Capitalism: A Dish Best Served Cold

[Youch]

So you saying you are all for capitalism, except for all the ways Capitalism is ACTUALLY Practiced? Got it.

I don't think you've been reading with the intent to understand, but instead with the intent to reply and defend. That is shallow. The person with whom you've been debating has laid out a clear position, and you don't seem to get it.

Capitalism is not the problem. Capitalism has raised the standard of living for ALL HUMANS on earth, unlike anything else, unlike all the alternatives.

No, I understand Boss perfectly. Boss is one of those fuckheads who listens to Hate Radio all day and think that some day, little Billy, if he worships greed enough and hates government, the Greed Fairy will flutter down and make him rich.

And I was like that for years. Until I got my fill of working for "Capitalists", who usually made things worse because of their shortsighted greed.

After 2008, Capitalism is done. Time for something better.

You've yet to put up a cogent argument against his position.

And that you failed in corporate American does not equate to the necessity of the rest of us drowning is socialistic mire and misery and failure.

Your failure should not impact my family. Is that what you advocate? That I succumb to the failed philosophy of something-other-than-a-free-market?

 

[JoeB131]

[

You've yet to put up a cogent argument against his position.

And that you failed in corporate American does not equate to the necessity of the rest of us drowning is socialistic mire and misery and failure.

Your failure should not impact my family. Is that what you advocate? That I succumb to the failed philosophy of something-other-than-a-free-market?

S0rry, dude, after 2008, all discussions for "Capitalism" are over.

And frankly, as I've said, you guys already brought the socialism.

When the Waltons are the richest people in the country, but their employees are forced to go on food stamps, section 8 and Medicaid, the Socialism is already here.

 

[Youch]

[

You've yet to put up a cogent argument against his position.

And that you failed in corporate American does not equate to the necessity of the rest of us drowning is socialistic mire and misery and failure.

Your failure should not impact my family. Is that what you advocate? That I succumb to the failed philosophy of something-other-than-a-free-market?

S0rry, dude, after 2008, all discussions for "Capitalism" are over.

And frankly, as I've said, you guys already brought the socialism.

When the Waltons are the richest people in the country, but their employees are forced to go on food stamps, section 8 and Medicaid, the Socialism is already here.

Only intolerant liberals suggest a debate is already over before it is even begun. You're dismissiveness betrays your weakness. If you wanna discuss the greatest economic philosophy ever to benefit mankind, lets do so.

Let's discuss Walmart. How many people do they employ? How many millions do they benefit by bringing cheaper products to the market? And you piss on them because they got rich in the process? Ignorance.....

And oh by the way, "avoider of relevant issues," those employees are not FORCED to do a gal-darn thing.....they can go work somewhere else, or attempt to survive on retail wages as many others do.

As a lib, I would think you would want more people on food stamps and other government vote-buying schemes......

But your underlying theme seems to be socialism, a failed system everywhere in the world at every time in history. Why do ascribe to failure? Why do you ascribe to human suffering?

I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Only intolerant liberals suggest a debate is already over before it is even begun. You're dismissiveness betrays your weakness. If you wanna discuss the greatest economic philosophy ever to benefit mankind, lets do so.

Let's discuss Walmart. How many people do they employ? How many millions do they benefit by bringing cheaper products to the market? And you piss on them because they got rich in the process? Ignorance.....

Uh, no, I'm pissed that they've sent so many good manufacturing jobs to China. I'm pissed that their employees are paid so little that they need to go on the dole to keep from starving. I'm pissed that WalMart comes into a community, undercuts all the small businessmen you guys seem to think are the backbone of American Capitalism until they go out of business, and then pull up stakes and force people to drive miles to the WalMart they haven't closed down yet.

[
And oh by the way, "avoider of relevant issues," those employees are not FORCED to do a gal-darn thing.....they can go work somewhere else, or attempt to survive on retail wages as many others do.

Or they can vote for Democrats and just get more goodies the rest of us have to pay for. Oh, wait, they totally did that. Nice job tearing down the Middle Class firewall.

[
As a lib, I would think you would want more people on food stamps and other government vote-buying schemes......

