Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[bonehead]

much of what you say may be correct. unfortunately, those who are governed will not long tolerate being talked down to as if they were the peasant class. this is how you would govern? by absolute rule? or maybe the "golden rule".

You would rather be ruled by the stupid? They won't talk down to you, but they'll completely ruin the entire country?

Again, if I thought the Swiss system would work here, then I'd be for it. But it won't. I know you think it will, but it won't!

And honestly, I have never felt like I was "talked down to" by anyone. People who are 'looking for offense' are going to be offended no matter what anyone says.

I'm more concerned which what would be the best over all system, than 'well I don't like Obama talking down at me'. Obama is a politician. That's all.

Again, I would much rather have the system that we have, over a system of 210 Million idiots running the country, when they don't even realize that more energy is consumed in making Ethanol, than is produced by the Ethanol. Or worse, that supporting Ethanol "helps farmers!" when most of the Ethanol subsidies go to Archer Daniels Midland, and Monsanto, and rich people like David Rockefeller and Jim Kennedy, and Paul Allen (co-founder of Microsoft).

BTW, who supports alternative energy spending? Well leftists of course. Every time a leftist starts screaming about how Democrats and Liberals, are for the people and against big companies and the rich and wealthy, call them liars, because they are. All liars.

Back to the point though. People are not going to know this stuff. I still meet people who think Ethanol is great, and we need to work our way off oil, and just use Ethanol.

You put the majority of the stupid in charge, and the rich and wealthy are going to convince the ignorant, and will rule the country. How is that 'better'?

it's not better. it's the way things currently are.

 

[Fishlore]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

I'd like to know your definition of "better" life and what stats you have to support your claim about the benefits of capitalism for the poor.

One of the first results of capitalism was the enclosure movement which kicked huge sections of the population of Great Britain off the land in order to raise sheep for the newly profitable wool trade. Thousands upon thousands suffered and died.

The first program of modern capitalism was the enslavement and transportation of millions of Africans to the immensely profitable sugar and coffee plantations of the New World. This was genocide on the grandest scale. Between 1492 and 1776 six Africans came to the Americas for every European who immigrated. Most of those Africans died within the first year.

Over 20,000,000 Native Americans were exterminated by Europeans in their capitalist takeover of America.

The Industrial Revolution ushered in unprecedented poverty for the children and their parents slaving away in the "dark satanic mills" of the new era.

Most Americans are now worse off economically than they were a generation ago. A quarter of our kids are on food stamps. If the GOP has its way, they will be dumpster diving for supper instead.

Capitalism's foreign policy, imperialism, plunged millions into far worse poverty in places like India, China, and Latin America.

The standard of living of the poor people in Cuba is leagues higher than that of their counterparts across the straights in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. It was communism that lifted unprecedented numbers of Chinese people out of poverty, not the capitalism under which they had suffered for centuries.

No one has ever taken seriously the claim that capitalism betters the lives of the workers capital exploits. But perhaps you are thinking of iPhones and chocolate covered pretzels? That's where capitalism takes the prize.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

I'd like to know your definition of "better" life and what stats you have to support your claim about the benefits of capitalism for the poor.

One of the first results of capitalism was the enclosure movement which kicked huge sections of the population of Great Britain off the land in order to raise sheep for the newly profitable wool trade. Thousands upon thousands suffered and died.

The first program of modern capitalism was the enslavement and transportation of millions of Africans to the immensely profitable sugar and coffee plantations of the New World. This was genocide on the grandest scale. Between 1492 and 1776 six Africans came to the Americas for every European who immigrated. Most of those Africans died within the first year.

Over 20,000,000 Native Americans were exterminated by Europeans in their capitalist takeover of America.

The Industrial Revolution ushered in unprecedented poverty for the children and their parents slaving away in the "dark satanic mills" of the new era.

Most Americans are now worse off economically than they were a generation ago. A quarter of our kids are on food stamps. If the GOP has its way, they will be dumpster diving for supper instead.

Capitalism's foreign policy, imperialism, plunged millions into far worse poverty in places like India, China, and Latin America.

The standard of living of the poor people in Cuba is leagues higher than that of their counterparts across the straights in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. It was communism that lifted unprecedented numbers of Chinese people out of poverty, not the capitalism under which they had suffered for centuries.

