Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Bombur]

You lost the argument again.

How many times do I have to smack you around with your own inability to make an argument?

What does anything you posted have to do with the topic? Does anything you say, have anything to do with what capitalism is? Nope. So what's the point? The point is, you are completely incompetent at discussion on a forum. I said this before, and I'll say it every time you fail at this.... if you have to change the topic in order to respond.... you lost the argument. That's what suddenly changing topics means. Leftist = "I can't answer him, so now I'll bring up Romney and Bain Capital! Dur!"

And Noam Chomsky? You are quoting from a linguist? You do know that Chomsky is a linguist, right? Not an economist. He doesn't know anything about the topic, and that mindlessly stupid quote you posted of his, proves his own ignorance, and the ignorance of those who follow him. You don't typically see Chomsky quoted in Economic review, or The Economist magazine........ because he doesn't know what he's talking about, and most economists don't bother with him. If you want to discuss languages, Chomsky is a brilliant scholar on the subject. If you want to talk economics, Chomsky is a ignorant fool, who plays up to other ignorant fools.

Chomsky has read Adam Smith's books numerous times.
How about you?
You probably don't read the Economist or the Economic Review so how would you know if Chomsky is quoted in those publications or not? Chomsky regularly reads the business press and is paid to offer his interpretations of their economic insights which makes it highly ironic, at least, that an insignificant bitch like you would be qualified to judge the opinions of one of the most astute observers of the political economy currently living.

BTW, you were the one who, stupidly, argued capitalism doesn't involve socializing loss while privatizing profit. I pointed out how capitalists always socialize loss as a way to enhancing private profit and pointed to Bain Capital as one of many examples.

Since you couldn't refute my claim you resorted to "you lost the argument again."
That's only compelling to another right-wing retard incapable of independent thought or existence. Maybe you should try a few college courses before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

"The Commonize Costs–Privatize Profits Game (or CC–PP Game) is a concept developed by the ecologist Garrett Hardin to describe a 'game' (in the game theory sense) widely played in matters of resource allocation.[1]

"The concept is a formalism of the closely related phenomenon known as the tragedy of the commons,[2] and is referred to in political discourse as "privatizing profits and socializing losses".

"Players of the CC–PP Game aim to commonize the costs (or externalities) generated by their activities across the wider community, while privatizing all profits (financial or otherwise) to themselves."

CC?PP game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes of course. Reading the book, doesn't mean that spewing idiotic drivel, because you are linguist, and not an economist, is suddenly intelligent, or a valid argument.

Chomsky is a linguist. If you want to under stand languages, he's the guy to go to. He's been trained in languages, done many scholarly works on languages, and is consider one of the top in that field.

I don't know a single economist off hand, that has bothered to comment much on Chomsky's economic spewage, because..... he's not an economist. I've had a subscription to the Economist magazine for quite awhile. I can't find a single article that had anything positive to say about chomsky.... or honestly much to say about him either way... >BECAUSE MORON, HE IS NOT AN ECONOMIST<.

Why is that so hard for you leftists to grasp? Oh right.... because.....

That's why. You can't come up with an argument yourself, so you find some idiot that knows nothing about economics, and hang on his every word about the topic you know nothing about.

Lastly....

As far as The Commonize Costs–Privatize Profits Game.... yes of course. Everyone, everywhere, tries to do this. In socialized economies, they try and do this. In capitalist economies they try and do this. In every economy they try and do this.

That doesn't make this capitalism, anymore than murderers committing murder, are trying to make murder lawful. That's the absolute stupidity of your argument.

Well they are trying to do that.... thus it must be what capitalism is.

Well they are trying to murder people, thus that must be what lawful protection of rights is.

Do you really not comprehend the stupidity of your position? Does your position really make logical sense to you?

Again, everyone that has advocated Free-market Capitalism, not one of them has supported the idea of socializing the loss. Milton Friedman said "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. Profit encourages risk taking. Loss encourages prudence."

Where in there, do you see "loss is socialized to avoid prudence"? Oh... it's not there? Shocking. Maybe your claim of what capitalism is, is full of crap? Just a thought.

You should try that whole "thinking" thing too. Might do you some good, and stop you from quoting Linguists on economic issues.

One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.

 

[KevinWestern]

One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.

I wouldn't exactly say that. When a company tests their product on children, and dumps toxic waste into the environment, so long as the population is informed there's a pretty good chance people are going to say "no" and instead buy from the company who's practicing business in a more responsible manner. That's the check that the free market provides: choice.

