Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

Wow, someone in Los Angeles that thinks Capitalism is evil! And we wonder why California is almost bankrupt. Yet another reason why I am getting the HELL OUT OF HERE!

I hear Bismarck is booming:

"The Bank of North Dakota, or BND, is a state-owned and -run financial institution, based in Bismarck, North Dakota.

"Under state law, the bank is the State of North Dakota doing business as the Bank of North Dakota.[1] The state and its agencies are required to place their funds in the bank, but local governments are not required to do so..."

"The Bank of North Dakota was established by legislative action in 1919 to promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota.[3]

"Though initially conceived by populists in the Non-Partisan League, or NPL, as a credit union-style institution to free the farmers of the state from predatory lenders, the bank's functions were largely blocked by out-of-state financial actors refusing to buy the bonds the bank issued to finance its lending, lending that would have provided competition to the commercial banks.[4]"

Wall Street isn't fond of competition either.
Don't catch cold.

Bank of North Dakota - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No enterprise is fond of competition. In a capitalistic world, they get competition whether they want it or not. That is, until government steps in to protect them from competition.

Who controls government?
In a capitalistic world large private fortunes acquired through the control of corporations create a corporatocracy that effectively controls government. One good example of this recently took place in Las Vegas:

The Monster on the Hill » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

"Indeed, if anyone had any illusions about American politics, they were dispelled this week.

"The casino mogul, Sheldon Adelson, organized a public display of his power.

"He summoned to his Las Vegas betting paradise the four most probable Republican candidates for the next presidential elections, in order to choose one of them.

"All the invitees heeded the summons, of course.

"It was a shameless exhibition. The politicians groveled before the casino lord. Mighty governors of important states did their best to sell themselves like applicants at a job interview.

"Each of them tried to trump the others in promising to do the Mogul’s bidding.

"Flanked by Israeli bodyguards, Adelson grilled the American hopefuls. And what was he demanding from the future president of the United States?

"First of all and above everything else, blind and unconditional obedience to the government of another state: Israel."

Every government yet conceived has existed to serve its rich at the expense of the majority of its citizens

Until there's a way to insulate the state from the effect of private wealth, I don't see how that will ever change.

 

[georgephillip]

More nonsense! Capitalism started when the first caveman traded a spear for a cut of meat, or traded flint arrowheads to other members of his clan for his share of what they brought back from the hunt. Capitalism is natural, and has been in existance since men began living together. It will exist, legally or illegally, until men cease to exist on this earth.

Capitalism is the reason that you don't have to stand in line to buy a loaf of bread of a roll of toilet paper. Capitalism is the reason that you have many choices when you buy a car or a washing machine. Capitalism works, and no other system works as well.

I usually have to stand in line every time I buy bread or toilet paper.
You're conflating capitalism's ability to produce goods and service with its inability to distribute surplus equitably; you're also confused about barter in hunter gather societies and modern capitalism which some believe didn't originate until the 14th century:

You must be joking. Are you talking about the line at the checkout counter that has maybe 3-4 people in it? In Venezuela the lines have hundreds of people. Equating the two is the height of dishonesty.

"According to some historians, the modern capitalist system has its origin in the 'crisis of the fourteenth century,' a conflict between the land-owning aristocracy and the agricultural producers, the serfs.

"Manorial arrangements inhibited the development of capitalism in a number of ways.

"Because serfs were forced to produce for lords, they had no interest in technological innovation; because serfs produced to sustain their own families, they had no interest in co-operating with one another.

"Because lords owned the land, they relied on force to guarantee that they were provided with sufficient food."

History of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does 14th Century Feudalism have to do with modern capitalism?

Marx called the period the "pre-history of capitalism." The 14th century saw a demographic crisis due, partially, to the Great Famine (1315-1317) and the Black Death (1348-1350). Feudalism replaced the manorial system in England in a fashion similar to how internal slavery replaced the transatlantic trade in the US 450 years later:

"It was, in effect, feudalism that began to lay some of the foundations necessary for the development of mercantilism, a precursor to capitalism. Feudalism took place mostly in Europe and lasted from the medieval period up through the 16th century.