No, I consider the fact we have so many able bodied people on these programs to be a PROFOUND Failure of the system you champion. As I said earlier, you capitalize benefit and socialize risk, that's not capitalism.

[
But your underlying theme seems to be socialism, a failed system everywhere in the world at every time in history. Why do ascribe to failure? Why do you ascribe to human suffering?

I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

Actually, there's been just as much human suffering caused by capitalism than Socialism< guy. Probably more.

 

[Youch]

[

Only intolerant liberals suggest a debate is already over before it is even begun. You're dismissiveness betrays your weakness. If you wanna discuss the greatest economic philosophy ever to benefit mankind, lets do so.

Let's discuss Walmart. How many people do they employ? How many millions do they benefit by bringing cheaper products to the market? And you piss on them because they got rich in the process? Ignorance.....

Uh, no, I'm pissed that they've sent so many good manufacturing jobs to China. I'm pissed that their employees are paid so little that they need to go on the dole to keep from starving. I'm pissed that WalMart comes into a community, undercuts all the small businessmen you guys seem to think are the backbone of American Capitalism until they go out of business, and then pull up stakes and force people to drive miles to the WalMart they haven't closed down yet.

[
And oh by the way, "avoider of relevant issues," those employees are not FORCED to do a gal-darn thing.....they can go work somewhere else, or attempt to survive on retail wages as many others do.

Or they can vote for Democrats and just get more goodies the rest of us have to pay for. Oh, wait, they totally did that. Nice job tearing down the Middle Class firewall.

[
As a lib, I would think you would want more people on food stamps and other government vote-buying schemes......

No, I consider the fact we have so many able bodied people on these programs to be a PROFOUND Failure of the system you champion. As I said earlier, you capitalize benefit and socialize risk, that's not capitalism.

[
But your underlying theme seems to be socialism, a failed system everywhere in the world at every time in history. Why do ascribe to failure? Why do you ascribe to human suffering?

I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

Actually, there's been just as much human suffering caused by capitalism than Socialism< guy. Probably more.

You keep calling me guy. That is interesting.

You keep espousing emotion and opinion, but not a shred of fact.

Let me know when you are serious. Capitalism wins every time. Easy to prove.

I am salivating over the anticipated proof than "much human suffering" has been caused by free markets. Bring it....

 

[Bfgrn]

If what you say is true, PLEASE provide the vast wealth of writings of our founding fathers on capitalism?

'The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.'
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).

Okay, we have to go back in history and dig up the details on what Jefferson was talking about. First of all, that is not the complete sentence Jefferson wrote. Here it is in entirety:

The troubles in the East have been produced by English agitators, operating on the selfish spirit of commerce, which knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain. the inordinate extent given it among us, by our becoming the factors of the whole world, has enabled it to control the agricultural & manufacturing interests. when a change of circumstances shall reduce it to an equilibrium with these, to the carrying our produce only, to be exchanged for our wants, it will return to a wholesome condition for the body politic, & that beyond which it should never more be encouraged to go.

So what was he talking about? Well, the British had been causing a lot of trouble for us. They were seizing trade ships of ours on the high sea and impressing American citizens (essentially enslaving them). In response to this, Jefferson had tried to enact an embargo on all goods from Britain, but because there was such great demand for British products, there was widespread black market trade going on. Jefferson is referring to these "English agitators" who were not abiding by the embargo.

What he is saying is, there is something more at play here than free market capitalism. Had people adhered to the embargo, the War of 1812 may never have happened. This is not Jefferson excoriating free market capitalism at all, it is about principles of an embargo being upheld.

If you read the OP, I clearly addressed undesirable capitalist endeavors. I have never said any and all capitalism is great and wonderful, no need for any restrictions whatsoever. Sometimes pinheads simply forget the preface "FREE MARKET" capitalism. Now, this has major significance and can't be overlooked. FREE MARKET capitalism is a system where the market is free from interference or influence by outside forces, such as black market trade, price gouging, exploitation, slavery, etc. Those can also be capitalist ventures, it's not what we are talking about when we discuss "free market capitalism."

The "entirety" does not change, in any way shape or form, exactly what Jefferson was saying. He was explaining the core motivation of the "English agitators"...greed. He understood human foible.

