Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[gnarlylove]

"So anything further you say I am going to praise is and thank it. I am your personal cheerleader for I have nothing relevant to say. Or, if you want a discussion, let's move on and you can pick a topic.

That was a very condescending comment. I suggest if you have any intention of conversing with me, you do not use that tactic. From what I have read of your opinions, I am not a fan, but if you insult, I will respond in kind."

How was that condescending? Not2BSubjugated and I worked out our common ground. I must forfeit all my dissenting beliefs because they are total sophistry. You can plainly read what he said. So in order for he and I to converse, I must drop my beliefs and in order to be rational, in order to be sensible, in order to have a discussion, I cannot be saying whatever I have been saying.

The only way this can be interpreted as condescending is if you get to decide that I'm not being serious. I guess I have no room for posting whatsoever then if not only I don't get to express my views but I further don't get to decide whether what I have to say is serious or a joke.

However, I have worked out no such arrangement with you and was not replying to you. Now that I am, let me ask why you value leaving poverty but don't advocate for others who still live in the miserable condition you lived in? Reading your signature in red seems like you would care but as you've rightly told me I should have no self-pity so long as someone like yourself was able to exit poverty.

I also want and need to be clear: we are not talking about me. This is about policy that creates joblessness. I will become infuriated if you dismiss my critical assessment of economic and political policy because it's about me not getting what I want or because I'm a big baby in self-pity. Our economic downturn isn't a law of nature where 1/5th of our land, office space, tools and resources should be un-used. However, the bi-partisan policy leads to exactly this where currently about 20% of America's resources are rusting, decaying and sitting idle because it isn't profitable to use them. While it is likely true it wouldn't be profitable in the way a business owner would like, profit is not the harbinger of life and healthy communities. The fact that the community is taking care of it's poorest citizens is a sign of a healthy community. Firing or not hiring people because it won't benefit the owner to his or her liking is only rational if you neglect what these things do to a community. Jesus said you will be judged by how you treat the least among you. Though I'm not Christian, he's right.

If this post is too long and you don't like reading them this long, let me know so I can shorten them. It's perfectly understandable.

 

[bonehead]

.

I'll try again.

Clearly there are people here who are more than willing to point out what they perceive to be the evils of capitalism.

So, and I'm sure you've thought this through, what precisely would you like to see? Let's get specific here, with ideas and/or examples of the following:

• New regulations you'd like to see on business
• Specific marginal income tax rates
• Macro comparisons with other countries
• Constitutional amendments, if any
• New culturally-oriented laws, if any
• Any other specifics of any kind

Let's take full advantage of this forum, and of the anonymity provided by the internet, and really get into the nuts & bolts of what you'd really like to see. You don't like capitalism, great. Take the reins, what, precisely, is your answer for America?

And by the way, it would be great if you could identify potential problems with each idea, so that we can all understand that you've thought it through and recognize red flags that we would need to consider and address upon implementation.

Thanks.

.

okay, I'll do the best I can. capitalism is not, in and of itself, evil. unbridled capitalism leads to control of people, countries and governments depending on the style of governments. Jefferson, Franklin and Madison warned us over 200 years ago this could happen in a democratic republic where a small number of legislatures would be allowed to control both laws and money. I see only one way to eliminate this problem, and that is by evolving our system into a direct democracy. just in pure money this makes sense - it is easier to buy the majority of 535 legislators than a majority of 210,000,000 voters.

 

[dnsmith35]

So anything further you say I am going to praise is and thank it. I am your personal cheerleader for I have nothing relevant to say. Or, if you want a discussion, let's move on and you can pick a topic.

That was a very condescending comment. I suggest if you have any intention of conversing with me, you do not use that tactic. From what I have read of your opinions, I am not a fan, but if you insult, I will respond in kind."

How was that condescending? Not2BSubjugated and I worked out our common ground. I must forfeit all my dissenting beliefs because they are total sophistry. You can plainly read what he said. So in order for he and I to converse, I must drop my beliefs and in order to be rational, in order to be sensible, in order to have a discussion, I cannot be saying whatever I have been saying.

That entire comment is condescending. I could care less what kind of "working out" you did with someone else, I won't stand still for it. Got it?

The only way this can be interpreted as condescending is if you get to decide that I'm not being serious. I guess I have no room for posting whatsoever then if not only I don't get to express my views but I further don't get to decide whether what I have to say is serious or a joke.

It is condescending because of the manner in which you said it and the effective tone of the comment. Period! Say what you wish, express all the opinions you want, but when your point of view is shot down, you still do not have to be rude. Got it?

However, I have worked out no such arrangement with you and was not replying to you. Now that I am, let me ask why you value leaving poverty but don't advocate for others who still live in the miserable condition you lived in? Reading your signature in red seems like you would care but as you've rightly told me I should have no self-pity so long as someone like yourself was able to exit poverty.

I do not value leaving poverty. That comment was bull. I do advocate for all poverty, just some is more oppressive than others. It was you show showed self pity with a comment, not some poor person.

