Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

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, 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.

Chomsky and Smith are/were moral philosophers concerned with the unequal distribution of wealth and political privilege; Milton Friedman was a corporate tool.

Chomsky and Smith define "free markets" as those exchanges free of undue rentier influence. In Smith's day those inflicting undue influence upon markets were largely hereditary elites like those responsible for creating the East India Corporation; in Chomsky's day, multi-national corporations and FIRE sector elites are those he warns against gaining undue market or political influence.

"Friedman, by comparison, wanted markets free of any democratic regulation which is exactly what he got in Chile on September 11, 1973

When Milton Friedman's economic policy advice to Chilean conservatives led to the overthrow of a democratically elected president in 1973, profits were privatized and the losses were socialized at expense of one person; one vote.

Which is another of those social costs that capitalism regularly inflicts on society that you have a hard time wrapping your propaganda-filled mind around.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Tell me, dumb ass, how much are these "cartel members" (love that silly phrase) currently borrowing from the Fed Discount Window?

Don't worry, I won't think any less of you when you post the answer.

 

[gnarlylove]

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.

I was pointing out you misread my statement. Of course absolute perfection cannot exist, and we don't even have an idea what that is with our finite minds. But humans are capable of doing much much better than we are today.

When you say free markets it sounds like you are defining that as freedom itself. That "free markets" create a free society. This is language fraud. Don't be mistaken by the word free in free markets. We don't live in a free market system and if we did, human greed would bring it crashing down to where we are today, which is no free market.

Until we can teach people to live freely entails responsibility and this responsibility enables others to maintain freedom. It cannot work any other way. As long as greed exists to exploit the dispensable workers these people are not free in the way others outside of wage slavery are free. Especially not like the top 2%. What is so disgusting about creating a free society for all? Free markets will centralize greed and wealth and even regulated markets centralize greed and power.

Your variety of freedom sounds like its synonymous with free markets. Well, if you define free markets as freedom there is no way around your tautological conclusion. But free markets do not imply free society. It seems as long as greed exists, the desire of wanting beyond what is sustainable for the rest of the planet to meet their needs, then markets will continue to lessen the freedom of those at the bottom by making them utterly dependent on cheap goods implying cheaper labor.

Do you want a free society for some or do you think we should have freedom for all? You have the cart before the horse. Free markets are not going to create our free society. But I'm assuming you want a free society for nearly all people, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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, 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.

Chomsky and Smith are/were moral philosophers concerned with the unequal distribution of wealth and political privilege; Milton Friedman was a corporate tool.

Chomsky and Smith define "free markets" as those exchanges free of undue rentier influence. In Smith's day those inflicting undue influence upon markets were largely hereditary elites like those responsible for creating the East India Corporation; in Chomsky's day, multi-national corporations and FIRE sector elites are those he warns against gaining undue market or political influence.

"Friedman, by comparison, wanted markets free of any democratic regulation which is exactly what he got in Chile on September 11, 1973

When Milton Friedman's economic policy advice to Chilean conservatives led to the overthrow of a democratically elected president in 1973, profits were privatized and the losses were socialized at expense of one person; one vote.

Which is another of those social costs that capitalism regularly inflicts on society that you have a hard time wrapping your propaganda-filled mind around.

Still whining about Allende? LOL!
Who is better off today, the people of Chile or the people of Cuba?

 

[KNB]

When do record corporate profits trickle down?

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Chomsky and Smith and that "Invisible Hand"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4viRUBGFyLo]Noam Chomsky "Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand" - YouTube[/ame]

Modern Economists distort Smith's invisible hand in defense of neo-liberal economic policy when what Smith had in mind was the exact opposite of today's privatize the profits and socialize the costs mantra practiced by all good crony-capitalists.

 

[Bombur]

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.

I am not condemning freedom. That is gross hyperbole.

Government is far from perfect but it is still the best option we have for dealing with these issues. There is really no evidence to the contrary.

 

[dblack]

When you say free markets it sounds like you are defining that as freedom itself.

Very nearly, yeah. Not as a tautology, but there is a deep dependency. Without economic freedom, all other freedoms (speech, religion, association, etc...) are moot. If the state controls your bank account, if they control how you earn a living and how you spend your money, they control you pretty much completely.

Do you want a free society for some or do you think we should have freedom for all? You have the cart before the horse. Free markets are not going to create our free society. But I'm assuming you want a free society for nearly all people, right?