You 'claim' conservatives are against greed, exploitation, price gouging etc. Yet, I have not seen ANY conservative on this board ever take up the torch of controlling ANY greed, exploitation or price gouging by private entities, even though it was that very malfeasance that brought our economy to a grinding halt 7 years ago.

Instead, when evil liberals take up that torch, conservatives only response is to say liberals are 'Marxists, socialists and communists.

You have yet to address my earlier post.

The way to get rid of greed is a TRUE free market, not the current malfeasance of crony capitalism.

You seem to want to school liberals on markets. So tell me, what is you knowledge of:

1) externalization

2) how absentee ownership of companies destroys a KEY ingredient of a TRUE free market, that owner being a stakeholder in the results of that company's actions.

 

[Bfgrn]

I do understand it, and as I've pointed out, the OP makes very clear there is an undesirable underbelly to capitalism of a certain kind. Liberals exploit that constantly, that's why Capitalism is a dish best served cold. In the United States, we have what we call "free market" capitalism. So my arguments, my comments, my positions and points are regarding this type of capitalism in specific. Not exploitation capitalism, not capitalism run amok or controlled by a monarch or empire, not corrupt or crony capitalism which buys off political power in order to advantage itself over free market competition. Are we straight?

If what you say you believe is true, you should completely support what a liberal you despise has to say.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s speech at the Sierra Summit, September 10, 2005

I want to say this: There is no stronger advocate for free-market capitalism than myself. I believe that the free market is the most efficient and democratic way to distribute the goods of the land, and that the best thing that could happen to the environment is if we had true free-market capitalism in this country, because the free market promotes efficiency, and efficiency means the elimination of waste, and pollution of course is waste. The free market also would encourage us to properly value our natural resources, and it's the undervaluation of those resources that causes us to use them wastefully. But in a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

But what polluters do is they make themselves rich by making everybody else poor. They raise standards of living for themselves by lowering the quality of life for everybody else, and they do that by evading the discipline of the free market. You show me a polluter; I'll show you a subsidy. I'll show you a fat cat using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and to force the public to pay his production costs. That's what all pollution is. It's always a subsidy. It's always a guy trying to cheat the free market.

Corporations are externalizing machines. They're constantly figuring out ways to get somebody else to pay their costs of production. That's their nature. One of the best ways to do that, and the most common way for a polluter, is through pollution. When those coal-burning power plants put mercury into the atmosphere that comes down from the Ohio Valley to my state of New York, I buy a fishing license for $30 every year, but I can't go fishing and eat the fish anymore because they stole the fish from me. They liquidated a public asset, my asset.

The rule is the commons are owned by all of us. They're not owned by the governor or the legislator or the coal companies and the utility. Everybody has a right to use them. Nobody has a right to abuse them. Nobody has a right to use them in a way that will diminish or injure their use and enjoyment by others. But they've stolen that entire resource from the people of New York State. When they put the acid rain in the air, it destroys our forest, and it destroys the lakes that we use for recreation or outfitting or tourism or wealth generation. When they put the mercury in the air, the mercury poisons our children's brains, and that imposes a cost on us. The ozone in particular has caused a million asthma attacks a year, kills 18,000 people, causes hundreds of thousands of lost work days. All of those impacts impose costs on the rest of us that in a true free-market economy should be reflected in the price of that company's product when it makes it to the marketplace.

What those companies and all polluters do is use political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and to force the public to pay their costs. All of the federal environmental laws, every one of the 28 major environmental laws, were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market. That's what we do with the Riverkeepers -- we have 147 licensed Riverkeepers now and each one has a patrol boat, each one is a full-time, paid Riverkeeper -- each one agrees to sue polluters.

At Riverkeeper, we don't even consider ourselves environmentalists anymore. We're free marketers. We go out into the marketplace, we catch the cheaters, the polluters, and we say to them, "We're going to force you to internalize your costs the same way that you internalize your profits, because as long as somebody is cheating the free market, none of us get the advantages of the efficiency and the democracy and the prosperity that the free market otherwise promises our country. What we have to understand as a nation is that there is a huge difference between free-market capitalism, which democratizes a country, which makes us more prosperous and efficient, and the kind of corporate-crony capitalism which has been embraced by this (Bush) White House, which is as antithetical to democracy, to prosperity, and efficiency in America as it is in Nigeria.