No one has ever taken seriously the claim that capitalism betters the lives of the workers capital exploits. But perhaps you are thinking of iPhones and chocolate covered pretzels? That's where capitalism takes the prize.

I'd like to know your definition of "better" life and what stats you have to support your claim about the benefits of capitalism for the poor.

How are the poor Chinese doing compared to 30 years ago?

 

[Andylusion]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

I'd like to know your definition of "better" life and what stats you have to support your claim about the benefits of capitalism for the poor.

The poorest people in America own cars. That alone should tell you all you need to know. They also own smart phones with data packages a nation wide coverage. They have AC, and unlimited running water. Did you know that even to this day, the majority of people in Africa have electricity for only 4 hours a day?

Did you know that in many parts of Southeast Asia, it's common that people share one single source of water between a dozen families? There was a woman that immigrated to the US from there, where she described having a water hose lowered from the roof of an apartment complex, to each apartment window. Each family got to use the water at a specific time, for no longer than 30 minutes. Then it was sent to the next window.

This is the economic reality in many places of the world. The poor people of the US live like royalty compared to the rest of the world. That's why people come here from absolutely everywhere else. We have people from Africa, from Asia, from Latin America, from Eastern Europe, all coming here, willing to even risk dying to get here. And you want to know what the definition of "better" is? What rock you been living under? Go ask the people who immigrate here by the thousands every year.

One of the first results of capitalism was the enclosure movement which kicked huge sections of the population of Great Britain off the land in order to raise sheep for the newly profitable wool trade. Thousands upon thousands suffered and died.

Because their lives as landless peasants was so utopian up to that point, right? Tell me, was the land owned by the British aristocrats, gained through a capitalist system, or a socialist one? Was the land purchased on the open market, according to free-market capitalist principals, or through some sort of top down socialized system?

I am being pointed, because I wager I know the answer to all those questions, but I honestly don't know for certain either way. So you tell me. What's the answer?

The first program of modern capitalism was the enslavement and transportation of millions of Africans to the immensely profitable sugar and coffee plantations of the New World. This was genocide on the grandest scale. Between 1492 and 1776 six Africans came to the Americas for every European who immigrated. Most of those Africans died within the first year.

.... really? Are you trying to tell me there were no slaves before Capitalism? Come on... if that's the best argument you have, then you have no argument.

Over 20,000,000 Native Americans were exterminated by Europeans in their capitalist takeover of America.

Um.... could have sworn that it was the military that did most of that. So now government funded and operated military is now 'capitalism' in your world?

The Industrial Revolution ushered in unprecedented poverty for the children and their parents slaving away in the "dark satanic mills" of the new era.

Yeah.... so you think that living in non-industrial nations is so much better? Just try and support that idea. If not, then what is your point?

Most Americans are now worse off economically than they were a generation ago. A quarter of our kids are on food stamps. If the GOP has its way, they will be dumpster diving for supper instead.

By what measure? Communications? Home sizes? Quality of automobiles? And who is dumpster diving? What are these idiotic unsupportable claims you keep spewing?

Capitalism's foreign policy, imperialism, plunged millions into far worse poverty in places like India, China, and Latin America.

Bull crap! India was under a very socialistic system for ages. They moved towards capitalism in the 1990s where they liberalized the economy. Are you telling me, people were better off prior to the 90s? Bull! You are full of crap!

Cuba was as far advanced as the US in the 1950s. After the socialist Castro revolution, they became a 3rd world country, where people can't even get Aspirin. You think they were worse off in the 1950s, when they could buy new automobiles, and had what was at the time modern medicine? Bull! You are full of crap!

Venezuela was the leading economy in all of Latin America. Now today they are the worst performing economy, and Brazil, which is home to the most CEOs in all of Latin America, is the leading economy.

You are full of absolute crap, if you really believe that. You need to go learn something.

The standard of living of the poor people in Cuba is leagues higher than that of their counterparts across the straights in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. It was communism that lifted unprecedented numbers of Chinese people out of poverty, not the capitalism under which they had suffered for centuries.

LOL! What a fruit cake! Prior to 1978, 63% of Chinese people lived on less than the poverty level, of just $2..... A DAY. And you think that Socialism and Communism raised their standard of living? You don't know what you are talking about! People leave Cuba TO GET TO the Dominican Republic. People are willing to DIE to leave Cuba. And you think that D.R. Capitalist based economic system leaves people worse off?