See here's the thing. In order for Capitalism to work we need to have (A) a well educated, well informed society, and (B) regulations that are sensible but DON'T work against small businesses who are trying to enter the market (and compete against the companies doing the bad things).

Right now I think we are not very well educated (as a whole) and I think we have a lot of legislation that was designed by lobbyists to keep out the other players. At the very least we should start there..

 

[RKMBrown]

One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.

I wouldn't exactly say that. When a company tests their product on children, and dumps toxic waste into the environment, so long as the population is informed there's a pretty good chance people are going to say "no" and instead buy from the company who's practicing business in a more responsible manner. That's the check that the free market provides: choice.

See here's the thing. In order for Capitalism to work we need to have (A) a well educated, well informed society, and (B) regulations that are sensible but DON'T work against small businesses who are trying to enter the market (and compete against the companies doing the bad things).

Right now I think we are not very well educated (as a whole) and I think we have a lot of legislation that was designed by lobbyists to keep out the other players. At the very least we should start there..

I love clams.. but I refuse to buy clams shipped from china. Anyone know why all the clam sold these days are from china? Cause it's been a good year since I've seen anything from LA or what not. I figured they would be back and running its been years since the gulf spill.

 

[Andylusion]

One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.

That's a matter of opinion. I have no such belief in a social cost, other than police, fire, justice. I know many many many people that agree with that perspective.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Banks have Bank Branches. Why am I not surprised you don't know what a bank branch is.

I have no idea why you keep bringing up your local banks.

You ask, why would a federal reserve bank borrow from the fed... Banks borrow money so they can buy stuff, and to pay off debts. This is not as hard as you are making it.

Then you say "[t]he Fed gets to create money out of thin air[,] t's what Central Banks do."

Finally you admit it, why did it take you a dozen dumb ass posts to get there?


Then you stated/asked, "just to be clear, the members of the cartel are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchange... Is that your latest claim?"

No. I did not make a claim as to whether fed bank branches are openly traded. If you must know the branches are owned by banks of their district that are members of the "federal banking system" aka members of the cartel, and some of those banks are openly traded some are privately owned... so in effect the ownership is "once" removed, much like the mob is organized to keep the sins one level away from the leadership.

Banks have Bank Branches. Why am I not surprised you don't know what a bank branch is.

Just trying to nail down your silly "cartel" claim.

I have no idea why you keep bringing up your local banks.

Because many banks are member banks of the Federal Reserve.
A completely different thing than a Federal Reserve Branch.

You ask, why would a federal reserve bank borrow from the fed... Banks borrow money so they can buy stuff, and to pay off debts.

Branches of the Federal Reserve can create money out of thin air, why would they need to borrow money from another Federal Reserve Branch bank?

Finally you admit it, why did it take you a dozen dumb ass posts to get there?

Finally? LOL!
When did I deny it?

If you must know the branches are owned by banks of their district that are members of the "federal banking system" aka members of the cartel,

Changed your story? LOL!
It's amazing what you can learn, with a little research.

Let me know if you can find out how much those "cartel members" are borrowing from the Fed.
You might be surprised.

I have not changed my story. Your just a dumb ass.

Tell me again about "cartel members" borrowing from the Fed.
Always funny.
Did you find out how much they're borrowing?
Let me know.

 

[Andylusion]

One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.

I wouldn't exactly say that. When a company tests their product on children, and dumps toxic waste into the environment, so long as the population is informed there's a pretty good chance people are going to say "no" and instead buy from the company who's practicing business in a more responsible manner. That's the check that the free market provides: choice.

See here's the thing. In order for Capitalism to work we need to have (A) a well educated, well informed society, and (B) regulations that are sensible but DON'T work against small businesses who are trying to enter the market (and compete against the companies doing the bad things).

Right now I think we are not very well educated (as a whole) and I think we have a lot of legislation that was designed by lobbyists to keep out the other players. At the very least we should start there..

The problem there is, ALL regulation inherently benefits large corporations, at the expense of smaller corporations.

It's inherent. I can't think of a time in which regulation didn't benefit the large corporations at the expense have smaller ones.

If you think about it logically, every possible regulation is going to cost any applicable business some money. At least a little. Well no matter how little, or how much, which business, a small company with $100K yearly revenue, or a big company with multiple billions, which is it going to hurt more? Obviously, a big billion dollar company is going to be more able to pay for any regulation, while a small company will be less able.

All regulations, all of them, inherently benefit the big companies.