I also want and need to be clear: we are not talking about me. This is about policy that creates joblessness. I will become infuriated if you dismiss my critical assessment of economic and political policy because it's about me not getting what I want or because I'm a big baby in self-pity. Our economic downturn isn't a law of nature where 1/5th of our land, office space, tools and resources should be un-used. However, the bi-partisan policy leads to exactly this where currently about 20% of America's resources are rusting, decaying and sitting idle because it isn't profitable to use them.

Since the profit motive of capitalism is the only reason we are a prosperous country such that we CAN afford to help our poor, it is obvious it is very important. While it is likely true it wouldn't be profitable in the way a business owner would like, profit is not the harbinger of life and healthy communities. [/quote]In fact, just the opposite is true. That theory of yours is haywire.

The fact that the community is taking care of it's poorest citizens is a sign of a healthy community.

Yes it is, but if you don't have profits on which wages and taxes paid, the community would not be able to care for its least wealth/poor people. Firing or not hiring people because it won't benefit the owner to his or her liking is only rational if you neglect what these things do to a community. Jesus said you will be judged by how you treat the least among you. Though I'm not Christian, he's right.[/quote]Yes, he was right, but until you have an entity who makes a profit sufficient to hire workers and pay taxes, there is nothing the community can do.

If this post is too long and you don't like reading them this long, let me know so I can shorten them. It's perfectly understandable.

No, not too long, just a lot of propaganda suggesting that people can be hired to work or helped with welfare without someone making sufficient profits to pay them. It is your opinion, and obviously you have never experienced a situation in which such a "plan" existed beyond the original capital petering out and those who are able getting tired of supporting the rest according to their need.

I said it before, and I'll say it again, capitalism may not be great, but is the best system the world has to create prosperity and take care of the needy. And if you believe what I have said does not show compassion for the poor and disabled, then you obviously do not understand the English written word.

 

[dnsmith35]

.

I'll try again.

Clearly there are people here who are more than willing to point out what they perceive to be the evils of capitalism.

So, and I'm sure you've thought this through, what precisely would you like to see? Let's get specific here, with ideas and/or examples of the following:

• New regulations you'd like to see on business
• Specific marginal income tax rates
• Macro comparisons with other countries
• Constitutional amendments, if any
• New culturally-oriented laws, if any
• Any other specifics of any kind

Let's take full advantage of this forum, and of the anonymity provided by the internet, and really get into the nuts & bolts of what you'd really like to see. You don't like capitalism, great. Take the reins, what, precisely, is your answer for America?

And by the way, it would be great if you could identify potential problems with each idea, so that we can all understand that you've thought it through and recognize red flags that we would need to consider and address upon implementation.

Thanks.

.

okay, I'll do the best I can. capitalism is not, in and of itself, evil. unbridled capitalism leads to control of people, countries and governments depending on the style of governments. Jefferson, Franklin and Madison warned us over 200 years ago this could happen in a democratic republic where a small number of legislatures would be allowed to control both laws and money. I see only one way to eliminate this problem, and that is by evolving our system into a direct democracy. just in pure money this makes sense - it is easier to buy the majority of 535 legislators than a majority of 210,000,000 voters.

I disagree!

1. 435 if those are members of the House, and each comes from a small congressional district. The problem with that is 200 years of gerrymandering. Each congressional district should be redesigned in as close a symmetrical shape, a square or rectangle fit in with all the other areas with as close to the same population as possible, then outlaw gerrymandering by Amendment to the constitution.

2. We should go back to the original method of choosing the Senate and the President.

3. issue is eliminating as much propaganda in campaigns as possible.

4. Effectively the entire process of politics because a local issue again as it was intended. People cannot be expected to know enough about candidates on a national basis as they do about the candidates from their local district. I know better what my neighbors in my town need more than do some puppeteer from far, far away. One size does not fit all and we can better manage our limited funds spent on our community that others who have no idea who we are.

5. That alone will eliminate much if not all this huge propaganda machine we call campaigning.

6. It also brings politicians down to individuals such that national party machines have less influence.

7.Better still, eliminate and outlaw political parties and elect our leaders on their own recognizance.

It would not kill our democracy to have PEOPLE run our country rather than Party Puppeteers.

There is no such thing as Laissez-Faire capitalism in existence anywhere today. Not only is capitalism not evil, it is the best economic system the world has ever seen and will improve the prosperity of a nation many times more than any other system, and though our left wing extremists don't want to admit it, it takes care of more people, leaving much fewer in real poverty, than any alternative.

Our economy has created a very divided 3 tier system, not because of the greed of the rich, but because of the ignorance of so many about the value of a strong economy driven by people of ambition instead in stead of the "to each according to his need" and from each according to his ability. All that kind of warped thinking does is to make the high achievers resent the low achievers until the society breaks down to there being no achievers of consequence. I learned this from experience having lived 21 years of my life living in 6 countries other than the US, and mostly in the 3rd world, to include socialist countries. What I dislike about any form of Marxism is two fold: more people live in poverty with only the leaders achieving any kind of prosperity, and, they inevitably have to turn to autocratic/dictatorship governments to control the people.

