Capitalism: A Dish Best Served Cold

[Boss]

... I see a difference between profit and greed.

Profit is a reasonable return on your investment of time, ingenuity or resources.

Greed is taking far more than you need or deserve, usually by cheating the people who use your services or the people who actually did the hard work.

And seeing that as destructive isn't "insane". It's actually kind of rational, as no good ever comes of greed at that level.

Again, I'll keep making the same simple point, a greedy capitalist soon finds himself replaced by a less greedy capitalist. You keep talking about what the capitalist needs or deserves at the cost of the consumer or employee as if the capitalist gets to determine that all on his own. Is someone forcing you to buy a product or service? Is someone forcing you to do a job you feel you are underpaid for?

Why is it that you think it's YOUR right to decide what is a "reasonable return?" Have you taken any of the risks? Did you make any sacrifices? And if you believe there is a more reasonable return achieved by paying higher wages or lowering cost to consumers, why haven't you gone into business to put the greedy capitalist out of business?

Again, in a free market capitalist system, the capitalist has the objective of making the most profit possible by providing a good or service to a willing, buying consumer, who is mutually satisfied with the transaction. If he attempts to charge too much, another capitalist competitor will charge less and get the business. If he doesn't pay employees well enough, they quit and go to work for the other capitalist who pays more.

You see, it is actually the forces of a free market capitalist system which counteracts "greed" for the most part. Are there still greedy people? Of course there are, there will always be, we can't ever eliminate all greed. It is actually when we move away from a free market system we see "greed" exacerbated. Power over the capitalist prompts greed in those who hold the power.

Your understanding of capitalism is laced with fatal flaws. It is infantile, foolish and a fairy tale.

Capitalism destroys the main planks on which most of us wish to build our societies - democracy, a market economy, and an ethical culture. Consequently, we need to adopt policies which are almost exactly the opposite of those being followed at present.

We live in a world being pillaged by the institutions of global capitalism to enrich the few at the expense of the many. It has become more than just a political issue. We have reached the point in human history at which the very survival of civilization and perhaps our species depends on replacing these rogue institutions with institutions supportive of democracy, market economies, and ethical cultures that function in service to life and community.

For those of us who grew up believing that capitalism is the foundation of democracy, market freedom, and the good life it has been a rude awakening to realize that under capitalism, democracy is for sale to the highest bidder, the market is centrally planned by global mega-corporations larger than most countries, the elimination of jobs and livelihoods is rewarded as an economic virtue, and the destruction of nature and life to make money for the already rich is viewed as progress. Global capitalism is not democratic and it systematically violates every principle of a market economy.

Under global capitalism the world is ruled by a global financial casino staffed by faceless bankers, money managers, and hedge-fund speculators who operate with a herd mentality that sends exchange rates and stock prices into wild gyrations unrelated to any underlying economic reality. With reckless abandon they make and break national economies, buy and sell corporations, and hire and fire corporate CEOs--holding the most powerful politicians and corporate managers hostage to their interests. When their bets pay off they claim the winnings as their own. When they lose, they run to governments and public institutions to make up their losses with cries that the financial skies will fall if they are forced to suffer the market's discipline.

Contrary to its claims, capitalism's relationship to democracy and the market economy is much the same as the relationship of a cancer to the body whose life energies it expropriates. Cancer is a pathology that occurs when an otherwise healthy cell forgets that it is a part of the body and begins to pursue its own unlimited growth without regard to the consequences for the whole. The growth of the cancerous cells deprives the healthy cells of nourishment and ultimately kills both the body and itself. Capitalism does much the same to the societies it infests.

Your understanding of capitalism is laced with fatal flaws. It is infantile, foolish and a fairy tale.

Are you talking to yourself again, Bfoon? You people are a joke, you reel off a page long diatribe that is obviously a cut and paste from some socialist blog, and then run around getting butt hurt because someone calls you a Marxist. I don't know whether you are too embarrassed to admit what you are or you're too stupid to know.

Nothing you posted contradicts a damn thing I had to say about free market capitalism. It is a rant. A baseless and factless opinion which is probably not even your original opinion. But somehow, your dumb ass believes it has refuted my points about free market capitalism. Sorry, you fail.