You sir..... are simply ignorant. No question about it. You just simply don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Andylusion]

much of what you say may be correct. unfortunately, those who are governed will not long tolerate being talked down to as if they were the peasant class. this is how you would govern? by absolute rule? or maybe the "golden rule".

You would rather be ruled by the stupid? They won't talk down to you, but they'll completely ruin the entire country?

Again, if I thought the Swiss system would work here, then I'd be for it. But it won't. I know you think it will, but it won't!

And honestly, I have never felt like I was "talked down to" by anyone. People who are 'looking for offense' are going to be offended no matter what anyone says.

I'm more concerned which what would be the best over all system, than 'well I don't like Obama talking down at me'. Obama is a politician. That's all.

Again, I would much rather have the system that we have, over a system of 210 Million idiots running the country, when they don't even realize that more energy is consumed in making Ethanol, than is produced by the Ethanol. Or worse, that supporting Ethanol "helps farmers!" when most of the Ethanol subsidies go to Archer Daniels Midland, and Monsanto, and rich people like David Rockefeller and Jim Kennedy, and Paul Allen (co-founder of Microsoft).

BTW, who supports alternative energy spending? Well leftists of course. Every time a leftist starts screaming about how Democrats and Liberals, are for the people and against big companies and the rich and wealthy, call them liars, because they are. All liars.

Back to the point though. People are not going to know this stuff. I still meet people who think Ethanol is great, and we need to work our way off oil, and just use Ethanol.

You put the majority of the stupid in charge, and the rich and wealthy are going to convince the ignorant, and will rule the country. How is that 'better'?

it's not better. it's the way things currently are.

If it was the way things currently are, then we would have easily voted in a far worse health care policy that would have ruined health care. If it's the way things are now, we'd have passed a "living wage" law, resulting in millions of people losing their jobs, and a massive economic recession.

No, it's better the way things are. What you suggest would make it far worse.

 

[Fishlore]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

I'd like to know your definition of "better" life and what stats you have to support your claim about the benefits of capitalism for the poor.

The poorest people in America own cars. That alone should tell you all you need to know. They also own smart phones with data packages a nation wide coverage. They have AC, and unlimited running water. Did you know that even to this day, the majority of people in Africa have electricity for only 4 hours a day?

Did you know that in many parts of Southeast Asia, it's common that people share one single source of water between a dozen families? There was a woman that immigrated to the US from there, where she described having a water hose lowered from the roof of an apartment complex, to each apartment window. Each family got to use the water at a specific time, for no longer than 30 minutes. Then it was sent to the next window.

This is the economic reality in many places of the world. The poor people of the US live like royalty compared to the rest of the world. That's why people come here from absolutely everywhere else. We have people from Africa, from Asia, from Latin America, from Eastern Europe, all coming here, willing to even risk dying to get here. And you want to know what the definition of "better" is? What rock you been living under? Go ask the people who immigrate here by the thousands every year.



Because their lives as landless peasants was so utopian up to that point, right? Tell me, was the land owned by the British aristocrats, gained through a capitalist system, or a socialist one? Was the land purchased on the open market, according to free-market capitalist principals, or through some sort of top down socialized system?

I am being pointed, because I wager I know the answer to all those questions, but I honestly don't know for certain either way. So you tell me. What's the answer?



.... really? Are you trying to tell me there were no slaves before Capitalism? Come on... if that's the best argument you have, then you have no argument.



Um.... could have sworn that it was the military that did most of that. So now government funded and operated military is now 'capitalism' in your world?



Yeah.... so you think that living in non-industrial nations is so much better? Just try and support that idea. If not, then what is your point?



By what measure? Communications? Home sizes? Quality of automobiles? And who is dumpster diving? What are these idiotic unsupportable claims you keep spewing?

Capitalism's foreign policy, imperialism, plunged millions into far worse poverty in places like India, China, and Latin America.

Bull crap! India was under a very socialistic system for ages. They moved towards capitalism in the 1990s where they liberalized the economy. Are you telling me, people were better off prior to the 90s? Bull! You are full of crap!

Cuba was as far advanced as the US in the 1950s. After the socialist Castro revolution, they became a 3rd world country, where people can't even get Aspirin. You think they were worse off in the 1950s, when they could buy new automobiles, and had what was at the time modern medicine? Bull! You are full of crap!

