capitalism cause alienation

Marx had a theory that the way that capitalism work causes alienation, the feeling of being uses or no control.  Marx believe the work force experiences alienation because work work all day building something that they can't take home or isn't even their.  The produce they spent all day making they don't receive any benefit from and belongs to the boss that will most likely near see it. This process leave the employ unattached to his work feeling empty and unmotivated.  As for if someone made something on their free time they would feel more emotionally attached and more fulfilled

I find this articular moderately reliable because i just found it on the internet but it does have an author.
http://syzygyastro.hubpages.com/hub/Karl-Marx-and-his-Theory-of-Alienation
.
http://www.eduinreview.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sad-worker.jpg

Karl Marx Theories of Value

Karl Marx believed in the Labor Theory of Value; human labor creates value.  This theory was not made up by Marx but made up by capitalist of the early nineteen century.  Marx formed a different understanding of this theory which most economist disregard today. He believed that the workers make the value while they are at work and that owner pay the workers less then the value they produced.  So the capitalist or owners are netting the value that is made but isn't payed to the workers, giving them a reason to hire the workers.  Marx calls this exploitation, because the workers are producing more value then they are payed.

I found this podcast to quite bias towards Marxism but I found it to be filled with a bunch of useful information on my opposing view.  Although I can't say it is the best source because it's a YouTube video by an unknown person, but the information is consistent with the rest of my research.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iNPStLR11k&list=UUaqqzB_ojb8J-uvMAY9oKEg&noredirect=1

Why doesn't capitalism exploit worker?

Karl Marx believe capitalism would cause the "labor theory of value" which basically mean the rich would exploit the work force. Although probable sounding it has a few loop holes.  First of all the mutual want to exploit laborers causes competition between employers. The competition the employers make them pay the workers more and more until they finally reach close to the value of their work.  Second capitalism is based on a free market so exchanging of goods and services are all ways voluntary, so exchanges are all way mutually beneficial. Every one always has the ability to say no to a trade, so if some one gave them a deal that they didn't benefit they aren't forced to take it.

I find this video credible because the man that man it is a well educated person with a PhD from the University of San Diego. The video is on YouTube and it is called "Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ttbj6LAu0A

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/SXAfTPli9JA802fOFtlmGg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MjEyOTtjcj0xO2N3PTM1MDA7ZHg9MDtkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcDtoPTM4NDtxPTg1O3c9NjMw/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2012-12-12T000322Z_234404976_GM1E8CC0LUR01_RTRMADP_3_USA-UNIONS-MICHIGAN.JPG

Capitalism in America

Do to human nature pure capitalism like pure socialism is only a myth that economist can mere dream of.  In american are free market is contained by a framework of laws and regulations.  Americas political system is split on how to direct are economic system; democrats like Obama are pushing for a less extreme capitalist system with things like welfare; as for republicans like Romney are pushing for more extreme capitalism that includes more out sourcing.

A good capitalist system is determined by the infrastructure its built on. Economist today debate if or how america should change their infrastructure.  People like "Allan Meltzer, a conservative professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University" believe Americas system should be left alone and is adequate as is. On the other hand their are people like Edward Conard that claim that their was no credit bubble, that this boom then burst was a good thing, and that we need "more income inequality"

I found this articular to be fill with a bunch of god non-bias information.  I believe the Washington post is a creditable source.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-31/opinions/35491717_1_capitalism-pure-market-economy-financial-times

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLCTo3UB50sC9CV24w7Vw_VCBzsfWug8lzSsF8AYNVDb20l3O-TphQatKXH6D8KdiRybn47S0s0SYfckNVYANuK7bVPR-79La3B43vE67kKXCXOkS2Fo1lX4RI0t24P81cN3PY6H9PGaQ/s1600/republican-democrat-battle1.jpg

How rich is rich?

     When I was looking through my research and other blogs I felt as if I had left out one of the bigger and more controversial topics of the international wealth divide and that would be, how rich is rich? Now I know that that sounds like a tounge twiter and a question that people could argue about for days on end, but to be blunt it is not that difficult to figure out.

     The answer to all of your questions is rich is however wealthy you feel it is. In more depth this means that being rich isn't defined by an exact number (although being poor is) but by what amount or level of wealth makes you feel comfortable to stop working. That is what is defined commonly as being rich. In the article I read it says that retirement savings is the basis for defining richness, but the author warns not to confuse income with wealth. He states that someone making $1 million a year but spending 3/4 is not rich. The quote that best sums this up is "Income relates to lifestyle," he said. "Wealth relates to balance sheets.".

http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/09/news/economy/wealth/index.htm

    I found this article in the money section of CNN.com so being from a national news agency it can be assumed that the information and ideas in the article are legitament and reliable. As for relevance this article was not from too long ago and even so I feel that no matter what the date an article on this topic could carry over for years to come. 

    Now I want everyone to ask themselves this, what do you feel the monetary value of being rich is? or is there even a value?

Capitalism cause and effects on history

Capitalism is a system that dates back to the early nineteenth century, and has many effects on historical events.  In the early nineteenth century capitalism started out with a negative repatriation, in England.  During that time period with the new free market many textile factories with horrible pay and terrible work condition, often run by women and children.  Although these factories sound terrible previous to the capitalism in New England poverty was so common that most children were seen off to live in poor house were they worked for no pay as house servants, or worked in fields for harsh agricultural labor; as for many children became beggars, thieves,  or prostitutes. Socialism popularity soon sky rocketed with peoples displeasure of these factories and with Karl Marx promise of a new "scientific" utopia.

Capitalism was also exploited in american in the 1870's by John D Rockefeller. Rockefeller exploited the pur competition that existed with extreme price cut driving his competition out business, and then proceeding jack up his prices. To stop this viscous process of forming monopoly's congress passed the Sherman act banning price slashing. 


http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Capitalism.html

I find this to be a good source because it is a .org and and has many credible refernces.