 

[Publius1787]

Your video is a good illustration of what the common man did for capitalism, and I couldn't help noticing it stopped in 2009. Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed?

If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.

 

[Publius1787]

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."

This is what capitalism did for the common man. Don't give me that world poverty bs!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo]Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats - BBC Four - YouTube[/ame]

And its not the top 1%. Its the top 0.01% . Get your facts straight.

That is an interesting chart. It blows the left wing argument of income inequality out of the water since that inequality only occurs with the top .01%

Not entirely, but it certainly shows that they are waging war against an additional .9% who don't deserve particular scrutiny. They have always had a knack for not only blowing a problem out of proportion but also not thinking through a reasonable alternative.

 

[Andylusion]

Your video is a good illustration of what the common man did for capitalism, and I couldn't help noticing it stopped in 2009. Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed?

China at one point was the leading country in the entire world. They led Technologically. They led culturally. They lead economically. They led militarily.

The Ming dynasty had an economic policy of "let it be". Freedom, capitalism, and letting the people conduct business for themselves.

The Ming Dynasty was replaced by the Qing dynasty, which had a different economic view. They attempted to control grain prices, which caused shortages. They controlled mining licenses, which hindered development. They attempted to control trade, which resulted in the Opium wars. (Traders that would have traded in legal items, seeing their trade dry up, went to black market items, namely Opium).

The slow economic (socialistic) decay, doomed China, and eventually resulted in the Communism under Mao.

Throughout this period, China declined, until it had not only lost it's leading position in the world, but was actually so destitute, it became a 3rd world country, with people still living in mud walled shacks.

Wealth... is not static. Wealth is dynamic. It is constantly being created and consumed.

When you start to dismantle the system by which wealth is created, you doom society to poverty, because wealth will always be consumed.

When you say that "Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed", you are following in the foot steps of the Qing dynasty, and children growing up in mud shacks, going to school learning "you mean a long time ago, China was the leading country in the world? What happened?"

If we follow your position, some day, children will be going to school, saying "You mean the US used to be a super power? What happened?".

And don't sit there and say "Oh that can't happen. Your just being dramatic. Look at how wealthy we are!"

Because people said that during the Qing Dynasty, and in Rome. Look at Italy today. Look at pre-78 China. History proved all of them wrong. If we follow your beliefs, history will prove you wrong too. Fortunately for you, you'll be long dead by the time the destruction you push comes to fruition.

 

[bonehead]

.

I'll try again.

Clearly there are people here who are more than willing to point out what they perceive to be the evils of capitalism.

So, and I'm sure you've thought this through, what precisely would you like to see? Let's get specific here, with ideas and/or examples of the following:

• New regulations you'd like to see on business
• Specific marginal income tax rates
• Macro comparisons with other countries
• Constitutional amendments, if any
• New culturally-oriented laws, if any
• Any other specifics of any kind

Let's take full advantage of this forum, and of the anonymity provided by the internet, and really get into the nuts & bolts of what you'd really like to see. You don't like capitalism, great. Take the reins, what, precisely, is your answer for America?

And by the way, it would be great if you could identify potential problems with each idea, so that we can all understand that you've thought it through and recognize red flags that we would need to consider and address upon implementation.

Thanks.

.

okay, I'll do the best I can. capitalism is not, in and of itself, evil. unbridled capitalism leads to control of people, countries and governments depending on the style of governments. Jefferson, Franklin and Madison warned us over 200 years ago this could happen in a democratic republic where a small number of legislatures would be allowed to control both laws and money. I see only one way to eliminate this problem, and that is by evolving our system into a direct democracy. just in pure money this makes sense - it is easier to buy the majority of 535 legislators than a majority of 210,000,000 voters.

I disagree!

1. 435 if those are members of the House, and each comes from a small congressional district. The problem with that is 200 years of gerrymandering. Each congressional district should be redesigned in as close a symmetrical shape, a square or rectangle fit in with all the other areas with as close to the same population as possible, then outlaw gerrymandering by Amendment to the constitution.

2. We should go back to the original method of choosing the Senate and the President.

3. issue is eliminating as much propaganda in campaigns as possible.

4. Effectively the entire process of politics because a local issue again as it was intended. People cannot be expected to know enough about candidates on a national basis as they do about the candidates from their local district. I know better what my neighbors in my town need more than do some puppeteer from far, far away. One size does not fit all and we can better manage our limited funds spent on our community that others who have no idea who we are.

5. That alone will eliminate much if not all this huge propaganda machine we call campaigning.

6. It also brings politicians down to individuals such that national party machines have less influence.

7.Better still, eliminate and outlaw political parties and elect our leaders on their own recognizance.

It would not kill our democracy to have PEOPLE run our country rather than Party Puppeteers.

There is no such thing as Laissez-Faire capitalism in existence anywhere today. Not only is capitalism not evil, it is the best economic system the world has ever seen and will improve the prosperity of a nation many times more than any other system, and though our left wing extremists don't want to admit it, it takes care of more people, leaving much fewer in real poverty, than any alternative.