"Feudal manors were almost entirely self-sufficient, and therefore limited the role of the market. This stifled the growth of capitalism.

"However, the relatively sudden emergence of new technologies and discoveries, particularly in the industries of agriculture[9] and exploration, revitalized the growth of capitalism.

"The most important development at the end of Feudalism was the emergence of 'the dichotomy between wage earners and capitalist merchants'.[10]

"With mercantilism, the competitive nature means there are always winners and losers, and this is clearly evident as feudalism transitions into mercantilism, an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."

History of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

So there are no capitalist like "Bill Gates" who donates massive amounts of both money and time to all types of charities ... fascinating.

Socialists believe subsistence, medical care, and education are human rights that shouldn't depend upon the "charity" of some of the most selfish individuals in history.

It doesn't depend on charity unless you are disabled and have no family that can take care of you. That description applies to about 0.2% of the population. It depends on work.

Socialists are wrong: you have no right to subsistence, medical care or education.

Gates and his ilk unilaterally decide which societal needs to lavish their time and money on when a more democratic solution would involve taxing the ultra rich at the same rate as 60 years ago and allowing society to decide how to distribute surplus.

That's why the more democratic solution is fucked. Why should a mass of numskulls decide how to spend the fortune Bill Gates built? If it was up to them, there would never have been a fortune in the first place. They would have crapped it away long before Microsoft ever became a household name.

Because "a mass of numskulls" bought Windows and their taxes provided the infrastructure that ultimately lead to the internet. Gates is just another Greed-Head amassing a huge fortune that came from exploiting the talents of others; in other words, he didn't build it by himself. He manipulated an economic system designed to consolidate wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

Wow, someone in Los Angeles that thinks Capitalism is evil! And we wonder why California is almost bankrupt. Yet another reason why I am getting the HELL OUT OF HERE!

I hear Bismarck is booming:

"The Bank of North Dakota, or BND, is a state-owned and -run financial institution, based in Bismarck, North Dakota.

"Under state law, the bank is the State of North Dakota doing business as the Bank of North Dakota.[1] The state and its agencies are required to place their funds in the bank, but local governments are not required to do so..."

"The Bank of North Dakota was established by legislative action in 1919 to promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota.[3]

"Though initially conceived by populists in the Non-Partisan League, or NPL, as a credit union-style institution to free the farmers of the state from predatory lenders, the bank's functions were largely blocked by out-of-state financial actors refusing to buy the bonds the bank issued to finance its lending, lending that would have provided competition to the commercial banks.[4]"

Wall Street isn't fond of competition either.
Don't catch cold.

Bank of North Dakota - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes! A crony bank, putting California citizens on the hook for their crooked loans.
What could go wrong?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Socialists believe subsistence, medical care, and education are human rights that shouldn't depend upon the "charity" of some of the most selfish individuals in history.

It doesn't depend on charity unless you are disabled and have no family that can take care of you. That description applies to about 0.2% of the population. It depends on work.

Socialists are wrong: you have no right to subsistence, medical care or education.

Gates and his ilk unilaterally decide which societal needs to lavish their time and money on when a more democratic solution would involve taxing the ultra rich at the same rate as 60 years ago and allowing society to decide how to distribute surplus.

That's why the more democratic solution is fucked. Why should a mass of numskulls decide how to spend the fortune Bill Gates built? If it was up to them, there would never have been a fortune in the first place. They would have crapped it away long before Microsoft ever became a household name.

Because "a mass of numskulls" bought Windows and their taxes provided the infrastructure that ultimately lead to the internet. Gates is just another Greed-Head amassing a huge fortune that came from exploiting the talents of others; in other words, he didn't build it by himself. He manipulated an economic system designed to consolidate wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

 

[DriftingSand]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

Like it or not rich folks found a way to get rich. I have a feeling that most everyone on this site (Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, National Socialist, Libertarian, or Tea Party) would gladly put a few billion bucks in their accounts if they only could.

If you hate successful businessmen so much then stop buying Fords, GMCs, Toyotas, Apple Computers, Microsoft products, Nike shoes, Stocks, Bonds, DuPont products, items from Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, McDonalds, Burger King, Starbucks, Shell, Chevron, General Electric, At&T, Verizon, T Mobile, Hewlett Packard, Amazon, Google, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Johnson & Johnson, Caterpillar, Pfizer, etc., etc., etc.