I remember when they first started selling off spectrum for Cell Phone use. AT&T, went to the FCC and was arguing that they shouldn't have to pay to buy spectrum in each individual market.

But then, as AT&T starting buying up existing small companies that couldn't compete, and in doing so gained a nation wide coverage area, they immedately went right back to the FCC, and argued that companies should have to buy spectrum in each individual market..... because they knew that keeps out competition. Small companies don't have the resources to buy spectrum in every individual market. The regulations inherently benefit AT&T and the national carriers by keeping out small upstarts.

The same thing happened in the 1970s. Before the 1970s, all the car companies were worried about the effects of regulations on the auto industry. Instead, after the heavy regulations of the late 1970s, instead of dozens of independent car companies... Jeep, Studebaker, AMC, and dozens of others.... by the mid-80s, there were three. GM, Chrysler, Ford.

This is why today when government signs big regulations on the auto industry, instead of cries and wailing from the auto companies, they practically endorse it.

This is Obama at the signing of the Auto regulations. He's shaking hands with the CEO of Ford.

Do those CEO look worried to you at the new regulations? Of course not. Those regulations will kill off upstart companies, not the big three which have billions to pay for those regulations.

And every regulation has the same effect. It's unavoidable.

BTW, this is why I've always said that Leftists, whether intentionally or not, are in fact the biggest contributors to the wealth of the rich. Every time they attempt to "regulate" the markets, the result is they make the rich, even richer.

 

[Bombur]

One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.

I wouldn't exactly say that. When a company tests their product on children, and dumps toxic waste into the environment, so long as the population is informed there's a pretty good chance people are going to say "no" and instead buy from the company who's practicing business in a more responsible manner. That's the check that the free market provides: choice.

See here's the thing. In order for Capitalism to work we need to have (A) a well educated, well informed society, and (B) regulations that are sensible but DON'T work against small businesses who are trying to enter the market (and compete against the companies doing the bad things).

Right now I think we are not very well educated (as a whole) and I think we have a lot of legislation that was designed by lobbyists to keep out the other players. At the very least we should start there..

It is a social cost. By definition it is a cost born by society and not necessarily the people engaging in the transaction.

Try again?

 

[Bombur]

One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.

That's a matter of opinion. I have no such belief in a social cost, other than police, fire, justice. I know many many many people that agree with that perspective.

You might as well not believe in air. Having a lot of friends that don't believe in air doesn't mean air doesn't exist.

 

[Londoner]

Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.

No, that's how socialism works.

Milton Friedman - "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk taking. The losses encourage prudence."

George is talking about capitalism in practice. You're talking about capitalism in theory. George is pointing out the problem with your cliches about "Free" Markets, which may be desirable but have the empirical validity of unicorns.

In practice, Modern American capitalism has always had varying levels of state intervention, much of it begged for by some of the same corporations that fund Libertarian think tanks. Take the Patent system for instance, where the nanny state protects the research investments of corporations. Or consider how dependent global capitalism is upon military intervention, e.g., stabilizing the middle east in order to ensure reliable delivery of energy. Or what about the state supplied legal system, which protects property and financial transactions? Or the FDIC insurance which puts more money into the banking system, where it is turned into fuel on both the demand and supply side. And let's not even talk about industrial and commercial infrastructure or subsidies, which have been a part of American capitalism since nearly the beginning.

Marx predicted that the final phase of capitalism would be monopoly capitalism. This is where the most powerful market players purchase the political machinery of the state and use that political power to consolidate control over the domestic economy (forming a rentier class where once there was competition). Smith was also very worried about this outcome. You should actually study him. His contempt for monopolies is under-reported, not least because he sounds a little too much like Marx.

In the meantime, keep riding the unicorn.

 

[dblack]

Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.

No, that's how socialism works.

Milton Friedman - "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk taking. The losses encourage prudence."

George is talking about capitalism in practice. You're talking about capitalism in theory. George is pointing out the problem with your cliches about "Free" Markets, which may be desirable but have the empirical validity of unicorns.

But wouldn't you agree it's important to know what we desire? If we can't find some consensus on the ideal, how can we ever move the reality toward it?

 

[dblack]

One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.

That's a matter of opinion. I have no such belief in a social cost, other than police, fire, justice. I know many many many people that agree with that perspective.

I can understand the concept of 'social cost'. But where I disagree is the notion that government is the proper tool for managing that cost. We build the kind of society we want communally, voluntarily, by our individual decisions informed by our individual values. Government should only step in when we cross a line, namely when we can't resolve disputes peacefully. Otherwise, in my view, the most organic, civilized, way to solve our problems and build the kind of society we want is through voluntary interactions, not authoritarian mandate.