Our economy has created a very divided 3 tier system, not because of the greed of the rich, but because of the ignorance of so many about the value of a strong economy driven by people of ambition instead in stead of the "to each according to his need" and from each according to his ability. All that kind of warped thinking does is to make the high achievers resent the low achievers until the society breaks down to there being no achievers of consequence. I learned this from experience having lived 21 years of my life living in 6 countries other than the US, and mostly in the 3rd world, to include socialist countries. What I dislike about any form of Marxism is two fold: more people live in poverty with only the leaders achieving any kind of prosperity, and, they inevitably have to turn to autocratic/dictatorship governments to control the people.

you do understand what a direct democracy is. the legislature authors and publishes the bills and the budgets requests. those are voted on by the citizens - not the "government". majority passes the measure except for budget and constitutional issues, which require a double majority. this would take care of your concerns listed and then some.

 

[bedowin62]

Planes leave hourly;

for the non-capitalist country of your choosing

 

[georgephillip]

"In Marxist economic analysis, income inequality increases under capitalism because capitalist firms substitute workers for capital equipment in the course of development (under competitive pressures to maximize profit).

"Over the long-term, this results in a rising organic composition of capital where less human labor is required in proportion to capital equipment, increasing unemployment and thereby exerting a downward pressure on wages by increasing the size of the reserve army of labour.

"The adoption of capital equipment that substitutes labor (or job automation) increases productivity and profits for the capitalist class, resulting in a situation of relatively stagnant wages for the working class amidst rising levels of income for the capitalist class."

Economic inequality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dnsmith35]

This is what capitalism did for the common man. Don't give me that world poverty bs!

Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats - BBC Four - YouTube

And its not the top 1%. Its the top 0.01% . Get your facts straight.

That is an interesting chart. It blows the left wing argument of income inequality out of the water since that inequality only occurs with the top .01%

Not entirely, but it certainly shows that they are waging war against an additional .9% who don't deserve particular scrutiny. They have always had a knack for not only blowing a problem out of proportion but also not thinking through a reasonable alternative.

The point is simple. The left wing extremists of my own party are trying to scare our citizens with all of that inequality BS, trying to make it a talking point to garner votes. Our problem is not that the top .01% has such high wealth, the problem is the PERCEPTION sold by extremists. We have the Capitalist type who does most of the investment. The problem is not as without them doing the investing and reaping their rewards, the problem is more the division within labor which is broken down into the 88% and the 12%. The 12% of our labor force make such a high, wage many of the rest of our labor force, that group which spends the most money on consumer goods, can't afford to buy the goods and services provided by the 12%. That problem has been partially solved by off shoring jobs; which by the way, has not been the root cause of job loses. See: Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet and Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says

The real issue politically is it can be made out to be a serious issue with the bottom 50% of our citizens, those who tend not to pay federal income taxes, who listen to the left wing extremist propaganda and actually believe the garbage.

Now, don't get the idea I am a conservative, I am not. I am a moderate liberal in that most of my social issues are liberal, but I do hold a few conservative opinions such as strong defense, law and order, and the usurpation of many of our individual and State rights.

 

[dnsmith35]

"In Marxist economic analysis, income inequality increases under capitalism because capitalist firms substitute workers for capital equipment in the course of development (under competitive pressures to maximize profit).

"Over the long-term, this results in a rising organic composition of capital where less human labor is required in proportion to capital equipment, increasing unemployment and thereby exerting a downward pressure on wages by increasing the size of the reserve army of labour.

"The adoption of capital equipment that substitutes labor (or job automation) increases productivity and profits for the capitalist class, resulting in a situation of relatively stagnant wages for the working class amidst rising levels of income for the capitalist class."

Economic inequality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marxism does say that, yet every attempt to experiment with Marxism has failed in relative short order. That is primarily because of the "to each according to his needs" and "from each according to his ability," rendering the system unmanageable without an autocratic or dictatorial government. Those who achieve get tired of being the ones who support the under achievers.

I am also not implying that we should not take care of those who CAN'T take care of themselves, and that we should do so such that they can live with dignity. I, for one, am a strong proponent of welfare for the truly needy, good public education AND vouchers for students who live in a failing public school system, and universal medical care. The very negative point about socialism that suggests private citizens should not control the primary means of production and distribution, is the major failure in a Socialist economic system. Ergo, from the start, when government gains control of those primary means of production and distribution the capital value of their economic system starts to diminish until the only people in that system with money are the leaders, with everyone else is poor. That is why the government has to be autocratic, to keep the achievers trapped in labor keeping them from leaving which then would create a state with only leaders and underachievers.

The only system which will create sufficient prosperity in a country to fund the social programs needed by the least wealthy citizens is capitalism.

Had I not spent so much of my life in 3rd world countries, I probably not understood the issues of poverty. I lived in India during much of my high school years and in the process observed true poverty, not the relative poverty we have in the US.

 

[gnarlylove]

That entire comment is condescending. I could care less what kind of "working out" you did with someone else, I won't stand still for it. Got it?