Now, if for some reason you feel that you need to buy from the companies listed above then know that they are getting rich off of the profit you are freely and willingly offering. That means that you, not they, are at "fault" for making them rich. They're simply selling a product. It's you, me, and the rest of the world who are buying that product.

 

[georgephillip]

Not if we move to pure capitalism without intervention. Than more businesses can set up and without too much regulations, the competition will stop monopolies.

It's true that small and mid-sized businesses are afflicted with too many regulations; however, you shouldn't lose sight of who benefits the most from bribing government to write those regulations:

" Hundreds of millions of times a day, thirsty Americans open a can of soda, beer or juice. And every time they do it, they pay a fraction of a penny more because of a shrewd maneuver by Goldman Sachs and other financial players that ultimately costs consumers billions of dollars."

The idea of a "free market" has two distinct meanings. Originally it was used to describe a market that was free of undue rentier influence, in other words, a market free of those interested in maximizing rent extraction.

Today, the idea has come to mean markets free of any democratic oversight, which gives rent seekers like Goldman Sachs the freedom to exploit consumers, homeowners, and investors alike.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=0

This is exactly the kind of empty babble I'm talking about.

So let's review this entire deal. Goldman Sach, which trades in commodities, and has numerous holdings for their clients of commodities, bought controlling shares in a company that operates several dozens of warehouses that store such commodities, like aluminum.

Now keep in mind, Goldman Sachs has owned this company for a long long time. Did prices significantly rise? Nope. But because this is Goldman Sachs.... and there are moronic fools who hate Goldman Sachs, suddenly this is an issue. Of course the brainless fools who follow these hateful morons, never bother to look at the reality. All they know is Goldman Sach did something bad (allegedly), and therefore it must be true, because we're all too stupid to think for ourselves.

Now, is it true that because of regulations on commodities, that the prices charged are higher, than would be in a free-market? Yes. Does this benefit Goldman Sachs? Well since they own the company, and the company is doing better because of it.... yes.

But here's the kicker. If anyone else owned that company, it would benefit them just as much. And this article is out of date. Goldman Sachs sold off this company, and now a foreign company is reaping the benefits.

All these idiots on the left did, was make it so that now foriegn people are benefiting, instead of Americans.

But it does not end there... notice the commentary....

"Free-Market means... markets free of any democratic oversight, which gives rent seekers like Goldman Sachs the freedom to exploit consumers, homeowners, and investors alike"​

But you just pointed out regulations that drive up the cost of commodities, at the cost of consumers.

Those regulations are exactly the same oversight that you say in this quote we need.

You can't have it both ways. Either the regulations harm the consumers as your very own citation suggests, or it benefits them.

Very little shows it benefits us. Your own link proves it doesn't.

Without those regulations, the company Goldman Sachs purchased, would not be able to charge customers more money to store their commodities there.

Why? Because that company is less than 10% of the warehouses that store commodities. If they had a significantly higher cost to storing commodities, customers would store their commodities elsewhere.

The ONLY reason that this company was able to charge more, was because of the very "democratic oversight" you people on the left push. That "democratic oversight" forces all warehouses to charge more. Thus the one Goldman Sachs owns can do so, without losing customers, because all the warehouses are charging more, thanks to Leftard "democratic oversight".

"In the case of aluminum, Goldman bought Metro International Trade Services, one of the country’s biggest storers of the metal. More than a quarter of the supply of aluminum available on the market is kept in the company’s Detroit-area warehouses.


"Before Goldman bought Metro International three years ago, warehouse customers used to wait an average of six weeks for their purchases to be located, retrieved by forklift and delivered to factories.

"But now that Goldman owns the company, the wait has grown more than tenfold — to more than 16 months, according to industry records.

"Longer waits might be written off as an aggravation, but they also make aluminum more expensive nearly everywhere in the country because of the arcane formula used to determine the cost of the metal on the spot market.