There is nothing wrong with corporations. Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs. I own a corporation. They're a great thing, but they should not be running our government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.

And that doesn't mean corporations are a bad thing. It just means they're amoral, and we have to recognize that and not let them into the political process. Let them do their thing, but they should not be participating in our political process, because a corporation cannot do something genuinely philanthropic. It's against the law in this country, because their shareholders can sue them for wasting corporate resources. They cannot legally do anything that will not increase their profit margins. That's the way the law works, and we have to recognize that and understand that they are toxic for the political process, and they have to be fenced off and kept out of the political process. This is why throughout our history our most visionary political leaders -- Republican and Democrat -- have been warning the American public against domination by corporate power.

 

[initforme]

Capitalism is the best system out there no doubt. It must be regulated however otherwise it will be used against the middle class and working poor. The only sad part about it is that we as a nation will protect the big corporations like BP who spewed millions of barrels of scummy oil and got away with it with a slap on a wrist when I believe they should have been penalized a lot more severely. They then had the gall to blame it on regulations. That is a blatant lie. If it were up to them they would willfully pollute at a higher level to save a buck. And this goes for both parties, not just one. We have the corporate united states of America now and they pretty much do as they please... the corporations that is.

 

[JoeB131]

Capitalism is the best system out there no doubt. It must be regulated however otherwise it will be used against the middle class and working poor. The only sad part about it is that we as a nation will protect the big corporations like BP who spewed millions of barrels of scummy oil and got away with it with a slap on a wrist when I believe they should have been penalized a lot more severely. They then had the gall to blame it on regulations. That is a blatant lie. If it were up to them they would willfully pollute at a higher level to save a buck. And this goes for both parties, not just one. We have the corporate united states of America now and they pretty much do as they please... the corporations that is.

If a system is used against the middle class and working poor, save for regulators who can be bought off, then it isn't the "best system out there."

BP and AIG act the way they do because they want to make a profit, and they don't care who ends up holding the bag.

Once more, it goes back to what I said, when you socialized the risks and consequences, it isn't capitalism.

So AIG provokes a major financial crisis by underwriting all the bad behavior by the banks with Sub-Prime mortgages and such, and then they smugly say to our politicians, 'We're too big to fail and too big to jail, so give us our bailout, suckers!!!!!"

And 93% of the wealth generated in the "Recovery" has gone to the top 1%.

But this is an awesome system. Really.

 

[Boss]

So you saying you are all for capitalism, except for all the ways Capitalism is ACTUALLY Practiced? Got it.

No, I am for free market capitalism the only way it is practiced. You are the jackass who has been brainwashed by propaganda that capitalism is evil and bad.

 

[Boss]

No, I understand Boss perfectly. Boss is one of those fuckheads who listens to Hate Radio all day and think that some day, little Billy, if he worships greed enough and hates government, the Greed Fairy will flutter down and make him rich.

And I was like that for years. Until I got my fill of working for "Capitalists", who usually made things worse because of their shortsighted greed.

After 2008, Capitalism is done. Time for something better.

No, you don't understand Boss at all, and it is you who is parroting memes from your socialist blogger friends. Like the meme that conservatives support capitalism because they think they may one day be rich.

For the record, I am pretty well set financially. I wouldn't call myself "rich" but some poor person may. I'm definitely not poor and I earned every penny I have. I was taught early in life to work hard for your goals, no one owes you anything, and if you can't pay cash for it you don't need it. I've never depended on government for a damn thing.

After 2008, Capitalism is done. Time for something better.

The stupidest comment and most ill-conceived argument ever posted on USMB.... and that is saying something. There is nothing better than free market capitalism, this has been established. No other system ever devised by man is responsible for as many millionaires and billionaires, nothing is even remotely close.

You are promoting failed 19th century Marxism which is responsible for more death and oppression than any system ever devised. You are too stupid and illiterate of history to realize this.