So you're saying that because I agree to cheerlead someone that I am condescending. There was no ambiguity in this comment. I said I will "thank it" by clicking thanks and praising it in my reply, noting that my dissent is of no value. So because I have announced I will agree and thank Not2BSubjugated, I am therefore condescending.

What seems to be the problem is that you don't think I'm being serious--that I cannot possibly agree. When I say I will be agreeing with Not2B, I am really lying. So I am lying even when I'm serious and it turns out you get to determine this, not me. Just to be clear, is this what you're saying?

I said it before, and I'll say it again, capitalism may not be great, but is the best system the world has to create prosperity and take care of the needy. And if you believe what I have said does not show compassion for the poor and disabled, then you obviously do not understand the English written word.

The "best system" is not an argument for capitalism. You can call it the super best system if you'd like. This value judgement does not provide information about capitalism. It attempts to abstract out the concrete realities capitalism imposes on those born into unfortunate families. Abstract value judgments won't help us if we are earnestly inquiring into the realities of capitalism.

For example, during the 2008 food crisis there was plenty of food available (enough for 2,700 kilo calories) according to former UN director of the world food program, Josette Sheeran. But due to the structure of capitalism, millions of people, mostly black, died or suffered extreme malnutrition which mentally and physically stunted developing children for their entire life. Those millions of people are not valuable to capital production, so we easily determine they simply have no value which is the only way humans can say to other humans, "you don't get food" when it's plainly available.

I can enumerate dozens of overt moral failings of capitalism but the principle set forth by David Ricardo sums up one reason causing these moral failings, namely, we only have the rights gained on the market. It deftly asserts humans have no inherent value. Personally, this leaves an interminably bitter taste in my mouth. It disagrees with every moral understanding I have but my conscience is nonetheless pointless since it's a fact that humans only gain rights through market forces and dissent changes nothing.

But I can agree with you, the dominate global system is "capitalism" or more accurately capital production and so instead of nonexistence, we've got profits and famines at the same time. I guess I'd prefer existence over nonexistence, and so if that's what you mean by best system, then I agree. It's the best system insofar as it's the only system. But then the word "best" become superfluous since it carries no information. The fact is we have a system and it produces the results we have before us. Calling it the best may be your way of expressing gratitude towards existence. That's fine, but let's not let your value judgment confuse your achievements and success with capitalism with that of the majority of human beings.

And sure, there are many great advancements that have happened over the last 200 years, like improvements in life expectancy, infant mortality (although these two measurements in the USA are the worst among developed nations) and technology. So we certainly must acknowledge the good results to developed nations but we also must be aware of where these advancements came from.

Computers, the internet and related technology for example did not purely result from capitalist narrative. No, the technology we are using to communicate was taxpayer funded through the Pentagon for decades before being handed over to private power in the 90s to reap unimaginable profits. So the costs of developing such originally unwieldy technology were socialized--which is the opposite of capitalism. Capitalist narrative says individuals develop marketable products and sell them. Either they succeed or fail. But this isn't how the industrial economy has developed. It has required massive state subsidy for developing the modern economy, which is to say taxpayers funded unmarketable products till they became marketable.

In summary, if you can agree with me that capital production can and does result in moral failings, then we should be able to agree that it's worthwhile to consider what causes such failings. It is here that a critique of capitalism comes in handy. And I'm not offering the simple critique of "look how bad capitalism can be" because that's just an observation. No, I'm talking about a critique that explains the detailed workings behind such rueful results of capital. Are you willing to engage with me on this level? Perhaps you have your own critique of capitalism and I'd be glad to hear it.

 

[georgephillip]

Your video is a good illustration of what the common man did for capitalism, and I couldn't help noticing it stopped in 2009. Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed?

China at one point was the leading country in the entire world. They led Technologically. They led culturally. They lead economically. They led militarily.

The Ming dynasty had an economic policy of "let it be". Freedom, capitalism, and letting the people conduct business for themselves.

The Ming Dynasty was replaced by the Qing dynasty, which had a different economic view. They attempted to control grain prices, which caused shortages. They controlled mining licenses, which hindered development. They attempted to control trade, which resulted in the Opium wars. (Traders that would have traded in legal items, seeing their trade dry up, went to black market items, namely Opium).

The slow economic (socialistic) decay, doomed China, and eventually resulted in the Communism under Mao.

Throughout this period, China declined, until it had not only lost it's leading position in the world, but was actually so destitute, it became a 3rd world country, with people still living in mud walled shacks.

Wealth... is not static. Wealth is dynamic. It is constantly being created and consumed.

When you start to dismantle the system by which wealth is created, you doom society to poverty, because wealth will always be consumed.

When you say that "Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed", you are following in the foot steps of the Qing dynasty, and children growing up in mud shacks, going to school learning "you mean a long time ago, China was the leading country in the world? What happened?"

If we follow your position, some day, children will be going to school, saying "You mean the US used to be a super power? What happened?".

And don't sit there and say "Oh that can't happen. Your just being dramatic. Look at how wealthy we are!"