Equal protection is essential to freedom. But I suspect you're talking about empowerment rather than freedom. They're not the same thing.

 

[gnarlylove]

When you say free markets it sounds like you are defining that as freedom itself.

Very nearly, yeah. Not as a tautology, but there is a deep dependency. Without economic freedom, all other freedoms (speech, religion, association, etc...) are moot.

Can you describe economic freedom? I just want to be sure I know what you mean. How does one gain or loose economic freedom?

For that matter, can you delineate what you mean by free market. Do you simply mean the uninhibited trade between nations and their people?

Do you want a free society for some or do you think we should have freedom for all? You have the cart before the horse. Free markets are not going to create our free society. But I'm assuming you want a free society for nearly all people, right?

Equal protection is essential to freedom. But I suspect you're talking about empowerment rather than freedom. They're not the same thing.

I don't think I am. Maybe you can distinguish the two and see where I stand.

 

[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.

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.

It is just an excuse to justify tyranny over the public. You just call out that everything you happen to not like, is a social cost, and then impose your will over the public. If you look at any tyranny in human history, every single time they justified their actions, as being part of the greater good. It's not. It's a false argument, used for rationalization, and nothing more.

 

[dblack]

When you say free markets it sounds like you are defining that as freedom itself.

Very nearly, yeah. Not as a tautology, but there is a deep dependency. Without economic freedom, all other freedoms (speech, religion, association, etc...) are moot.

Can you describe economic freedom? I just want to be sure I know what you mean. How does one gain or loose economic freedom?

The freedom to voluntarily exchange goods and services with others without asking the state for permission. One doesn't "gain" such freedom. It's innate to volition. But it can be violated by anyone willing to employ coercion to achieve their ends.

Do you want a free society for some or do you think we should have freedom for all? You have the cart before the horse. Free markets are not going to create our free society. But I'm assuming you want a free society for nearly all people, right?

Equal protection is essential to freedom. But I suspect you're talking about empowerment rather than freedom. They're not the same thing.

I don't think I am. Maybe you can distinguish the two and see where I stand.

Protecting a person's right to do something doesn't include ensuring that they are empowered to exercise the right. You seemed to be suggesting that economic freedom only protects the freedom of some, and not all - presumably because not all are empowered to exercise it equally. But the right and the power to exercise it are different things.

 

[gnarlylove]

It is just an excuse to justify tyranny over the public. You just call out that everything you happen to not like, is a social cost, and then impose your will over the public. If you look at any tyranny in human history, every single time they justified their actions, as being part of the greater good. It's not. It's a false argument, used for rationalization, and nothing more.

Social costs are not real then? Do you call them externalities or do they simply not exist?

It's rare to find someone who thinks externalities are a way of imposing tyranny. Certain results from "business as usual" are not just unpleasant but cost in productivity. Look at the cost of the Yangtze River in 1998 when it flooded. The cost of timber did not reflect the cost of deforestation and more important the agricultural loss due to flooding. Some say the productivity lost was twice the price of what the timber reflected--not to mention the social cost of 3,650 lives who died. Thus, nature is subsidizing our fuck ups as well as other expendable humans, but this can only continue for so long as the Earth is finite and can only stand so many fuck ups. What I'm saying is I hope you realize social costs are real, not something made up.

"A market that tells the ecological truth will incorporate the value
of ecosystem services. For example, if we buy furniture from a forest
products corporation that engages in clearcutting, we pay the
costs of logging and converting the logs into furniture, but not the
costs of the flooding downstream. If we restructure the tax system
and raise taxes on clearcutting timber so that its price reflects the
cost to society of the resultant flooding, this method of harvesting
timber likely would be eliminated."
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/ecoch11.pdf

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Ironically, I would agree with you on most of that.

Of course I'm talking about the ideal of Capitalism, in what it actually refers to, over what Capitalism can and sometimes does end up.

Just like people who support Socialism, refer to the ideal of Socialism, and ignore that in practice Socialism always, every single time, ends up a tyranny.

Of course there is no perfect Capitalistic Utopia, and there certainly isn't a Socialist Workers Paradise.

That said, every time any country moves towards Socialism, things get worse. And every time that any country moves more towards Capitalism, things get better.

China was the leading country on the face of the planet. They moved towards Socialism, and ended up a 3rd world impoverished hell. Now they are moving towards Capitalism, and will likely retake their spot as leading the world.