 

[Bombur]

One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.

That's a matter of opinion. I have no such belief in a social cost, other than police, fire, justice. I know many many many people that agree with that perspective.

I can understand the concept of 'social cost'. But where I disagree is the notion that government is the proper tool for managing that cost. We build the kind of society we want communally, voluntarily, by our individual decisions informed by our individual values. Government should only step in when we cross a line, namely when we can't resolve disputes peacefully. Otherwise, in my view, the most organic, civilized, way to solve our problems and build the kind of society we want is through voluntary interactions, not authoritarian mandate.

Both social costs and social benefits are not recognized completely in market interactions. The cost or benefit is often spread out and markets are horrible at taking into account both these costs and benefits.

Public education, investments in infrastructure, the FDA, OSHA, EPA, banking regulations, Police, Fire, etc have all been ways the US has tried to recognize a social benefit or cost.

I honestly don't understand the view that the markets can recognize these social costs in an efficient manner.

 

[gnarlylove]

No, that's how socialism works.

Milton Friedman - "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk taking. The losses encourage prudence."

George is talking about capitalism in practice. You're talking about capitalism in theory. George is pointing out the problem with your cliches about "Free" Markets, which may be desirable but have the empirical validity of unicorns.

But wouldn't you agree it's important to know what we desire? If we can't find some consensus on the ideal, how can we ever move the reality toward it?

It's even more important to understand what conditions must exist in order for X to be desirable. Hence, free markets only exist with perfect liberty which match supply and demand/the needs of the public. And we are way far off that track. We are no where near perfect liberty, and its dubious such a society can exist anyway.

Markets have become tools by the wealthy to get richer and so we see ever increasing conglomerations and lobbyists asking for de-regulation or gutting regulatory laws. Markets have been transformed from meeting needs of society to meeting the desires of the affluent--providing extreme excess to those with money to burn. And providing cheap, easily broken products for the poor so it reinforces cyclical consumption--perpetual buying. Believe me, it's a major scheme, for example some companies added salt to bottled water years back and we all know Walmart to IKEA make shoddy products because it keeps a profit rolling and the consumer continually spending (who's most likely already in debt--so they make minimum payments on the principal and the bankers are happy).

No one cares about the cost to the environment of this "throw away society" because economics says the environment is an externalized cost--you can forget about it in other words--like it is inessential to our system! How nuts! No wonder we can't create a semblance of mild equality and real freedom. You need to be without debt and above normal society to have freedom in the sense that we all hope we have. The law is out to get us, not the most affluent in society. Bernie Madoff is in prison because he stole from them, not the pensions of the poor which is open season at the end of each Q.

 

[dblack]

George is talking about capitalism in practice. You're talking about capitalism in theory. George is pointing out the problem with your cliches about "Free" Markets, which may be desirable but have the empirical validity of unicorns.

But wouldn't you agree it's important to know what we desire? If we can't find some consensus on the ideal, how can we ever move the reality toward it?

It's even more important to understand what conditions must exist in order for X to be desirable. Hence, free markets only exist with perfect liberty which match supply and demand/the needs of the public. And we are way far off that track. We are no where near perfect liberty, and its dubious such a society can exist anyway.

Of course it can't. All you're really saying here is perfection can't be achieved. A perfect socialist state will never be achieved either. So what? My point is that if we can't agree on the ideal, we can't determine which way to proceed.

 

[gnarlylove]

I honestly don't understand the view that the markets can recognize these social costs in an efficient manner.

Well said. I think it's impossible for the current system to weigh social costs. Economics does not take these costs (and natural capital which is a part of social costs) into consideration. It would be damaging to quarterly profits to do so.

 

[dblack]

That's a matter of opinion. I have no such belief in a social cost, other than police, fire, justice. I know many many many people that agree with that perspective.

I can understand the concept of 'social cost'. But where I disagree is the notion that government is the proper tool for managing that cost. We build the kind of society we want communally, voluntarily, by our individual decisions informed by our individual values. Government should only step in when we cross a line, namely when we can't resolve disputes peacefully. Otherwise, in my view, the most organic, civilized, way to solve our problems and build the kind of society we want is through voluntary interactions, not authoritarian mandate.

Both social costs and social benefits are not recognized completely in market interactions. The cost or benefit is often spread out and markets are horrible at taking into account both these costs and benefits.