 

[Dot Com]

Part of the problem ( and this is NOT a "right" vs "left" issue)
is the fact that people somehow feel compelled to BUY STUFF,
even if you KNOW that your life would have only marginal ( if that ... )
incremental improvement by say purchasing the latest cell-phone or somekinda gadget, people rush out to the shops and BUY, BUY, BUY! because its what we do.
Consumerism is NOT sustainable! think about it!

exactly!!!

New climate change film highlights gross incentives of econ model US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Boss]

Why is it that you think it's YOUR right to decide what is a "reasonable return?" Have you taken any of the risks? Did you make any sacrifices? And if you believe there is a more reasonable return achieved by paying higher wages or lowering cost to consumers, why haven't you gone into business to put the greedy capitalist out of business?

Hmmm. Why do I think it's MY right? Last time I checked, I lived in a DEMOCRACY. If we vote to limit what kind of damage the Corporatists and Plutocrats do, guess what, they have to learn to deal.

Corporatists and plutocrats are detrimental to free market capitalism. When the power of government is used to control free market capitalism, that is called Fascism. So now, you're a Fascist and not a Marxist?

Now here is the major problem with your idea that you and democracy should get to determine "reasonable return" for the capitalist... the capitalist doesn't agree. Therefore, the capitalist will find another way to profit or move to somewhere else where they can practice free market capitalism.

You've driven the manufacturing sector jobs out of this country because you and your union thugs thought it "reasonable" the capitalist pay labor $25 per hr., give 9 weeks of paid vacation, plus family leave, plus benefits and pensions. The capitalist found a more reasonable alternative and now you blame the capitalist.

Again, in a free market capitalist system, the capitalist has the objective of making the most profit possible by providing a good or service to a willing, buying consumer, who is mutually satisfied with the transaction. If he attempts to charge too much, another capitalist competitor will charge less and get the business. If he doesn't pay employees well enough, they quit and go to work for the other capitalist who pays more.

I don't look at the Free Market with the religious awe you do. Nor do I wait for market forces to inflict some kind of economic Karma on the Capitalist AFTER he's fucked me over. Has that happened? Yup. A lot of the bad actors I've dealt with over the years had their companies go down in flames because they were assholes. Did that do me any good? Not really.

It's not "karma" it's the way the free market capitalist system works. You've never been forced to work at a job you didn't want to do or felt you weren't paid enough to do. You've never been forced to buy a product or service you didn't want. (Up until Obamacare.)

Now, whenever you've successfully destroyed free market capitalism, you will be forced to work at whatever your government deems is best, and you'll be forced to buy whatever the government provides. If you don't like that or think it is reasonable, you will have no recourse.

 

[JoeB131]

Now, whenever you've successfully destroyed free market capitalism, you will be forced to work at whatever your government deems is best, and you'll be forced to buy whatever the government provides. If you don't like that or think it is reasonable, you will have no recourse.

You mean other than voting? Strikes me, that if we all worked for the government, the government would have a vested interest in keeping us happy.

Unlike the Corporatist, who pretty much will just use his money to bully the rest of us

 

[Boss]

Now, whenever you've successfully destroyed free market capitalism, you will be forced to work at whatever your government deems is best, and you'll be forced to buy whatever the government provides. If you don't like that or think it is reasonable, you will have no recourse.

You mean other than voting? Strikes me, that if we all worked for the government, the government would have a vested interest in keeping us happy.

Unlike the Corporatist, who pretty much will just use his money to bully the rest of us

Voting? What would be the point in voting again? Yes... it would seem that under such a system, government would have a vested interest in keeping you happy. In fact, this is precisely why millions of Chinese peasants revolted to overthrow their government and install Chairman Mao into power. They even used the same rhetoric against the "corporatists" or "capitalists" to garner popular support for the movement.

The problem is, once you've destroyed capitalism and a free market system, you are solely dependent upon whoever is in power. The people in power are aware of this, and therefore, they hold the upper hand. Any elections you have will be rigged, like they were in China for 40 years, where the ruler gets 98% of the vote. The Ruling Class will not be removable through elections, you'll need to stage a coup. When you are caught planning such a coup or even talking about it, you'll be executed by the people who hold power.