"The delays are so acute that Coca-Cola and many other manufacturers avoid buying aluminum stored here. Nonetheless, they still pay the higher price."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=1&

 

[DriftingSand]

Because "a mass of numskulls" bought Windows and their taxes provided the infrastructure that ultimately lead to the internet. Gates is just another Greed-Head amassing a huge fortune that came from exploiting the talents of others; in other words, he didn't build it by himself. He manipulated an economic system designed to consolidate wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

Interestingly, it's the "greed-heads" like Gates (and many other giant corporations like Home Depot, Firefox, etc.) who openly support ultra-liberal causes. Sort of a catch 22, isn't it? I find it funny that the Libs are so willing to bite the hands that feed them (and their pet causes).

I'm simply opposed to this strange idea that a person who has worked his way into success is somehow evil while lazy individuals are somehow victims. I will concede that there are some instances where a rich person got his money by dishonest means and that there are some poor people who simply ran into a streak of really bad fortune (illness, economic collapse, natural disaster, etc.) but I believe the percentages are low in either case.

I've personally had periods of success and periods of loss. I blame nobody for either situation. Or, conversely, I can blame myself for either situation.

 

[georgephillip]

Without evil capitalism man wouldn't have even survived living in caves.
It's in the human genetic code to compete to survive. Not unlike every living organism BTW
'Social Darwinism'. All you LIB fairies who don't like life as it is on this planet can fuck off to Uranus for all I care.

Capitalism is historical, not natural.
It began its development in the Middle Ages, and can claim existence for about 500 years, at most. FWIW, Social Darwinism is just another lie the rich tell to their ignorant, conservative slaves.

LOL you are so full of it. Capitalism has always existed. 6,000 years ago there were people who owned land, and rented it out to be farmed. They owned mills, and rented them out to produce food. They owned blacksmith shops, and used them to hire more black smiths to make more swords and things.

Capitalism.... personal property, has existed since the dawn of human kind.

Capitalism and personal property are not the same thing.
Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making a profit within a market economy.

That doesn't sound like Mesopotamia 6000 years ago:

"Irrigated agriculture spread southwards from the Zagros foothills with the Samara and Hadji Muhammed culture, from about 5,000 BC.[36]

"Sumerian temples functioned as banks and developed the first large-scale system of loans and credit, but the Babylonians developed the earliest system of commercial banking.

"It was comparable in some ways to modern post-Keynesian economics, but with a more 'anything goes' approach.[31]

"In the early period down to Ur III temples owned up to one third of the available land, declining over time as royal and other private holdings increased in frequency."

Mesopotamia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

So there are no capitalist like "Bill Gates" who donates massive amounts of both money and time to all types of charities ... fascinating.

Socialists believe subsistence, medical care, and education are human rights that shouldn't depend upon the "charity" of some of the most selfish individuals in history. Gates and his ilk unilaterally decide which societal needs to lavish their time and money on when a more democratic solution would involve taxing the ultra rich at the same rate as 60 years ago and allowing society to decide how to distribute surplus.

But here's the problem. Bill Gates has done more to help people, then you socialists have ever done.

Socialists never help people themselves. They just try and force others to help people.

Obama hasn't given money from his own pocket, nor the people in the Soviet Kremlin, nor Chairman Mao, nor Hugo Chavez, nor any of the leftists throughout history.

Even those that do help people, and call themselves leftist, are anything but. Warren Buffet, may vote democrap, and may support socialism, and he may give his wealth to Charity....... but the fact is, Warren Buffet, and Ted Turner, and all the other leftists, have all made their fortunes as Free-market Capitalists.

Free-market Capitalists have done more for the middle and lower income people of the entire world, than you socialists have done throughout all human history combined.

You shouldn't fear socialism:

"1. The Military/Defense - The United States military is the largest and most funded socialist program in the world. It operates thanks to our taxpayer dollars and protects the country as a whole. From the richest citizens to the homeless who sleep under the bridge. We are all protected by our military whether we pay taxes or not. This is complete socialism.