India move towards Socialism after independence, and declined. Now they are moving towards Capitalism and are succeeding.

Venezuela was the leading economy in all of Latin America. They moved towards socialism, and now are the worst performing economy in all of Latin America.

Brazil has embraced Capitalism, and is now the leading economy in Latin America. And I could list hundreds of other examples. Cuba, Jamaica, East and West Berlin, North and South Korea, Hong Kong and China, the list of examples is endless.

The more people move towards the ideal of Capitalism, the better off they end up. The more they move towards Socialism, the worse off they are.

Does that mean we don't have pockets of socialism in a generally capitalistic country, like the USA? Of course not. We most certainly do. And all of those areas, are the areas we have problems. Do you see problems in the paper supply, or office supply areas? Nope. Very little regulations, controls, subsidies, on pencils and copier paper. How about Health Care, or Banking? Yes, and both have massive issues and problems.

And all Capitalism requires the enforcement of property rights, and stability. Has nothing to do with Oil, as much as it has to do with all business is hard to conduct when people are shooting each other, and bombs are going off. When rockets are flying over head, people generally don't go to the dealership to check out a new Volvo. Just saying.

And of course companies support intervention that supports their companies. Whether they fund libertarian think tanks, I don't give a crap. I'm against government intervention, no matter who funds what.

Just because a company wants regulations that benefit themselves, happens to fund some group somewhere, doesn't matter to me. Sometimes I think you people on the left say stuff like that, because if that company was funding your group, you would support them.... thus you assume us on the right, are the same. Sorry. Not true.

FDIC is exactly the kind of bank supporting system, that I'm against. Ironically FDR was against it. Even the big banks were against it at the time. But dumb as hell leftists in the 30s, demanded this program which screws themselves over, at the benefit of the banks.

It's ironic that you bring up the exact policies I'm against, to counter my point. That's a fail dude.

I'm even against Intellectual Property rights, because the idea of patenting a 'thought' is fruit cake nonsense.

What I am in favor of is enforcing property rights. Without the right to property, you might as well be slaves. Look at Haiti. That's what you end up with, without property rights.

Subsidies are a different matter. When I talk about Subsidies, I'm talking about government taxing one person, and taking the money from them, and giving it to another person. Money has to be removed from one individual, and given to another individual, for me to call that a "subsidy".

When a leftist refers to a "subsidy", they typically mean a tax deduction, and yet ironically, they never refer to the taking money from one, to give to another.

So when the tax payers pay their taxes, and government gives out money that money to rich companies, or farmers, to grow corn for Ethanol, you don't see the left screaming about Subsidies. When Government gives out billions in grants, taxed from the public, given to a company to make Solar Panels, you don't see the left screaming about Subsidies.

But if you happen to give an oil company a tax deduction, for the depreciation of their drilling equipment, so they pay tax, but just a little less tax..... suddenly the left starts screaming about subsidies to evil oil! Bull crap. That's not a subsidy, anymore than deducting my Student loans from my taxes, so I saved $100 from my tax bill, means the American public is subsidizing me.

If a tax deduction is a subsidy, then the entire population of the whole country, is being subsidized. In which case, the word is meaningless, and the argument is self defeating.

 

[gnarlylove]

The freedom to voluntarily exchange goods and services with others without asking the state for permission. One doesn't "gain" such freedom. It's innate to volition. But it can be violated by anyone willing to employ coercion to achieve their ends.

But your aware that companies tend to create social and natural costs by doing business, right? So if we allow the current set of humans freedom to do what maximizes buisness, then we are ushering in a new wave of social and natural costs that will burden our planet's ecosystems even further.

You know that this is not an option right? We cannot allow business to neglect natural capital and social costs. I'm not saying we currently enforce these regulations properly, but some do work and help keep companies from creating many more social costs. If we let them run free, what do you think would happen? That they govern themselves with responsible edict and proper disposal? Those things are costly to profits!

If we want to move away from government's involvement we need to be able to regulate ourselves, to be responsible when no one is watching. This does not happen in the business world. Dark markets are preferred for this very reason. You are not accounting for humanity in your free market dreams which is typical from an economics perspective since economics is but one lens through which to understand the world.

But the right and the power to exercise [freedom] are different things.