 

[Boss]

You 'claim' conservatives are against greed, exploitation, price gouging etc.

No, I said greed is not conducive to free market capitalist principles. I made no comment about who is "for" or "against" anything. There are greedy individuals who will exploit others in every facet of life. Greed and exploitation are much more prevalent in a totalitarian socialist/communist system because there is no political accountability and free market principles aren't in play.

Free market capitalism mitigates greed through competition. A greedy capitalist soon finds himself replaced by a less greedy capitalist.

Yet, I have not seen ANY conservative on this board ever take up the torch of controlling ANY greed, exploitation or price gouging by private entities, even though it was that very malfeasance that brought our economy to a grinding halt 7 years ago.

Not it wasn't, that is simply the rhetorical myth you wish to spread. Our economy was ruined by socialistic debt that remains unchecked, and government meddling in capitalist affairs it has no business in. But like any true liberal, you'll always find a way to spin your clusterfucks and make them the fault of the enemy.

Instead, when evil liberals take up that torch, conservatives only response is to say liberals are 'Marxists, socialists and communists.

It's because that's what you are promoting, you fuckwit.

You have yet to address my earlier post.

The way to get rid of greed is a TRUE free market, not the current malfeasance of crony capitalism.

You seem to want to school liberals on markets. So tell me, what is you knowledge of:

1) externalization

2) how absentee ownership of companies destroys a KEY ingredient of a TRUE free market, that owner being a stakeholder in the results of that company's actions.

First... There IS no way to get rid of greed. We will always and forever have greed, just as we will always have love and hate. There's not a Utopian answer. Yes, free market capitalism mitigates greed through competition, a point I have made.

Externalization is a form of exploitation capitalism and should be regulated. For clarification, this does not include outsourcing or offshoring, those are legitimate free market practices.

Absentee ownership is not a significant problem and doesn't destroy any aspect of a free market. An absentee owner is still an owner and still has a stake in the results of the company's actions.

And for future reference, there are very few of these which I will commit to a blanket response. Nuance is always required when dealing with individual situations and circumstances.

 

[Boss]

Capitalism is the best system out there no doubt. It must be regulated however otherwise it will be used against the middle class and working poor. The only sad part about it is that we as a nation will protect the big corporations like BP who spewed millions of barrels of scummy oil and got away with it with a slap on a wrist when I believe they should have been penalized a lot more severely. They then had the gall to blame it on regulations. That is a blatant lie. If it were up to them they would willfully pollute at a higher level to save a buck. And this goes for both parties, not just one. We have the corporate united states of America now and they pretty much do as they please... the corporations that is.

If a system is used against the middle class and working poor, save for regulators who can be bought off, then it isn't the "best system out there."

BP and AIG act the way they do because they want to make a profit, and they don't care who ends up holding the bag.

Once more, it goes back to what I said, when you socialized the risks and consequences, it isn't capitalism.

So AIG provokes a major financial crisis by underwriting all the bad behavior by the banks with Sub-Prime mortgages and such, and then they smugly say to our politicians, 'We're too big to fail and too big to jail, so give us our bailout, suckers!!!!!"

And 93% of the wealth generated in the "Recovery" has gone to the top 1%.

But this is an awesome system. Really.

Are you auditioning for Biggest Fucking Idiot on USMB, or what? First of all, it was liberals and moderate establishment republicans who argued "too big to fail" and ordered bailouts. Conservatives and the Tea Party were staunchly opposed. NOW you want to complain about who got the money?

This so called "socializing the risks" you speak of, that's called "crony capitalism" and it's exploitive and wrong, as I pointed out in the OP by dedicating a paragraph to. No one is in favor of that, no one is promoting that, and the principles of free market capitalism have nothing to do with that.

If a system is used against the middle class and working poor...

Let's sprinkle in some more Marxist claptrap here! The system used against the middle class and poor is the Socialist/Communist Marxist system of totalitarian government. In America, we are free to pursue our ambitions in a free market capitalist system of free enterprise and constitutional liberty. So no one has to be relegated to "middle class" or "working poor" if they don't want to be.