You are literally a big enough fool to give away your freedom for the promise that government will take care of you. The very freedom which thousands of Americans died to defend and protect, and thousands serve to defend to this day. It means no more to you than what some pissant on a socialist blog has said. You're willing to throw all of our history down the toilet for a meme.

 

[Youch]

[


Shall I repeat myself, or did you understand the first time? Cuz we seem to be getting closer to an agreement.

No, i understood you perfectly well. It's too bad the system you belive in with benevolent free markets doesn't exist.

Capitalism is the belief the worst people doing things for the worst reasons produces a good result.

Oh I see, so rather than pursue an avenue toward freer enterprise, you instead hop on the failed idea of the opposite?

Please justify such a dumb position with historical examples. Thanks.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Oh I see, so rather than pursue an avenue toward freer enterprise, you instead hop on the failed idea of the opposite?

Please justify such a dumb position with historical examples. Thanks.

You mean other than America, after the New Deal, when we became the richest country in the world because we looked out for the working man?

 

[Boss]

You mean other than America, after the New Deal, when we became the richest country in the world because we looked out for the working man?

Why don't you explain how we became rich through New Deal policies which looked out for working men? Please elaborate further, unless this is a bit of mindless rhetoric.

Most economists will tell you, the New Deal policies were not what brought us out of depression. In some ways, they contributed to a longer depression than would have normally happened, which had happened previously in history. Most of our economic recovery came as a result of supporting and eventually joining WWII.

No one that I am aware of has proposed that no one should look out for the working man. In fact, the conservative philosophy on that is to protect the working man by providing a robust economy and jobs and getting government out of his face and pocket. It is the working man you are shaking down to fund Liberal La-La Utopianism.

 

[JoeB131]

You mean other than America, after the New Deal, when we became the richest country in the world because we looked out for the working man?

Why don't you explain how we became rich through New Deal policies which looked out for working men? Please elaborate further, unless this is a bit of mindless rhetoric.

Most economists will tell you, the New Deal policies were not what brought us out of depression. In some ways, they contributed to a longer depression than would have normally happened, which had happened previously in history. Most of our economic recovery came as a result of supporting and eventually joining WWII.

No one that I am aware of has proposed that no one should look out for the working man. In fact, the conservative philosophy on that is to protect the working man by providing a robust economy and jobs and getting government out of his face and pocket. It is the working man you are shaking down to fund Liberal La-La Utopianism.

i'm starting to think you are some kind of high-functioning retarded person.... who just parrots whatever shit he heard on hate radio.

Sorry, I've had enough encounters with 'conservatives' and 'capitalists' and 'Christians" fucking me over as a working guy to pretty much want to shoot them on sight.

We had our greatest prosperity with Unions, Keynesian economics and high taxes on rich cocksuckers. We need to go back to that.

 

[Dot Com]

You mean other than America, after the New Deal, when we became the richest country in the world because we looked out for the working man?

Why don't you explain how we became rich through New Deal policies which looked out for working men? Please elaborate further, unless this is a bit of mindless rhetoric.

Most economists will tell you, the New Deal policies were not what brought us out of depression. In some ways, they contributed to a longer depression than would have normally happened, which had happened previously in history. Most of our economic recovery came as a result of supporting and eventually joining WWII.

No one that I am aware of has proposed that no one should look out for the working man. In fact, the conservative philosophy on that is to protect the working man by providing a robust economy and jobs and getting government out of his face and pocket. It is the working man you are shaking down to fund Liberal La-La Utopianism.

i'm starting to think you are some kind of high-functioning retarded person.... who just parrots whatever shit he heard on hate radio.

Sorry, I've had enough encounters with 'conservatives' and 'capitalists' and 'Christians" fucking me over as a working guy to pretty much want to shoot them on sight.

We had our greatest prosperity with Unions, Keynesian economics and high taxes on rich cocksuckers. We need to go back to that.

^ that

Capitalism has run amok and, sadly, looks like the oligarchs have captured the govt/law writing (See- ALEC)

 

[Boss]

You mean other than America, after the New Deal, when we became the richest country in the world because we looked out for the working man?