So you're saying the simple difference is whether one chooses to exercise a right? Sounds like you're saying everyone is free but not everyone has the choice to act freely. That's not freedom if someone is not able to choose to act freely.

 

[gnarlylove]

That said, every time any country moves towards Socialism, things get worse. And every time that any country moves more towards Capitalism, things get better.

Let's see if you are right...

Take a look at this study which totally contradicts your statement:

"Each country is ranked on 89 variables sorted into eight subsections: economy, entrepreneurship, governance, education, health, safety, personal freedom and social capital."

'“To use economic measurements alone to gauge the success of a nation would be equivalent to assessing the entire condition of a man simply by looking at his bank balance,” writes Peter Mandelson, former U.K. economic minister.'

"...joining Norway in the top 10 prosperous countries are its Scandinavian sisters Denmark, Finland and Sweden, with equally small and civilized Switzerland and the Netherlands also in the club....

So what gives? What do these prosperous European nations have in common that can somehow explain their prosperity? Being an electoral democracy is almost a given–of the top 25 most prosperous countries, only Singapore and Hong Kong aren’t.

Being small helps too. ...
What else? They are all borderline socialist states, with generous welfare benefits and lots of redistribution of wealth."
From The World's Happiest Countries - Forbes

You are utterly wrong Androw. Socialism helps make more people better off. Capitalism helps a few people to become extremely well off on the backs of the rest.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Ironically, I would agree with you on most of that.

Of course I'm talking about the ideal of Capitalism, in what it actually refers to, over what Capitalism can and sometimes does end up.

Just like people who support Socialism, refer to the ideal of Socialism, and ignore that in practice Socialism always, every single time, ends up a tyranny.

Of course there is no perfect Capitalistic Utopia, and there certainly isn't a Socialist Workers Paradise.

That said, every time any country moves towards Socialism, things get worse. And every time that any country moves more towards Capitalism, things get better.

China was the leading country on the face of the planet. They moved towards Socialism, and ended up a 3rd world impoverished hell. Now they are moving towards Capitalism, and will likely retake their spot as leading the world.

India move towards Socialism after independence, and declined. Now they are moving towards Capitalism and are succeeding.

Venezuela was the leading economy in all of Latin America. They moved towards socialism, and now are the worst performing economy in all of Latin America.

Brazil has embraced Capitalism, and is now the leading economy in Latin America. And I could list hundreds of other examples. Cuba, Jamaica, East and West Berlin, North and South Korea, Hong Kong and China, the list of examples is endless.

The more people move towards the ideal of Capitalism, the better off they end up. The more they move towards Socialism, the worse off they are.

Does that mean we don't have pockets of socialism in a generally capitalistic country, like the USA? Of course not. We most certainly do. And all of those areas, are the areas we have problems. Do you see problems in the paper supply, or office supply areas? Nope. Very little regulations, controls, subsidies, on pencils and copier paper. How about Health Care, or Banking? Yes, and both have massive issues and problems.

And all Capitalism requires the enforcement of property rights, and stability. Has nothing to do with Oil, as much as it has to do with all business is hard to conduct when people are shooting each other, and bombs are going off. When rockets are flying over head, people generally don't go to the dealership to check out a new Volvo. Just saying.

And of course companies support intervention that supports their companies. Whether they fund libertarian think tanks, I don't give a crap. I'm against government intervention, no matter who funds what.

Just because a company wants regulations that benefit themselves, happens to fund some group somewhere, doesn't matter to me. Sometimes I think you people on the left say stuff like that, because if that company was funding your group, you would support them.... thus you assume us on the right, are the same. Sorry. Not true.

FDIC is exactly the kind of bank supporting system, that I'm against. Ironically FDR was against it. Even the big banks were against it at the time. But dumb as hell leftists in the 30s, demanded this program which screws themselves over, at the benefit of the banks.

It's ironic that you bring up the exact policies I'm against, to counter my point. That's a fail dude.

I'm even against Intellectual Property rights, because the idea of patenting a 'thought' is fruit cake nonsense.

What I am in favor of is enforcing property rights. Without the right to property, you might as well be slaves. Look at Haiti. That's what you end up with, without property rights.

Subsidies are a different matter. When I talk about Subsidies, I'm talking about government taxing one person, and taking the money from them, and giving it to another person. Money has to be removed from one individual, and given to another individual, for me to call that a "subsidy".