Your memes and rhetoric are designed to appeal to serfs in the 19th century who made up most of Asia and Eastern Europe. They don't apply here, which is why you have to spend so much time painting the picture of hopelessness, doom and gloom. We're all a bunch of helpless victims chained to our "class" in life with no means of escape. We need Big Brother to step in and right the wrongs, redistribute the wealth, make things better for the working poor. Problem is, whenever and wherever this has been tried, it failed miserably. It created a ruling class and destroyed any hope of freedom or escape from class.

 

[JoeB131]

So you saying you are all for capitalism, except for all the ways Capitalism is ACTUALLY Practiced? Got it.

No, I am for free market capitalism the only way it is practiced. You are the jackass who has been brainwashed by propaganda that capitalism is evil and bad.

No, I got a first hand taste of what it's like to be between a greedy capitalist and money.

 

[n0spam4me]

Capitalizm will fail of its own, sooner or later,
however, if WE THE PEOPLE engineer the change, WE have the opportunity to control said change ( change U can believe in anyone? ) starts out with this silly exercise in madness called the midterm elections, everybody who actually cares, PLEASE VOTE and vote for the NOT a Democrat & NOT a Republican. Next we all gotta boycott Black Friday! the annual orgy of consumption is anti-productive!
We have been lied to - KILL YOUR TELEVISION! it is not only a vast wasteland, its a propaganda machine!

 

[JoeB131]

[

Are you auditioning for Biggest Fucking Idiot on USMB, or what?

No, man, you totally got that one covered.

[
First of all, it was liberals and moderate establishment republicans who argued "too big to fail" and ordered bailouts. Conservatives and the Tea Party were staunchly opposed. NOW you want to complain about who got the money?

Get Real. Bush was the guy who did this, and he was totally the boy of the "Conservatives". And the "Teabaggers" wouldn't know what to think if a Koch Brother didn't tell him.

[
This so called "socializing the risks" you speak of, that's called "crony capitalism" and it's exploitive and wrong, as I pointed out in the OP by dedicating a paragraph to. No one is in favor of that, no one is promoting that, and the principles of free market capitalism have nothing to do with that.

We're back to the "no True Scotsman" fallacy, and it's just as phony as those socialists who claim that "Real communism' has never been tried.

[
If a system is used against the middle class and working poor...

Let's sprinkle in some more Marxist claptrap here! The system used against the middle class and poor is the Socialist/Communist Marxist system of totalitarian government. In America, we are free to pursue our ambitions in a free market capitalist system of free enterprise and constitutional liberty. So no one has to be relegated to "middle class" or "working poor" if they don't want to be.

And what about those of us who aren't one of the "Winners"? You see, your argument is that we should be happy that you let us play a rigged game and shouldn't complain when we lose our money.

[
Your memes and rhetoric are designed to appeal to serfs in the 19th century who made up most of Asia and Eastern Europe. They don't apply here, which is why you have to spend so much time painting the picture of hopelessness, doom and gloom. We're all a bunch of helpless victims chained to our "class" in life with no means of escape. We need Big Brother to step in and right the wrongs, redistribute the wealth, make things better for the working poor. Problem is, whenever and wherever this has been tried, it failed miserably. It created a ruling class and destroyed any hope of freedom or escape from class.

Uh, not really.

Frankly, there was a period when we had it right, and within my own lifetime. Growing up, I was in a middle class, union neighborhood where all the dads had good union jobs and nice houses. Most of them didn't go to college, but they had a union that made sure that when the stack of money from an enterprise got divided, it got divided fairly. And we were all better off for it.

 

[Boss]

Get Real. Bush was the guy who did this, and he was totally the boy of the "Conservatives". And the "Teabaggers" wouldn't know what to think if a Koch Brother didn't tell him.

The only conservatives who liked Bush were social conservatives.

[
This so called "socializing the risks" you speak of, that's called "crony capitalism" and it's exploitive and wrong, as I pointed out in the OP by dedicating a paragraph to. No one is in favor of that, no one is promoting that, and the principles of free market capitalism have nothing to do with that.

We're back to the "no True Scotsman" fallacy, and it's just as phony as those socialists who claim that "Real communism' has never been tried.