2. Highways/Roads - Those roads and highways you drive on every single day are completely taxpayer funded. Your tax dollars are used to maintain, expand, and preserve our highways and roads for every one's use. President Eisenhower was inspired by Germany's autobahn and implemented the idea right here in America. That's right, a republican president created our taxpayer funded, national highway system. This was a different time, before the republican party came down with a vicious case of rabies that never went away.

3. Public Libraries - Yes. That place where you go to check out books from conservative authors telling you how horrible socialism is, is in fact socialism. Libraries are taxpayer funded. You pay a few bucks to get a library card and you can read books for free for the rest of your life.

4. Police - Ever had a situation where you had to call the police? Then you have used a taxpayer funded socialist program. Anyone can call the police whether they pay taxes or not. They are there to protect and serve the community, not individuals. This is complete socialism on a state level, but still socialism all the same. Would you rather have to swipe your credit card before the police will help you?

5. Fire Dept. - Hopefully you have never had a fire in your home. But if you have, you probably called your local taxpayer-funded fire department to put the fire out. Like police, this is state socialism. You tax dollars are used to rescue your entire community in case of a fire."

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

 

[bripat9643]

Socialists believe subsistence, medical care, and education are human rights that shouldn't depend upon the "charity" of some of the most selfish individuals in history.

It doesn't depend on charity unless you are disabled and have no family that can take care of you. That description applies to about 0.2% of the population. It depends on work.

Socialists are wrong: you have no right to subsistence, medical care or education.

Gates and his ilk unilaterally decide which societal needs to lavish their time and money on when a more democratic solution would involve taxing the ultra rich at the same rate as 60 years ago and allowing society to decide how to distribute surplus.

That's why the more democratic solution is fucked. Why should a mass of numskulls decide how to spend the fortune Bill Gates built? If it was up to them, there would never have been a fortune in the first place. They would have crapped it away long before Microsoft ever became a household name.

Because "a mass of numskulls" bought Windows and their taxes provided the infrastructure that ultimately lead to the internet.

The internet was built with private money, and buying a copy of Windows entitles you to nothing more than a copy of Windows.

Gates is just another Greed-Head amassing a huge fortune that came from exploiting the talents of others; in other words, he didn't build it by himself. .

Everyone involve was paid handsomely. 10,000 people became millionaires working for Microsoft. However, you think some clueless tick on the ass of society living in Hoboken New Jersey is entitled to tell Bill Gates how to spend his fortune. I can't imagine anything more idiotic than that.

He manipulated an economic system designed to consolidate wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

How did Gates "manipulate the economic system?" He played by the rules and became wealthy. That why you and the other ticks on the ass of society hate him. You understand perfectly that you don't have what it takes to accomplish what he did.

 

[Crystalclear]

More nonsense! Capitalism started when the first caveman traded a spear for a cut of meat, or traded flint arrowheads to other members of his clan for his share of what they brought back from the hunt. Capitalism is natural, and has been in existance since men began living together. It will exist, legally or illegally, until men cease to exist on this earth.

Capitalism is the reason that you don't have to stand in line to buy a loaf of bread of a roll of toilet paper. Capitalism is the reason that you have many choices when you buy a car or a washing machine. Capitalism works, and no other system works as well.

True, human nature is not socialistic. Everyone wants to get rich and most people do also not want to live in some socialist dictature.

Humans are social animals with societies that depend on cooperation far more than competition. No one I know wants to live in any kind of dictatorship, yet that is exactly what we are approaching due to the unbounded greed of a few psychopaths:

"According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP...'”

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

Look at people, they are more competitive than social. Really social, but still more competitive. And in a free country, inequality will always exist. Our freedom decreases when a government tries (too hard, a little is always good) to decrease the gaps between different groups of wealth.

 

[Andylusion]

I never said debasing the currency was the only reason rich Romans prospered at the expense of the poor. Debasing contributed to inflation; once Rome stopped conquering new lands, gold imports decreased, the rich continued spending gold on luxury items, and the amount of gold used in coins decreased. Obviously, the urban decay and unemployment in Rome stemming from slavery contributed to its decline; however, all of those evils trace back to the early formations of vast, private fortunes. Similarly, large private fortunes in France and Venezuela today are trying to flee their histories of wage slavery.

The rich are the problem.