Because people said that during the Qing Dynasty, and in Rome. Look at Italy today. Look at pre-78 China. History proved all of them wrong. If we follow your beliefs, history will prove you wrong too. Fortunately for you, you'll be long dead by the time the destruction you push comes to fruition.

Do you have links for any of your claims about the Ming Dynasty?

"The growth of Portuguese, Spanish, and Dutch trade created new demand for Chinese products and produced a massive influx of Japanese and American silver.

"This abundance of specie allowed the Ming to finally avoid using paper money, which had sparked hyperinflation during the 1450s.

"While traditional Confucians opposed such a prominent role for commerce and the newly rich it created, the heterodoxy introduced by Wang Yangming permitted a more accommodating attitude.

"Zhang Juzheng's initially successful reforms proved devastating when a slowdown in agriculture produced by the Little Ice Age was met with Japanese and Spanish policies that quickly cut off the supply of silver now necessary for farmers to be able to pay their taxes.

"Combined with crop failure, floods, and epidemic, the dynasty was considered to have lost the Mandate of Heaven and collapsed before the rebel leader Li Zicheng and a Manchurian invasion."

Ming dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dnsmith35]

dnsmith35 said, That entire comment is condescending. I could care less what kind of "working out" you did with someone else, I won't stand still for it. Got it?

So you're saying that because I agree to cheerlead someone that I am condescending. There was no ambiguity in this comment. I said I will "thank it" by clicking thanks and praising it in my reply, noting that my dissent is of no value. So because I have announced I will agree and thank Not2BSubjugated, I am therefore condescending.

Absolutely!

What seems to be the problem is that you don't think I'm being serious--that I cannot possibly agree. When I say I will be agreeing with Not2B, I am really lying. So I am lying even when I'm serious and it turns out you get to determine this, not me. Just to be clear, is this what you're saying?

I don't care how you explained it or thought you explained it, but what you said and the way it was expressed was condescending. Try that on me and I am out of discussions with you.

I said it before, and I'll say it again, capitalism may not be great, but is the best system the world has to create prosperity and take care of the needy. And if you believe what I have said does not show compassion for the poor and disabled, then you obviously do not understand the English written word.

The "best system" is not an argument for capitalism. You can call it the super best system if you'd like. This value judgement does not provide information about capitalism. It attempts to abstract out the concrete realities capitalism imposes on those born into unfortunate families. Abstract value judgments won't help us if we are earnestly inquiring into the realities of capitalism.[/quote]I also don't intend to do a back and forth as to why capitalism is better than any form of Marxism or Socialism. That is obvious to anyone with an understanding of economics.

For example, during the 2008 food crisis there was plenty of food available (enough for 2,700 kilo calories) according to former UN director of the world food program, Josette Sheeran. But due to the structure of capitalism, millions of people, mostly black, died or suffered extreme malnutrition which mentally and physically stunted developing children for their entire life. Those millions of people are not valuable to capital production, so we easily determine they simply have no value which is the only way humans can say to other humans, "you don't get food" when it's plainly available.

Bullshit! It wasn't capitalism which screwed up, it was the government. It would not matter what economic system would have if the government is corrupt and keeps the items and sells them for a profit. (which by the way is a typical trait of socialism: owning or controlling production and distribution.)

I can enumerate dozens of overt moral failings of capitalism but the principle set forth by David Ricardo sums up one reason causing these moral failings, namely, we only have the rights gained on the market. It deftly asserts humans have no inherent value. Personally, this leaves an interminably bitter taste in my mouth. It disagrees with every moral understanding I have but my conscience is nonetheless pointless since it's a fact that humans only gain rights through market forces and dissent changes nothing.

Blah, blah, blah. Moral failings do not occur because of capitalism. Since capitalism is the only system which creates sufficient wealth to care for the truly needy. Nothing else needs to be discussed.

But I can agree with you, the dominate global system is "capitalism" or more accurately capital production and so instead of nonexistence, we've got profits and famines at the same time. I guess I'd prefer existence over nonexistence, and so if that's what you mean by best system, then I agree.

That's the whole story.

It's the best system insofar as it's the only system. But then the word "best" become superfluous since it carries no information.

It carries a lot of information when you include all of socialist/communist experiments failed in a relative short time from its inception.

The fact is we have a system and it produces the results we have before us. Calling it the best may be your way of expressing gratitude towards existence. That's fine, but let's not let your value judgment confuse your achievements and success with capitalism with that of the majority of human beings.

As a humanist, and a liberal without borders, I have compassion and fight for the worlds poor from least wealthy up. In the US there are very few truly poverty stricken. Sure, there are millions below the poverty line, but they will have to fall out of every safety net, extended family and community assistance program to become truly poor, where as most are only relatively poor when compared to those with more wealth.

And sure, there are many great advancements that have happened over the last 200 years, like improvements in life expectancy, infant mortality (although these two measurements in the USA are the worst among developed nations) and technology. So we certainly must acknowledge the good results to developed nations but we also must be aware of where these advancements came from.

Of course, mostly from research from private and governmental sources combined.