Markets aren't supposed to take those costs into account. Not directly, in any case. This is why i'm trying to emphasize that markets are just one aspect of social interaction. Critics of capitalism are responding to ridiculous claims by advocates that free market economics can solve all our problems. And they're right to call bullshit on such religiosity. But by the same token, it's ridiculous to condemn freedom because it, alone, won't solve all our problems.

 

[georgephillip]

One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.

That's a matter of opinion. I have no such belief in a social cost, other than police, fire, justice. I know many many many people that agree with that perspective.

What part of "justice" does this fall under?

"As West Virginians were learning Thursday of a devastating chemical spill in the Elk River that has rendered water undrinkable for 300,000 people, the US House of Representatives was busy gutting federal hazardous-waste cleanup law.

The House passed the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act that would ultimately eliminate requirements for the Environmental Protection Agency to review and update hazardous-waste disposal regulations in a timely manner, and make it more difficult for the government to compel companies that deal with toxic substances to carry proper insurance for cleanups, pushing the cost on to taxpayers."

The part where corporations privatize their coal-related profits while socializing their cleanup costs on the backs of taxpayers?

US House passed bill ravaging toxic-waste law - on same day as W. Virginia chemical spill ? RT USA

 

[gnarlylove]

But wouldn't you agree it's important to know what we desire? If we can't find some consensus on the ideal, how can we ever move the reality toward it?

It's even more important to understand what conditions must exist in order for X to be desirable. Hence, free markets only exist with perfect liberty which match supply and demand/the needs of the public. And we are way far off that track. We are no where near perfect liberty, and its dubious such a society can exist anyway.

Of course it can't. All you're really saying here is perfection can't be achieved. A perfect socialist state will never be achieved either. So what? My point is that if we can't agree on the ideal, we can't determine which way to proceed.

I didn't say it can't be achieved. I said it was dubious; to make the point we need to be aware that we don't live there. If we better educated people and spent more time considering the needs of society instead of wants of the affluent we might develop a better society that can achieve far more.

Instead, millions think we live in a capitalist system that will continue providing the world better and better life but the precise opposite is happening. People have been displaced and struggling all over the globe and capitalism is part of the problem. Too few people are getting needs met so they must turn to other violent sources or simply die.

So dblack, together we can set capitalism down from its peddle stool instead of making it our aim. Instead, we must first achieve those conditions. What are they? I suspect it would take more than a few policy changes to get us one iota closer to those conditions.

 

[RKMBrown]

Banks have Bank Branches. Why am I not surprised you don't know what a bank branch is.

Just trying to nail down your silly "cartel" claim.

I have no idea why you keep bringing up your local banks.

Because many banks are member banks of the Federal Reserve.
A completely different thing than a Federal Reserve Branch.

You ask, why would a federal reserve bank borrow from the fed... Banks borrow money so they can buy stuff, and to pay off debts.

Branches of the Federal Reserve can create money out of thin air, why would they need to borrow money from another Federal Reserve Branch bank?

Finally you admit it, why did it take you a dozen dumb ass posts to get there?

Finally? LOL!
When did I deny it?

If you must know the branches are owned by banks of their district that are members of the "federal banking system" aka members of the cartel,

Changed your story? LOL!
It's amazing what you can learn, with a little research.

Let me know if you can find out how much those "cartel members" are borrowing from the Fed.
You might be surprised.

I have not changed my story. Your just a dumb ass.

Tell me again about "cartel members" borrowing from the Fed.
Always funny.
Did you find out how much they're borrowing?
Let me know.

That's right dumb ass, just keep thinking that fed discount windows are just a figment of my imagination. What a POS dumb ass retard you are.

 

[dblack]

It's even more important to understand what conditions must exist in order for X to be desirable. Hence, free markets only exist with perfect liberty which match supply and demand/the needs of the public. And we are way far off that track. We are no where near perfect liberty, and its dubious such a society can exist anyway.

Of course it can't. All you're really saying here is perfection can't be achieved. A perfect socialist state will never be achieved either. So what? My point is that if we can't agree on the ideal, we can't determine which way to proceed.

I didn't say it can't be achieved.

Well, I am. Perfect markets will never exist. Perfect state socialism will never exist. Once we accept that perfection isn't an option, the question is what should we strive for? I advocate for free markets because I value free, voluntary society. I consider the most fundamental immoral act to be indulging the urge to force your will on others. To pick up a club and attack someone because they won't do what you want.