Venezuela was the leading economy in all of Latin America. Now today they are the worst performing economy, and Brazil, which is home to the most CEOs in all of Latin America, is the leading economy.

You are full of absolute crap, if you really believe that. You need to go learn something.

The standard of living of the poor people in Cuba is leagues higher than that of their counterparts across the straights in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. It was communism that lifted unprecedented numbers of Chinese people out of poverty, not the capitalism under which they had suffered for centuries.

LOL! What a fruit cake! Prior to 1978, 63% of Chinese people lived on less than the poverty level, of just $2..... A DAY. And you think that Socialism and Communism raised their standard of living? You don't know what you are talking about! People leave Cuba TO GET TO the Dominican Republic. People are willing to DIE to leave Cuba. And you think that D.R. Capitalist based economic system leaves people worse off?

You sir..... are simply ignorant. No question about it. You just simply don't know what you are talking about.

The claim that "The poorest people in America own cars. That alone should tell you all you need to know, " tells me that like most right wing trolls, this poster knows nothing. The poorest people in America are homeless. They not only don't own cars or cellphones, they don't own a change of clothes.

The hallmark of a Dittohead unarmed in his battle of wits is the rapid transition from a logical presentation of evidence to personal attacks and childish name calling. Having smelt this intellectual garbage for many years, I have learned that there is no point in trying to disabuse said ranter of his illiterate assertions about Western political history. Those with an educated knowledge of the field have already laughed at his pompous buffoonery; his fellow knuckle-draggers don't care about the facts, they seek only chance to vent their rage. Sad

 

[Andylusion]

I'd like to know your definition of "better" life and what stats you have to support your claim about the benefits of capitalism for the poor.

The poorest people in America own cars. That alone should tell you all you need to know. They also own smart phones with data packages a nation wide coverage. They have AC, and unlimited running water. Did you know that even to this day, the majority of people in Africa have electricity for only 4 hours a day?

Did you know that in many parts of Southeast Asia, it's common that people share one single source of water between a dozen families? There was a woman that immigrated to the US from there, where she described having a water hose lowered from the roof of an apartment complex, to each apartment window. Each family got to use the water at a specific time, for no longer than 30 minutes. Then it was sent to the next window.

This is the economic reality in many places of the world. The poor people of the US live like royalty compared to the rest of the world. That's why people come here from absolutely everywhere else. We have people from Africa, from Asia, from Latin America, from Eastern Europe, all coming here, willing to even risk dying to get here. And you want to know what the definition of "better" is? What rock you been living under? Go ask the people who immigrate here by the thousands every year.



Because their lives as landless peasants was so utopian up to that point, right? Tell me, was the land owned by the British aristocrats, gained through a capitalist system, or a socialist one? Was the land purchased on the open market, according to free-market capitalist principals, or through some sort of top down socialized system?

I am being pointed, because I wager I know the answer to all those questions, but I honestly don't know for certain either way. So you tell me. What's the answer?



.... really? Are you trying to tell me there were no slaves before Capitalism? Come on... if that's the best argument you have, then you have no argument.



Um.... could have sworn that it was the military that did most of that. So now government funded and operated military is now 'capitalism' in your world?



Yeah.... so you think that living in non-industrial nations is so much better? Just try and support that idea. If not, then what is your point?



By what measure? Communications? Home sizes? Quality of automobiles? And who is dumpster diving? What are these idiotic unsupportable claims you keep spewing?



Bull crap! India was under a very socialistic system for ages. They moved towards capitalism in the 1990s where they liberalized the economy. Are you telling me, people were better off prior to the 90s? Bull! You are full of crap!

Cuba was as far advanced as the US in the 1950s. After the socialist Castro revolution, they became a 3rd world country, where people can't even get Aspirin. You think they were worse off in the 1950s, when they could buy new automobiles, and had what was at the time modern medicine? Bull! You are full of crap!

Venezuela was the leading economy in all of Latin America. Now today they are the worst performing economy, and Brazil, which is home to the most CEOs in all of Latin America, is the leading economy.

You are full of absolute crap, if you really believe that. You need to go learn something.

The standard of living of the poor people in Cuba is leagues higher than that of their counterparts across the straights in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. It was communism that lifted unprecedented numbers of Chinese people out of poverty, not the capitalism under which they had suffered for centuries.