Computers, the internet and related technology for example did not purely result from capitalist narrative. No, the technology we are using to communicate was taxpayer funded through the Pentagon for decades before being handed over to private power in the 90s to reap unimaginable profits. So the costs of developing such originally unwieldy technology were socialized--which is the opposite of capitalism.

There was no socialization, it was a military necessity and the government funds created the ArPARNET FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES. There are many things created for military, space, and national projects which have been expanded on my Capitalism.

Capitalist narrative says individuals develop marketable products and sell them. Either they succeed or fail. But this isn't how the industrial economy has developed. It has required massive state subsidy for developing the modern economy, which is to say taxpayers funded unmarketable products till they became marketable.

Hogwash! The government got what it paid for and most of the research was done by private enterprise under government contract and the knowledge was passed on so the Gov got $ for $ what it paid for and civilian enterprise took it from their to what it is now.

In summary, if you can agree with me that capital production can and does result in moral failings, then we should be able to agree that it's worthwhile to consider what causes such failings. It is here that a critique of capitalism comes in handy. And I'm not offering the simple critique of "look how bad capitalism can be" because that's just an observation. No, I'm talking about a critique that explains the detailed workings behind such rueful results of capital. Are you willing to engage with me on this level? Perhaps you have your own critique of capitalism and I'd be glad to hear it.

Laissez-faire capitalism is too severe for the average citizen but our system of regulation and oversight takes out most of the harshness of laissez-faire. But the moral failings are not the fault of capitalism, it is the fault of the government for not managing our social programs well. The typical left wing solution is to throw money at some area without the least concern for how or if that money will be used to advantage.

Once you recognize that a true socialist/communist government and economic system is doom to fail over time, creating greater poverty the longer it lasts, and while recognizing that, you should recognize that most of the failings of any Marxist or similar system tends to be less moral relative to taking care of the needy and their failings come from the fact that they are creating needy at ever step, then you may figure out for yourself the simply comment that "Capitalism is the best economic system in existence" and helps more people than Marxism ever can.

What you need to do if you really want to talk about Marxism or any of its similar economic systems, is to study their failures, and they have all failed. Your idealism reflected in your self proclaimed liberal desires are insufficient to prove your point. You first have to find a long running successful socialist experiment which does not have to be dictatorial to keep the high achievers from escaping. Beyond that, I have no interest in digging further into academic debate. And I don't need an argument for Capitalism other than no other system has made as great a % of the people under the system as prosperous and taken care of by our social programs. Also, as I have said before, social programs do not socialism make and neither does the government seeking research assistance by contracts with private enterprise. The biggest subsidies we experience in the US today are to the needy as defined by the Fed set poverty line. My wife and I live on less per year than any other couple under the poverty line; and though I make much more I give a lot for my personal charities. My favorite is a school in India with orphans or kids their parents cannot care for. Depending on their need I send them between $5,00 and $10,000 a year, enough to pay for the food for all the kids. I sure as hell would rather see them get it than some elitist unionist worker.

 

[crisismangement]

dnsmith35 said, That entire comment is condescending. I could care less what kind of "working out" you did with someone else, I won't stand still for it. Got it?

So you're saying that because I agree to cheerlead someone that I am condescending. There was no ambiguity in this comment. I said I will "thank it" by clicking thanks and praising it in my reply, noting that my dissent is of no value. So because I have announced I will agree and thank Not2BSubjugated, I am therefore condescending.

Absolutely!

What seems to be the problem is that you don't think I'm being serious--that I cannot possibly agree. When I say I will be agreeing with Not2B, I am really lying. So I am lying even when I'm serious and it turns out you get to determine this, not me. Just to be clear, is this what you're saying?

I don't care how you explained it or thought you explained it, but what you said and the way it was expressed was condescending. Try that on me and I am out of discussions with you.



The "best system" is not an argument for capitalism. You can call it the super best system if you'd like. This value judgement does not provide information about capitalism. It attempts to abstract out the concrete realities capitalism imposes on those born into unfortunate families. Abstract value judgments won't help us if we are earnestly inquiring into the realities of capitalism.

I also don't intend to do a back and forth as to why capitalism is better than any form of Marxism or Socialism. That is obvious to anyone with an understanding of economics.
Bullshit! It wasn't capitalism which screwed up, it was the government. It would not matter what economic system would have if the government is corrupt and keeps the items and sells them for a profit. (which by the way is a typical trait of socialism: owning or controlling production and distribution.)Blah, blah, blah. Moral failings do not occur because of capitalism. Since capitalism is the only system which creates sufficient wealth to care for the truly needy. Nothing else needs to be discussed. That's the whole story. It carries a lot of information when you include all of socialist/communist experiments failed in a relative short time from its inception. As a humanist, and a liberal without borders, I have compassion and fight for the worlds poor from least wealthy up. In the US there are very few truly poverty stricken. Sure, there are millions below the poverty line, but they will have to fall out of every safety net, extended family and community assistance program to become truly poor, where as most are only relatively poor when compared to those with more wealth.Of course, mostly from research from private and governmental sources combined.