No, that's more opinion than fact. I can make up a bunch of opinion to counter your opinion, but that doesn't change reality either way.

Again, if the real problem was the rich, then why are countries without rich, in poverty? You can't explain that with your monolog.

Name a country without a single rich citizen.
Do you disagree the a large slave population in Rome created unemployment among free citizens of the time?
This is a forum that depends of many different opinions being expressed so that some consensus may occur. If you don't agree with the opinions I choose to support my beliefs, find your own experts to counter my claims. Looking for "reality" without defining what you mean by the term is an exercise in futility.

How many rich North Koreans are there, not tied to government? Or Cuba?

How about you do the same. You never seem to post anything, except someone else's opinion article.

 

[editec]

Not if we move to pure capitalism without intervention. Than more businesses can set up and without too much regulations, the competition will stop monopolies.

That would be true if (in an environment where there were no regulating bodies) the IF THE CORPORATIONS PLAYED FAIR

CHECK YOUR HISTORY, and tell me t when corporations EVER played fair when there was no regulating body to keep them in check.

Like you, you see, I understand the strength of capitalism and why it is a good system.

But apparently you are confused into thinking that capitalism can exist sans regulation.

No it cannot because the moment there is no big brother keeping corporations in check, they CRUSH their competition by means other thans CAPITALISM. (read crime)

 

[Andylusion]

Where did you get the idea the US has no control over the policies of Haiti?

Well by your own theory, if we had control, we would impose a capitalistic system of private property rights. Yet we know that isn't the case.

Do we?
Prove it.

"In 1915 the United States, responding to complaints to President Woodrow Wilson from American banks to which Haiti was deeply in debt, occupied the country.

"The occupation of Haiti lasted until 1934.

"The US occupation was self-interested, sometimes brutal, and caused problems that lasted past its lifetime.

"Reforms, though, were carried out.

"Under the supervision of the United States Marines, the Haitian National Assembly elected Philippe Sudré Dartiguenave President.

"He signed a treaty that made Haiti a de jure US protectorate, with American officials assuming control over the Financial Adviser, Customs Receivership, the Constabulary, the Public Works Service, and the Public Health Service for a period of ten years.

"The principal instrument of American authority was the newly created Gendarmerie d'Haïti, commanded by American officers.

"In 1917, at the demand of US officials, the National Assembly was dissolved, and officials were designated to write a new constitution, which was largely dictated by officials in the US State Department and US Navy Department.

"Franklin D Roosevelt, Under-Secretary for the Navy in the Wilson administration, claimed to have personally written the new constitution."

History of Haiti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From your link:

The occupation greatly improved some of Haiti's infrastructure and centralized power in Port-au-Prince. Infrastructure improvements were particularly impressive: 1700 km of roads were made usable, 189 bridges were built, many irrigation canals were rehabilitated, hospitals, schools, and public buildings were constructed, and drinking water was brought to the main cities. Port-au-Prince became the first Caribbean city to have an available phone service with automatic dialing. Agricultural education was organized with a central school of agriculture and 69 farms in the country

Further.... you ignore what happened after the occupation was over.

President Vincent took advantage of the comparative national stability, which was being maintained by a professionalized military, to gain absolute power. A plebiscite permitted the transfer of all authority in economic matters from the legislature to the executive, but Vincent was not content with this expansion of his power. In 1935 he forced through the legislature a new constitution, which was also approved by plebiscite. The constitution praised Vincent, and it granted the executive sweeping powers to dissolve the legislature at will, to reorganize the judiciary, to appoint ten of twenty-one senators (and to recommend the remaining eleven to the lower house), and to rule by decree when the legislature was not in session. Although Vincent implemented some improvements in infrastructure and services, he brutally repressed his opposition, censored the press, and governed largely to benefit himself and a clique of merchants and corrupt military officers

So let's recap....

Unlike the DR which still has the American modeled Constitution, the constitution in Haiti was completely replaced by a more socialist model of government control. All of the property rights the American one put in place, were swept away, with a pro-government Constitution with nearly unlimited power.

The result has been an unlimited stream of dictatorships wrapped up as democratically elected governments, which nationalized business and destroyed those businesses, and drove away the rich, which killed off jobs and growth, and resulted in the impoverished hopeless Haiti we have today.