Why don't you explain how we became rich through New Deal policies which looked out for working men? Please elaborate further, unless this is a bit of mindless rhetoric.

Most economists will tell you, the New Deal policies were not what brought us out of depression. In some ways, they contributed to a longer depression than would have normally happened, which had happened previously in history. Most of our economic recovery came as a result of supporting and eventually joining WWII.

No one that I am aware of has proposed that no one should look out for the working man. In fact, the conservative philosophy on that is to protect the working man by providing a robust economy and jobs and getting government out of his face and pocket. It is the working man you are shaking down to fund Liberal La-La Utopianism.

i'm starting to think you are some kind of high-functioning retarded person.... who just parrots whatever shit he heard on hate radio.

Sorry, I've had enough encounters with 'conservatives' and 'capitalists' and 'Christians" fucking me over as a working guy to pretty much want to shoot them on sight.

We had our greatest prosperity with Unions, Keynesian economics and high taxes on rich cocksuckers. We need to go back to that.

You've still not explained any New Deal policy which made us rich by looking out for the working man. Instead, you reveal a level of personal hate against capitalists, conservatives and now christians, which has made you contemplate outright genocide. I personally think that in itself is enough reason for any sane and rational person to dismiss your viewpoint. But then, here comes DotCom to slap you on the back and agree. SMH

Keynesian economic principles are so bad they don't even work on paper. Even the Marxists rejected Keynes ideas. The ONLY reason you or any liberal supports Keynesianism is because it enables more socialist intervention into free market capitalism. And therein lies the main problem with Keynesian economics. It naively assumes government agents will act wisely and make proper choices, which they never do. As Milton Friedman put it, a benevolent dictatorship has the tendency to turn into a totalitarian regime.

Unions are a mixed bag. They have historically done some good things and we can be thankful for those early efforts to reform working conditions. However, like ANY system that goes unchecked and without regulation, the human greed element takes over and they become a leviathan. This happened for unions largely throughout the 60s and 70s in America. Now what you have is a parasite consuming it's host. Unions have literally driven the US out of the labor market worldwide. We can no longer compete with others when it comes to labor. The "glory days" are not coming back. Unions have killed their golden goose.

As for tax rates on top wage earners.... Since the beginning of the 20th century, every increase in top marginal rates has produced a decline in tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, and every decrease has produced an increase. This is because of one simple detail that haters like you have overlooked, and that is... Rich people do not HAVE to earn incomes. Go ahead, tax their incomes at 100% and see how much "rich people" income you tax next year? I'm betting, none!

You, and people like you, have succumbed to the lowest base aspect of humanity, hate. It is this hate, fomented by envy and jealousy of people who you perceive to have more than you, which is causing you to behave irrationally. I can only hope the next generation comes along to reject your hate-inspired philosophy before it's too late.

 

[JoeB131]

You've still not explained any New Deal policy which made us rich by looking out for the working man. Instead, you reveal a level of personal hate against capitalists, conservatives and now christians, which has made you contemplate outright genocide.

I've already explained it to you. The New Deal put forth laws like the minimum wage, encouraged unions, built infrastructure, which put us in a commanding position when the war came. Furthermore, making the rich pay their fair share and reinvesting infrastructure meant that the private sector had to offer fair wages to compete.

You see, the problem is you see prosperity on how many rich fuckers there are. I see it on how many working folks make a decent but not obscene living.

Oh, yeah, Christianity isn't a race... it's a superstition.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, new rule with you... Don't give me five paragraphs of spew. I'll only respond to one.

As for tax rates on top wage earners.... Since the beginning of the 20th century, every increase in top marginal rates has produced a decline in tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, and every decrease has produced an increase. This is because of one simple detail that haters like you have overlooked, and that is... Rich people do not HAVE to earn incomes. Go ahead, tax their incomes at 100% and see how much "rich people" income you tax next year? I'm betting, none!

Oh, my fucking God, we've got a supply-sider in the house. I mean, do they still fucking make those?