When a leftist refers to a "subsidy", they typically mean a tax deduction, and yet ironically, they never refer to the taking money from one, to give to another.

So when the tax payers pay their taxes, and government gives out money that money to rich companies, or farmers, to grow corn for Ethanol, you don't see the left screaming about Subsidies. When Government gives out billions in grants, taxed from the public, given to a company to make Solar Panels, you don't see the left screaming about Subsidies.

But if you happen to give an oil company a tax deduction, for the depreciation of their drilling equipment, so they pay tax, but just a little less tax..... suddenly the left starts screaming about subsidies to evil oil! Bull crap. That's not a subsidy, anymore than deducting my Student loans from my taxes, so I saved $100 from my tax bill, means the American public is subsidizing me.

If a tax deduction is a subsidy, then the entire population of the whole country, is being subsidized. In which case, the word is meaningless, and the argument is self defeating.

"China was the leading country on the face of the planet. They moved towards Socialism, and ended up a 3rd world impoverished hell. Now they are moving towards Capitalism, and will likely retake their spot as leading the world."

When was China "the leading country on the face of the planet?"

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Ironically, I would agree with you on most of that.

Of course I'm talking about the ideal of Capitalism, in what it actually refers to, over what Capitalism can and sometimes does end up.

Just like people who support Socialism, refer to the ideal of Socialism, and ignore that in practice Socialism always, every single time, ends up a tyranny.

Of course there is no perfect Capitalistic Utopia, and there certainly isn't a Socialist Workers Paradise.

That said, every time any country moves towards Socialism, things get worse. And every time that any country moves more towards Capitalism, things get better.

China was the leading country on the face of the planet. They moved towards Socialism, and ended up a 3rd world impoverished hell. Now they are moving towards Capitalism, and will likely retake their spot as leading the world.

India move towards Socialism after independence, and declined. Now they are moving towards Capitalism and are succeeding.

Venezuela was the leading economy in all of Latin America. They moved towards socialism, and now are the worst performing economy in all of Latin America.

Brazil has embraced Capitalism, and is now the leading economy in Latin America. And I could list hundreds of other examples. Cuba, Jamaica, East and West Berlin, North and South Korea, Hong Kong and China, the list of examples is endless.

The more people move towards the ideal of Capitalism, the better off they end up. The more they move towards Socialism, the worse off they are.

Does that mean we don't have pockets of socialism in a generally capitalistic country, like the USA? Of course not. We most certainly do. And all of those areas, are the areas we have problems. Do you see problems in the paper supply, or office supply areas? Nope. Very little regulations, controls, subsidies, on pencils and copier paper. How about Health Care, or Banking? Yes, and both have massive issues and problems.

And all Capitalism requires the enforcement of property rights, and stability. Has nothing to do with Oil, as much as it has to do with all business is hard to conduct when people are shooting each other, and bombs are going off. When rockets are flying over head, people generally don't go to the dealership to check out a new Volvo. Just saying.

And of course companies support intervention that supports their companies. Whether they fund libertarian think tanks, I don't give a crap. I'm against government intervention, no matter who funds what.

Just because a company wants regulations that benefit themselves, happens to fund some group somewhere, doesn't matter to me. Sometimes I think you people on the left say stuff like that, because if that company was funding your group, you would support them.... thus you assume us on the right, are the same. Sorry. Not true.

FDIC is exactly the kind of bank supporting system, that I'm against. Ironically FDR was against it. Even the big banks were against it at the time. But dumb as hell leftists in the 30s, demanded this program which screws themselves over, at the benefit of the banks.

It's ironic that you bring up the exact policies I'm against, to counter my point. That's a fail dude.

I'm even against Intellectual Property rights, because the idea of patenting a 'thought' is fruit cake nonsense.

What I am in favor of is enforcing property rights. Without the right to property, you might as well be slaves. Look at Haiti. That's what you end up with, without property rights.

Subsidies are a different matter. When I talk about Subsidies, I'm talking about government taxing one person, and taking the money from them, and giving it to another person. Money has to be removed from one individual, and given to another individual, for me to call that a "subsidy".

When a leftist refers to a "subsidy", they typically mean a tax deduction, and yet ironically, they never refer to the taking money from one, to give to another.

So when the tax payers pay their taxes, and government gives out money that money to rich companies, or farmers, to grow corn for Ethanol, you don't see the left screaming about Subsidies. When Government gives out billions in grants, taxed from the public, given to a company to make Solar Panels, you don't see the left screaming about Subsidies.

