospitals for those people using 0.5% of his total wealth. He comes back and your kind bows down and cannot find words to describe his generosity and heart and love for the human species. Bravo you just fell into the sink hole
Bollocks mate, there is a clear definition for each of the terms you listed. How you want to understand and change the meaning of the definition is of course up to you.
How about you write what your clear definition is then? It's not for your understanding but for the understanding of those who may think differently. I guarantee you that whatever the clear definition you think you are providing would be challenged quite quickly. Now if the definition itself isn't agreed to, how on earth are those discussing the merits of one philosophy over another going to ever agree about anything else? It would save quite a bit of time later on. If you wish not to do that then it is your choice. I wouldn't be bothering you if the discussion continues without first clarifying what it is we are talking about to being with. Gringo
Capitalism is an economic system where capital and the means of production are in private hands. All modern industrialized nations have mixed economies. There are no pure capitalist economies just as their are no pure socialist economies. One describes an economy according to what economic system dominates. The U.S. is by far the most capitalist of the industrialized nations. (For example it is the only industrialized nation in which not everyone has access to routine healthcare, and the quality of healthcare and legal representation one obtains is heavily dependent on one's capital.) . Nevertheless, the U.S., too, has a mixed economy, which is mostly capitalist, but to lesser extent socialist.
Capitalism - Economic system where capital (cash you mean? I ask because some consider capital to mean machinery & technology) and the means (resources) of production are in private hands. Capitalism - Economic system where resources of production are privately owned. Socialism - Communism - Fascism -
Very good points and it would go a long way if those who thought that nurses and police men and fire fighters should be more fairly compensated for the risk they take vs a hedge fund manager comfortably leaning back in his leather chairs were rather taking concrete steps to even out such imbalance rather than standing in public and giving TED talks. Enough said.