Computers, the internet and related technology for example did not purely result from capitalist narrative. No, the technology we are using to communicate was taxpayer funded through the Pentagon for decades before being handed over to private power in the 90s to reap unimaginable profits. So the costs of developing such originally unwieldy technology were socialized--which is the opposite of capitalism.

There was no socialization, it was a military necessity and the government funds created the ArPARNET FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES. There are many things created for military, space, and national projects which have been expanded on my Capitalism.

Capitalist narrative says individuals develop marketable products and sell them. Either they succeed or fail. But this isn't how the industrial economy has developed. It has required massive state subsidy for developing the modern economy, which is to say taxpayers funded unmarketable products till they became marketable.

Hogwash! The government got what it paid for and most of the research was done by private enterprise under government contract and the knowledge was passed on so the Gov got $ for $ what it paid for and civilian enterprise took it from their to what it is now.

In summary, if you can agree with me that capital production can and does result in moral failings, then we should be able to agree that it's worthwhile to consider what causes such failings. It is here that a critique of capitalism comes in handy. And I'm not offering the simple critique of "look how bad capitalism can be" because that's just an observation. No, I'm talking about a critique that explains the detailed workings behind such rueful results of capital. Are you willing to engage with me on this level? Perhaps you have your own critique of capitalism and I'd be glad to hear it.

Laissez-faire capitalism is too severe for the average citizen but our system of regulation and oversight takes out most of the harshness of laissez-faire. But the moral failings are not the fault of capitalism, it is the fault of the government for not managing our social programs well. The typical left wing solution is to throw money at some area without the least concern for how or if that money will be used to advantage.

Once you recognize that a true socialist/communist government and economic system is doom to fail over time, creating greater poverty the longer it lasts, and while recognizing that, you should recognize that most of the failings of any Marxist or similar system tends to be less moral relative to taking care of the needy and their failings come from the fact that they are creating needy at ever step, then you may figure out for yourself the simply comment that "Capitalism is the best economic system in existence" and helps more people than Marxism ever can.

What you need to do if you really want to talk about Marxism or any of its similar economic systems, is to study their failures, and they have all failed. Your idealism reflected in your self proclaimed liberal desires are insufficient to prove your point. You first have to find a long running successful socialist experiment which does not have to be dictatorial to keep the high achievers from escaping. Beyond that, I have no interest in digging further into academic debate. And I don't need an argument for Capitalism other than no other system has made as great a % of the people under the system as prosperous and taken care of by our social programs. Also, as I have said before, social programs do not socialism make and neither does the government seeking research assistance by contracts with private enterprise. The biggest subsidies we experience in the US today are to the needy as defined by the Fed set poverty line. My wife and I live on less per year than any other couple under the poverty line; and though I make much more I give a lot for my personal charities. My favorite is a school in India with orphans or kids their parents cannot care for. Depending on their need I send them between $5,00 and $10,000 a year, enough to pay for the food for all the kids. I sure as hell would rather see them get it than some elitist unionist worker.[/QUOTE]Smitty, you will never convince a socialist or communist or any other Marxist that Capitalism is better. They are too brain dead to understand the realities of economics.

 

[Publius1787]

Not entirely, but it certainly shows that they are waging war against an additional .9% who don't deserve particular scrutiny. They have always had a knack for not only blowing a problem out of proportion but also not thinking through a reasonable alternative.

The point is simple. The left wing extremists of my own party are trying to scare our citizens with all of that inequality BS, trying to make it a talking point to garner votes. Our problem is not that the top .01% has such high wealth, the problem is the PERCEPTION sold by extremists. We have the Capitalist type who does most of the investment. The problem is not as without them doing the investing and reaping their rewards, the problem is more the division within labor which is broken down into the 88% and the 12%. The 12% of our labor force make such a high, wage many of the rest of our labor force, that group which spends the most money on consumer goods, can't afford to buy the goods and services provided by the 12%. That problem has been partially solved by off shoring jobs; which by the way, has not been the root cause of job loses. See: Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet and Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says

The real issue politically is it can be made out to be a serious issue with the bottom 50% of our citizens, those who tend not to pay federal income taxes, who listen to the left wing extremist propaganda and actually believe the garbage.

Now, don't get the idea I am a conservative, I am not. I am a moderate liberal in that most of my social issues are liberal, but I do hold a few conservative opinions such as strong defense, law and order, and the usurpation of many of our individual and State rights.

In 2 to 10 years you will be a conservative voting for the Republican Party. I called it here.

 

[georgephillip]

Your video is a good illustration of what the common man did for capitalism, and I couldn't help noticing it stopped in 2009. Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed?

If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.

My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your video is a good illustration of what the common man did for capitalism, and I couldn't help noticing it stopped in 2009. Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed?

If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.

My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.

1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012.

Link?

 

[bedowin62]

the left-wing loser is correct; the richest Americans are getting richer FASTER than they were under Bush and Republicans

AND
the Middle Class and working poor are getting POORER FASTER under Democrats




libs are losers who lie to themselves