Help me understand this please.
Why does their hypothetical "pure" Capitalism, which uses wages for working people who are enticed with economic benefit so tragic? Why is it necessarily violent? Why is it inefficient?
Because:
-stealing to survive
-stealing, ripping people off and so on, due to greed
That's not capitalism, that's crime. That'll exist regardless of whether it is a purely capitalist, purely socialist, or any other system in between.
Well then, part of the discussion earlier was about whether or not 'pure' capitalism can be separated from the state. Your version obviously can't. There would need to be some kind of official body that maintains a list of what all the 'crimes' are. Otherwise the so-called stealing is just bad yet legitimate trade.
-exploiting easy targets (e.g.: immigrants who are desperate for a little bit of money).
Common claim without much factual backing. Sure, there are cases of people working for loans they can never repay, which is typically referred to as slavery and is illegal. But in practically all cases where teary eyes proclaim, "think of the exploited workers!" the worker's other only other options are starvation or prostitution on the streets. Plus as more and more labor gets absorbed by companies, the collective quality of work and pay increases (reduced supply for labor, increased demand, increased price). India started out as a bunch of really underpaid workers. Their wages have gone up drastically. China was full of exploited workers. Companies can't find workers any more, and are competing against each other with better benefits and working conditions. Ditto for every other third world country without a repressive government or criminal warlords. There are literally NO examples of a third world area with poor workers where conditions did not improve dramatically once businesses and free trade were allowed to come in and "exploit" those workers, while there are dozens of examples of the opposite (India, China, Russia, Ukraine, Brazil, Finland, East Germany, Poland, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai, etc etc etc.)
Asian sweatshops.
Granted that most of the exploitation is likely transitional -- various foreign businesses "shop around" for third-world countries whose authorities won't "get in the way" of progress. But you're doing the classic sales pitch: "ignore the bad stuff, just look at the GIANT MONUMENTS the labourers built!"
-Capitalism seems to reward society with short-to-medium term gains (e.g.: technology, gadgets) while potential problems (e.g.: depleted resources, pollution) are easy to ignore because they tend to creep up very slowly.
Don't blame human nature on capitalism.
I'm not.
If potential problems were a problem under communist rule, once enough people became concerned, they would ask the government to pass regulations to reduce the problem. If same thing happened under pure capitalist or anarchist "rule," once enough people became concerned, they would simply ask friends, family, and everyone else to stop supporting that problem by avoiding its products. In either case the outcome is the same: if people care, something will happen. If they don't, the government won't do anything either.
You fail to take into account do-gooders: those people with lots of heart but not enough brain.
-Ignoring morals seems to be more "efficient" than being righteous, at least in the short term.
If by "morals" you mean things like not having sex before marriage...
-_-
If you mean things like stealing, killing, lying, etc, which are generally unethical regardless of morality........ dot com, Enron, and the recession is enough.
Simple example: "free range" eggs that cost twice as much as the cage ones. Caring about the poor little chickens costs you financially. If you stop caring, you get financially rewarded. Admittedly it's a dead-end example because I can't really think of any long-term negative side-effects of eating cage eggs instead of free range ones, but if you actually wanted to understand, I think you would by now.
Before we continue, ktttn and blablahblah, could you please give us your definition of what you think "capitalism" is? Because ou keep posting either gross misconceptions of capitalism, or examples that have nothing to do with capitalism, and it really looks as if we're all arguing about different things.
It's an ism.