Okay, here's the thing. When the rich paid their fair share, we had budgets that were balanced and we could pay for things like highway systems and space programs and dams and schools.

Which is why up until 1980, the national debt, even with TWO WORLD WARS was less than a trillion.

And then along came your boy Ronnie Raygun, who cut taxes on the rich because the poor dears didn't have a thing. And he tripled the national debt in 8 years. Good going.

 

[Boss]

You've still not explained any New Deal policy which made us rich by looking out for the working man. Instead, you reveal a level of personal hate against capitalists, conservatives and now christians, which has made you contemplate outright genocide.

I've already explained it to you. The New Deal put forth laws like the minimum wage, encouraged unions, built infrastructure, which put us in a commanding position when the war came. Furthermore, making the rich pay their fair share and reinvesting infrastructure meant that the private sector had to offer fair wages to compete.

You see, the problem is you see prosperity on how many rich fuckers there are. I see it on how many working folks make a decent but not obscene living.

Oh, yeah, Christianity isn't a race... it's a superstition.

Well no, you didn't already explain it and you still haven't explained it. I don't think you can explain it. How does forcing capitalists to pay a minimum wage put us in a "commanding position?" How does putting more burden on the private sector help them to prosper? These are the things you need to address, rather than reeling off more hyperbole and blather.

The fact is, many of FDRs New Deal policies were costly and ineffective in terms of rejuvenating the economy. At the time, they were so bad that it caused a republican conservative congressional landslide in 1938. A lot of the New Deal programs were repealed and a few were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

You see, the problem is you see prosperity on how many rich fuckers there are. I see it on how many working folks make a decent but not obscene living.

No, the problem is, you are a liberal tool. You exist to spew the latest liberal socialist propaganda and nothing more. You don't give a damn about "working folks" or anyone else, other than your liberal politicians and power brokers. You don't give a damn about the country, the economy, liberty and freedom, God... you name it. All that matters in this world to you, is constantly spewing the liberal propaganda, like a good little liberal warrior.

I am for freedom and man's inalienable right to pursue happiness. Making money in a free market capitalist system, makes me very happy. I want to share my happiness with others and teach them to be just as happy. I want "workers" to know they don't have to be "workers" in this country, we're free to be anything we please. I decided in high school that I wasn't going to be a "worker" my whole life. I set out to be my own boss and call my own shots. So far, so good.

 

[JoeB131]

The fact is, many of FDRs New Deal policies were costly and ineffective in terms of rejuvenating the economy. At the time, they were so bad that it caused a republican conservative congressional landslide in 1938. A lot of the New Deal programs were repealed and a few were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Guy, the 1938 landslide STILL left the Democrats in control of both houses. The only reason why the GOP did well is that they had hit rock bottom, with only 16 seats in the Senate, they went up to a whopping 23. In the House they went from 88 seats to 169. But no one was ready to hand them the controls.

 

[Boss]

These are the things you need to address, rather than reeling off more hyperbole and blather.

I see you chose to reel off more hyperbole and blather.

 

[daws101]

These are the things you need to address, rather than reeling off more hyperbole and blather.

I see you chose to reel off more hyperbole and blather.

false! that's your forte

 

[zeke]

... I see a difference between profit and greed.

Profit is a reasonable return on your investment of time, ingenuity or resources.

Greed is taking far more than you need or deserve, usually by cheating the people who use your services or the people who actually did the hard work.

And seeing that as destructive isn't "insane". It's actually kind of rational, as no good ever comes of greed at that level.

Again, I'll keep making the same simple point, a greedy capitalist soon finds himself replaced by a less greedy capitalist. You keep talking about what the capitalist needs or deserves at the cost of the consumer or employee as if the capitalist gets to determine that all on his own. Is someone forcing you to buy a product or service? Is someone forcing you to do a job you feel you are underpaid for?

Why is it that you think it's YOUR right to decide what is a "reasonable return?" Have you taken any of the risks? Did you make any sacrifices? And if you believe there is a more reasonable return achieved by paying higher wages or lowering cost to consumers, why haven't you gone into business to put the greedy capitalist out of business?