No, we're not back to the true scotsman fallacy, crony capitalism isn't free market capitalism. It's like saying a Scotsman and Irishman are the same thing.

[
If a system is used against the middle class and working poor...

Let's sprinkle in some more Marxist claptrap here! The system used against the middle class and poor is the Socialist/Communist Marxist system of totalitarian government. In America, we are free to pursue our ambitions in a free market capitalist system of free enterprise and constitutional liberty. So no one has to be relegated to "middle class" or "working poor" if they don't want to be.

And what about those of us who aren't one of the "Winners"? You see, your argument is that we should be happy that you let us play a rigged game and shouldn't complain when we lose our money.

We're all winners in a free market capitalist system of free enterprise and constitutional liberty. The free market capitalism game is not rigged, the only rigging being done or proposed is by socialist Marxists who want to destroy free market capitalism so they can usher in Communism.

What you should do is not complain. Stop making yourself a victim. Be responsible for yourself and have ambition. Stop expecting someone else to take care of you. Stop believing your situation is hopeless and the world owes you something more.

[
Your memes and rhetoric are designed to appeal to serfs in the 19th century who made up most of Asia and Eastern Europe. They don't apply here, which is why you have to spend so much time painting the picture of hopelessness, doom and gloom. We're all a bunch of helpless victims chained to our "class" in life with no means of escape. We need Big Brother to step in and right the wrongs, redistribute the wealth, make things better for the working poor. Problem is, whenever and wherever this has been tried, it failed miserably. It created a ruling class and destroyed any hope of freedom or escape from class.

Uh, not really. (YES, REALLY!)

Frankly, there was a period when we had it right, and within my own lifetime. Growing up, I was in a middle class, union neighborhood where all the dads had good union jobs and nice houses. Most of them didn't go to college, but they had a union that made sure that when the stack of money from an enterprise got divided, it got divided fairly. And we were all better off for it.

Yes, and what happened with the Union jobs? Greed became the dominate factor and eventually capitalists found other alternatives. Your socialistic practices of trying to force capitalists to pay what you desired for labor failed and failed miserably.

 

[Bfgrn]

You 'claim' conservatives are against greed, exploitation, price gouging etc.

No, I said greed is not conducive to free market capitalist principles. I made no comment about who is "for" or "against" anything. There are greedy individuals who will exploit others in every facet of life. Greed and exploitation are much more prevalent in a totalitarian socialist/communist system because there is no political accountability and free market principles aren't in play.

Free market capitalism mitigates greed through competition. A greedy capitalist soon finds himself replaced by a less greedy capitalist.

Yet, I have not seen ANY conservative on this board ever take up the torch of controlling ANY greed, exploitation or price gouging by private entities, even though it was that very malfeasance that brought our economy to a grinding halt 7 years ago.

Not it wasn't, that is simply the rhetorical myth you wish to spread. Our economy was ruined by socialistic debt that remains unchecked, and government meddling in capitalist affairs it has no business in. But like any true liberal, you'll always find a way to spin your clusterfucks and make them the fault of the enemy.

Instead, when evil liberals take up that torch, conservatives only response is to say liberals are 'Marxists, socialists and communists.

It's because that's what you are promoting, you fuckwit.

You have yet to address my earlier post.

The way to get rid of greed is a TRUE free market, not the current malfeasance of crony capitalism.

You seem to want to school liberals on markets. So tell me, what is you knowledge of:

1) externalization

2) how absentee ownership of companies destroys a KEY ingredient of a TRUE free market, that owner being a stakeholder in the results of that company's actions.

First... There IS no way to get rid of greed. We will always and forever have greed, just as we will always have love and hate. There's not a Utopian answer. Yes, free market capitalism mitigates greed through competition, a point I have made.

Externalization is a form of exploitation capitalism and should be regulated. For clarification, this does not include outsourcing or offshoring, those are legitimate free market practices.

Absentee ownership is not a significant problem and doesn't destroy any aspect of a free market. An absentee owner is still an owner and still has a stake in the results of the company's actions.

And for future reference, there are very few of these which I will commit to a blanket response. Nuance is always required when dealing with individual situations and circumstances.