About the only thing you can point to, as being an example of American caused destruction in Haiti, was the insistence by the United States Agency for International Development, that pigs be slaughtered in order to stop the spread of the Swine Fever Virus.

 

[Crystalclear]

Not if we move to pure capitalism without intervention. Than more businesses can set up and without too much regulations, the competition will stop monopolies.

That would be true if (in an environment where there were no regulating bodies) the IF THE CORPORATIONS PLAYED FAIR

CHECK YOUR HISTORY, and tell me t when corporations EVER played fair when there was no regulating body to keep them in check.

Like you, you see, I understand the strength of capitalism and why it is a good system.

But apparently you are confused into thinking that capitalism can exist sans regulation.

No it cannot because the moment there is no big brother keeping corporations in check, they CRUSH their competition by means other thans CAPITALISM. (read crime)

This will be really bad for the image of the big business. And what exactly do you mean by crushing? If it is violence, the company will be punished. If economically, why? Small businesses have an advantage by means of lower costs so can ask lower prices for their products.

 

[bripat9643]

Not if we move to pure capitalism without intervention. Than more businesses can set up and without too much regulations, the competition will stop monopolies.

That would be true if (in an environment where there were no regulating bodies) the IF THE CORPORATIONS PLAYED FAIR

CHECK YOUR HISTORY, and tell me t when corporations EVER played fair when there was no regulating body to keep them in check.

Like you, you see, I understand the strength of capitalism and why it is a good system.

But apparently you are confused into thinking that capitalism can exist sans regulation.

No it cannot because the moment there is no big brother keeping corporations in check, they CRUSH their competition by means other thans CAPITALISM. (read crime)

Capitalism existed in this country for about 140 years without any regulation. It thrived, so your claim is obvious horse manure.

 

[Crystalclear]

Oh, I see crime, but free market is economically. I'm for minimal government (so libertarian, not anarchist) and in that situation there is always a government to punish crimes committed. Even by businesses, because crushing like you mean has nothing to do with market or trade, but just criminal activity.

 

[georgephillip]

Not if we move to pure capitalism without intervention. Than more businesses can set up and without too much regulations, the competition will stop monopolies.

That would be true if (in an environment where there were no regulating bodies) the IF THE CORPORATIONS PLAYED FAIR

CHECK YOUR HISTORY, and tell me t when corporations EVER played fair when there was no regulating body to keep them in check.

Like you, you see, I understand the strength of capitalism and why it is a good system.

But apparently you are confused into thinking that capitalism can exist sans regulation.

No it cannot because the moment there is no big brother keeping corporations in check, they CRUSH their competition by means other thans CAPITALISM. (read crime)

Capitalism existed in this country for about 140 years without any regulation. It thrived, so your claim is obvious horse manure.

Capitalism grew in this country behind heavy tariffs, just as it did in England.
Capitalism can't exist without government providing regulations since the greed of elite capitalists becomes self-destructive to the entire system.

 

[bripat9643]

That would be true if (in an environment where there were no regulating bodies) the IF THE CORPORATIONS PLAYED FAIR

CHECK YOUR HISTORY, and tell me t when corporations EVER played fair when there was no regulating body to keep them in check.

Like you, you see, I understand the strength of capitalism and why it is a good system.

But apparently you are confused into thinking that capitalism can exist sans regulation.

No it cannot because the moment there is no big brother keeping corporations in check, they CRUSH their competition by means other thans CAPITALISM. (read crime)

Capitalism existed in this country for about 140 years without any regulation. It thrived, so your claim is obvious horse manure.

Capitalism grew in this country behind heavy tariffs, just as it did in England.
Capitalism can't exist without government providing regulations since the greed of elite capitalists becomes self-destructive to the entire system.

Tariffs is your idea of "heavy regulation?" Within the Common wealth of Great Britain, there were no tariffs. Capitalism thrived. Also, neither Hong Kong or Singapore have any tariffs, yet they are thriving. The idea that capitalism requires tariffs is obviously false. Free market economists have argued against tariffs ever since the days of David Ricardo.