Again, in a free market capitalist system, the capitalist has the objective of making the most profit possible by providing a good or service to a willing, buying consumer, who is mutually satisfied with the transaction. If he attempts to charge too much, another capitalist competitor will charge less and get the business. If he doesn't pay employees well enough, they quit and go to work for the other capitalist who pays more.

You see, it is actually the forces of a free market capitalist system which counteracts "greed" for the most part. Are there still greedy people? Of course there are, there will always be, we can't ever eliminate all greed. It is actually when we move away from a free market system we see "greed" exacerbated. Power over the capitalist prompts greed in those who hold the power.

I saw a recent Bill Moyers guest talking about ethical, moral business behavior being replaced by dishonest immoral behavior and if left unchecked, the dishonest behavior will supplant ethical behavior in a short while.

You know every single banker involved in the economic collapse made a deal to not be prosecuted, keep all the "bonus" money they "earned" and none of their lower executives were to be prosecuted.

Never in our history, after so much dishonest, costly behavior, has the justice department done what Obama's did. Not prosecute ANYBODY. Come on. Ethics are gone and the ethical ones left are being replaced. Ask Bernie Sanders.

 

[Boss]

... I see a difference between profit and greed.

Profit is a reasonable return on your investment of time, ingenuity or resources.

Greed is taking far more than you need or deserve, usually by cheating the people who use your services or the people who actually did the hard work.

And seeing that as destructive isn't "insane". It's actually kind of rational, as no good ever comes of greed at that level.

Again, I'll keep making the same simple point, a greedy capitalist soon finds himself replaced by a less greedy capitalist. You keep talking about what the capitalist needs or deserves at the cost of the consumer or employee as if the capitalist gets to determine that all on his own. Is someone forcing you to buy a product or service? Is someone forcing you to do a job you feel you are underpaid for?

Why is it that you think it's YOUR right to decide what is a "reasonable return?" Have you taken any of the risks? Did you make any sacrifices? And if you believe there is a more reasonable return achieved by paying higher wages or lowering cost to consumers, why haven't you gone into business to put the greedy capitalist out of business?

Again, in a free market capitalist system, the capitalist has the objective of making the most profit possible by providing a good or service to a willing, buying consumer, who is mutually satisfied with the transaction. If he attempts to charge too much, another capitalist competitor will charge less and get the business. If he doesn't pay employees well enough, they quit and go to work for the other capitalist who pays more.

You see, it is actually the forces of a free market capitalist system which counteracts "greed" for the most part. Are there still greedy people? Of course there are, there will always be, we can't ever eliminate all greed. It is actually when we move away from a free market system we see "greed" exacerbated. Power over the capitalist prompts greed in those who hold the power.

I saw a recent Bill Moyers guest talking about ethical, moral business behavior being replaced by dishonest immoral behavior and if left unchecked, the dishonest behavior will supplant ethical behavior in a short while.

You know every single banker involved in the economic collapse made a deal to not be prosecuted, keep all the "bonus" money they "earned" and none of their lower executives were to be prosecuted.

Never in our history, after so much dishonest, costly behavior, has the justice department done what Obama's did. Not prosecute ANYBODY. Come on. Ethics are gone and the ethical ones left are being replaced. Ask Bernie Sanders.

But nothing is left unchecked. The banking and finance sector is probably one of the most intricately regulated private industries through the SEC and FDIC. I don't know about "bonus" and "earned" but do you honestly think Eric Holder and Obama's justice department PASSED on prosecuting fat cats who screwed over the little people? Is this what crack smoke does to your mind?

Seems to me, liberals want to find someone to blame for an economic recession where there really isn't anyone to blame. The economy goes up and down in cycles, it always has and always will. Whenever the economy starts to tank, capitalist (like everyone else) are going to look out for their own interests. This doesn't make them unethical, greedy or immoral, it makes them human like everyone else.

Here, you seem to indicate there was some collusion between the bankers and political officials, but we had Senate hearings on this. If someone broke the law they should have been indicted. If they weren't indicted, you need to hold the politician accountable for not doing his/her job. We can't operate under the Jerry Springer system of law, where we go back in retrospect and speculate on who may have been "to blame" based on feelings and dole out punishment accordingly, regardless of the law.