You 'claim' conservatives are against greed, exploitation, price gouging etc.

No, I said greed is not conducive to free market capitalist principles. I made no comment about who is "for" or "against" anything. There are greedy individuals who will exploit others in every facet of life. Greed and exploitation are much more prevalent in a totalitarian socialist/communist system because there is no political accountability and free market principles aren't in play.

Free market capitalism mitigates greed through competition. A greedy capitalist soon finds himself replaced by a less greedy capitalist.

Yet, I have not seen ANY conservative on this board ever take up the torch of controlling ANY greed, exploitation or price gouging by private entities, even though it was that very malfeasance that brought our economy to a grinding halt 7 years ago.

Not it wasn't, that is simply the rhetorical myth you wish to spread. Our economy was ruined by socialistic debt that remains unchecked, and government meddling in capitalist affairs it has no business in. But like any true liberal, you'll always find a way to spin your clusterfucks and make them the fault of the enemy.

Instead, when evil liberals take up that torch, conservatives only response is to say liberals are 'Marxists, socialists and communists.

It's because that's what you are promoting, you fuckwit.

You have yet to address my earlier post.

The way to get rid of greed is a TRUE free market, not the current malfeasance of crony capitalism.

You seem to want to school liberals on markets. So tell me, what is you knowledge of:

1) externalization

2) how absentee ownership of companies destroys a KEY ingredient of a TRUE free market, that owner being a stakeholder in the results of that company's actions.

First... There IS no way to get rid of greed. We will always and forever have greed, just as we will always have love and hate. There's not a Utopian answer. Yes, free market capitalism mitigates greed through competition, a point I have made.

Externalization is a form of exploitation capitalism and should be regulated. For clarification, this does not include outsourcing or offshoring, those are legitimate free market practices.

Absentee ownership is not a significant problem and doesn't destroy any aspect of a free market. An absentee owner is still an owner and still has a stake in the results of the company's actions.

And for future reference, there are very few of these which I will commit to a blanket response. Nuance is always required when dealing with individual situations and circumstances.

I have never called for a totalitarian socialist/communist system. I have called for a TRUE free market system, where every player in the market internalizes their costs, just like they internalize their profits.

Greed cannot be eliminated, but it can be prevented from doing severe damage through market rules and regulations.

Our economy was ruined by a lack of government oversight of PRIVATE lending institutions. It had nothing to do with the Community Reinvestment Act, and Fannie and Freddie were not the cause of the meltdown. It was caused by PRIVATE lenders selling to mostly upper middle class and wealthy buyers.

Absentee ownership destroys a TRUE free market, because those owners don't have to live and breath in the conditions they create. Dogs don't sleep in their own shit.

 

[JoeB131]

The only conservatives who liked Bush were social conservatives.

The Neo-Conservatives like Bush just fine. He was all for invading other countries for them.

We're all winners in a free market capitalist system of free enterprise and constitutional liberty. The free market capitalism game is not rigged, the only rigging being done or proposed is by socialist Marxists who want to destroy free market capitalism so they can usher in Communism.

Sorry, dude, when I got let go from my last job because they fired me after running up medical bills, I kind of felt like it was a rigged game.

Yes, and what happened with the Union jobs? Greed became the dominate factor and eventually capitalists found other alternatives. Your socialistic practices of trying to force capitalists to pay what you desired for labor failed and failed miserably.

No, the Capitalists bought the politicians and fucked it up. We had an awesome time when we had a middle class, and the rich capitalists fucked it up. The greed of a guy who wants four mansions and a dressage horsie is the problem, not the greed of a guy who wants a good wage for taking care of his family.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Naw, it's just laughable that anyone is still trying to push "Greed is Good" after 2008.

Kind of like anyone extolling the virtues of fascism after 1945.

it comes as no surprise a simplistic dismissive post would come from you.
You are one of these ne'er do wells who cannot wrap what's left of your brain the fact that there is a huge difference between profit and greed.
You insanely believe they are one in the same.
Fact is we are all capitalists. Yes, even you. You have a job. You trade your skills for compensation. Each party receives a benefit. That is capitalism.
Shut up.