Capitalism

Inseparably connected, if you mean by modernity the current state of society.

Free enterprise exists regardless of the risks involved for the business people so long as they can make a profit. Capitalism is a dream of the very wealthy to fore go any responsibility in relation to the place that they occupy in society and be able to accrue wealth without necessarily putting any thing back into society.

yes he did

"My mom thinks that the movie In Time, is against capitalism" Is a sentence using capitalism.

Legal restrictions, relative investment opportunities and returns, stability of the respective governments. Taxes are also a factor. Depending on the type of real estate capital movements are much less common. If someone is investing in residential real estate they are mostly competing with local investors or even owner occupants. Commercial real estate is a bit more prone to attract foreign capital but it is still a limited impact.

Both are economic policies instigated by a government. They are on opposite sides of the spectrum in government involvement in economics.

It is possible to say that communism is the eventuality of capatalism, but i wont get into that.

how did the framers of the constitution show interest in capitalism

The UK uses the predecessor to US Customary called 'Imperial' - most of which is identical apart from volume measures.

This is a question asking for an opinion and, accordingly, you should take this an opinion as opposed to a definitive answer on the subject.

The United States has two main goals when it comes to trade. The first is to promote its business and the facilitation of larger trade. As a result, engaging with any country, as long as that country does not intend harm to the United States is favorable, regardless of their own domestic issues. However, the US has a secondary duty to promote the ideas of democracy and human rights in its foreign policy. As a result, trade can be used as weapon or gift to promote this other objective. The promotion of human rights is so important for long-term security and worldwide prosperity, that the United States should tie trade or AID to a requirement to improve human rights in those countries where it is a substantive issue.

Because we live in a capitalistic society. This is not a bad thing, it just means that it is more profitable to treat said virus, rather than pump billions of dollars into finding a cure.

Example A: Drug companies pump billions into finding a cure for the common cold virus. A cure-all is eventually found and everyone gets vaccinated. No more colds. Not only have they spent a bunch of money finding the cure, but they make little money back as everyone needs only one vaccine. Tons of money has been lost in the process.

Example B: Drug companies shift funding to treating the cold virus symptoms. This requires less money and less resources than trying to find an actual cure. The result is all of the over the counter medicines you see at gas stations, grocery stores, etc. Since there is no vaccine, we get the cold virus over and over again throughout the course of our lives. This means they can sell us these medicines over and over again and it is profitable.

To find these cures, everyone has to be willing to waste tons of money finding them. The common cold, HIV/AIDS and other viruses haven't been cured yet and that is a testament to how difficult the task is. If we could get every doctor, scientist, geneticist, pharmacist, and whoever else works with finding cures, all working together, focused on one task at a time, with unlimited funding, we could easily cure all of these viruses and diseases we face today.

Money makes the world go round and whoever says otherwise hasn't accepted that.

-Kuato

They can't cure them because of the way they evolve, it has little to do with money...bacterial infections have cures because they don't evolve the way viruses do, if what you're saying is true, wouldn't it be more profitable to have done the same thing with bacterial medicines?

natural regulator occurrence in capitalist system

sorry don't know

Hi,

feudalism and capitalism are very similar. The main difference is that in capitalism the victims believe they are not slaves, which makes them work harder. They are also cheaper, require less care, and there will always be a line of prospective workers to replace the once that become too worn out.

The only things that went for better are that we aren't forced to work on our owner's land. The benefit is not as great as it seems. I would prefer having to work 2 weeks a year for free and have 25% combined tax burden than having my tax burden over 50% so I can make up for my education and armed forces to keep people like me off these matters.

Yes, I couldn't have traveled so easily as I can today, if only could I afford it.

(For traveling I would choose communism. I would be allowed to visit less countries, but I could afford to go there, as everyone could when I was a kid. It may be just my biased opinion, but I really enjoyed seeing fat people living in houses and going to work.)

<><><><>

Opposing view- Capitalism is NOT worse than Fuedalism. Under capitalism, you are free to work at jobs YOU choose. You are free to leave, travel, change where you live. You can work as hard- or as little- as you choose. You are also free to start your own business, and become a capitalist. Want to go to school, and learn something different? You choose- not the Lord of the Manor.

democracy, competition, commercialism, free market, industrialism

There are four types of system elements. These include input and output. It also include files as well as process.

People fear communism because they want to keep their private belongings and profit wealth. They also want to keep their natural rights such as elections and individualism/diversity.

Others fear capitalism because they might starve or not have enough property or money to have a happy life while other richer citizens get to do so easily.

In a nutshell, they believed that the working class were deprived of their fair share by those at the top, who saw most of the profits, while doing less. They believed in a more equal distribution of labor and profits form labor. The United States, where about 2% of the population controls about 95% of the nations wealth, would be an example of the unfairness they were talking about.

If, in a business, all of the employees got an equal cut of the profits their company generated every month (which would be an incentive for everyone to work harder, smarter, and together), that would be an example of the Marxist ideal.