But if you happen to give an oil company a tax deduction, for the depreciation of their drilling equipment, so they pay tax, but just a little less tax..... suddenly the left starts screaming about subsidies to evil oil! Bull crap. That's not a subsidy, anymore than deducting my Student loans from my taxes, so I saved $100 from my tax bill, means the American public is subsidizing me.

If a tax deduction is a subsidy, then the entire population of the whole country, is being subsidized. In which case, the word is meaningless, and the argument is self defeating.

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, 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.

Chomsky and Smith are/were moral philosophers concerned with the unequal distribution of wealth and political privilege; Milton Friedman was a corporate tool.

Chomsky and Smith define "free markets" as those exchanges free of undue rentier influence. In Smith's day those inflicting undue influence upon markets were largely hereditary elites like those responsible for creating the East India Corporation; in Chomsky's day, multi-national corporations and FIRE sector elites are those he warns against gaining undue market or political influence.

"Friedman, by comparison, wanted markets free of any democratic regulation which is exactly what he got in Chile on September 11, 1973

When Milton Friedman's economic policy advice to Chilean conservatives led to the overthrow of a democratically elected president in 1973, profits were privatized and the losses were socialized at expense of one person; one vote.

Which is another of those social costs that capitalism regularly inflicts on society that you have a hard time wrapping your propaganda-filled mind around.

Still whining about Allende? LOL!
Who is better off today, the people of Chile or the people of Cuba?

The people who are not subject to a US embargo, Idiot.

United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

The freedom to voluntarily exchange goods and services with others without asking the state for permission. One doesn't "gain" such freedom. It's innate to volition. But it can be violated by anyone willing to employ coercion to achieve their ends.

But your aware that companies tend to create social and natural costs by doing business, right? So if we allow the current set of humans freedom to do what maximizes buisness, then we are ushering in a new wave of social and natural costs that will burden our planet's ecosystems even further.

Sure. Suss out what damage they're doing and bring charges against the perpetrators. Just don't employ collective guilt in the name of "class warfare".

But the right and the power to exercise [freedom] are different things.

So you're saying the simple difference is whether one chooses to exercise a right? Sounds like you're saying everyone is free but not everyone has the choice to act freely. That's not freedom if someone is not able to choose to act freely.

What? I'm saying protecting someone's right to do something isn't the same as ensuring they are able to exercise it. For example, our Constitution protects our right to bear arms, but it doesn't promise that we will be provided with said arms. Freedom of the press doesn't mean the state provides each of us with a print shop. See the difference?

 

[Bombur]

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.

It is just an excuse to justify tyranny over the public. You just call out that everything you happen to not like, is a social cost, and then impose your will over the public. If you look at any tyranny in human history, every single time they justified their actions, as being part of the greater good. It's not. It's a false argument, used for rationalization, and nothing more.

There is no tyranny. You are resorting to nonsensical emotional rhetoric instead of a rational logical take on reality. I have no use for such blather.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Public education is why we have such ignorant and useless people.
Less than half of high school graduates are prepared for college, says maker of SAT - College Bound - Campus and College News from Boston and Cambridge - Boston.com

Only 43 percent of SAT takers in the class of 2013 graduated from high school academically prepared for the rigors of college-level course work, the College Board said in releasing scores Thursday.

If you want to compare the US to other countries, our public education, is horrid. We can debate that if you want.

Point being, I would much rather prefer a more privatized system. When companies are having to pay for education for their employees, because our publicly funded system sucks so bad.... there's something wrong.

Further, Banking Regulations have CAUSED social cost, rather than being a solution to social cost. I would also add that the EPA, OSHA, and the FDA, have drastically added social cost, not mitigated it.

None of these have reduced social costs, and all of them have drastically increased social costs.

Now as far as infrastructure, police, and fire. As I said prior... I get that. Do you realize how tiny and insignificant our taxes would be, if we only paid for those?

The Ohio budget, is $30 Billion dollars. All of those things right there, are only 8% of the Ohio Budget. Or $2.4 Billion dollars.

Of the Federal Budget, those things only add up to a mere $100 Billion, of a budget of $3.5 Trillion? (numbers may be off, that's 2010 budget I think)

Point is, we're talking about a tiny fraction of the budget. Only at the local level, do the things your talking about make up the majority of the budget.