LOL! What a fruit cake! Prior to 1978, 63% of Chinese people lived on less than the poverty level, of just $2..... A DAY. And you think that Socialism and Communism raised their standard of living? You don't know what you are talking about! People leave Cuba TO GET TO the Dominican Republic. People are willing to DIE to leave Cuba. And you think that D.R. Capitalist based economic system leaves people worse off?

You sir..... are simply ignorant. No question about it. You just simply don't know what you are talking about.

The claim that "The poorest people in America own cars. That alone should tell you all you need to know, " tells me that like most right wing trolls, this poster knows nothing. The poorest people in America are homeless. They not only don't own cars or cellphones, they don't own a change of clothes.

The hallmark of a Dittohead unarmed in his battle of wits is the rapid transition from a logical presentation of evidence to personal attacks and childish name calling. Having smelt this intellectual garbage for many years, I have learned that there is no point in trying to disabuse said ranter of his illiterate assertions about Western political history. Those with an educated knowledge of the field have already laughed at his pompous buffoonery; his fellow knuckle-draggers don't care about the facts, they seek only chance to vent their rage. Sad

Hold on.... I'm not talking about the people who intentionally live under a bridge, because they don't want to work.

I don't care what system you put in place, the people who refused to work, are always going to live in nothing world. The homeless bum in Soviet Russia, was no better or worse off than the homeless bum in America, or China, or anywhere.

But a married couple, working at Wendy's earning minimum wage, earns over $30,000 a year.

Of course you can't really earn minimum wage, unless you are part time, and if you work for 6 months, you automatically get a 50¢ raise.

So as long as they are working a stead job at 40 hours a week, they are not earning minimum wage.

You realize that a mere $32,000 a year, puts you at the top 1% of wage earners IN THE WORLD?? The lowest paid US truck driver, is the wealthiest 1%. Two people working at Wendy's, is the wealthiest 1%.

I will earn roughly $20,000 or a little more this year. That places me in the top 3% of income earners in the entire world.

I own a Grand Marquis luxury car. Great car. That places me in the top 8% of people in the world that own their own automobile. Of course I wager very few own a vehicle as good as mine.

Census: Americans in ?Poverty? Typically Have Cell Phones, Computers, TVs, VCRS, AC, Washers, Dryers and Microwaves | CNS News

Americans who live in households whose income is below the federal “poverty” level typically have cell phones (as well as landline phones), computers, televisions, video recorders, air conditioning, refrigerators, gas or electric stoves, and washers and dryers and microwaves, according to a newly released report from the Census Bureau.

Clothes washer: 68.7%

Clothes dryer: 65.3%

Dish washer: 44.9%

Refrigerator: 97.8%

Food freezer: 26.2%

Stove: 96.6%

Microwave: 93.2%

Air conditioner: 83.4%

Television: 96.1%

Video recorder/DVD: 83.2%

Computer: 58.2%

Telephone (landline): 54.9%

Cell phone: 80.9%

Oh those poor poor people who have nothing.... nothing at all. Just look at the devastation Capitalism has brought to them living below the poverty line.

Again, the people who absolutely refuse to work, and are homeless doing nothing, yeah they don't have anything.

Actually, some of those people have more than you know....

[ame=http://youtu.be/uti_PkR3hn0]Fake Homeless Person Make $100000 a year - YouTube[/ame]

But for the average working person in the US, they have a standard of living, far better than anywhere else in the world.

 

[gnarlylove]

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.

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.

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.

You must have me confused with someone else. Just because I claim to have criticism of capitalism on moral grounds (as well as economic grounds) does not make me Marxist, socialist etc. Although I've actually read Marx, I am no Marxist. There is no -ism like it in the sciences. There is no Einstein-ism. There is also no such thing as Marxism unless one chooses to go beyond his empirical observations to deify Marx. It's no use to deify someone when it detracts from the work they did. Marx's critiques of Capital was factual observations about capital production, commodities, the whole 9 yard. One observation he elaborates on is capitalists are not involved in capitalism for the stuff of life or goods, rather, they is involved for more inert money. Isn't is odd that the goal is not to spend or consume the money, but to use it to make more money for it's own sake? Seems like it detracts from the real economy by directing money away from production. Maybe I'm mistaken.

I could very well be confused about many issues here. I hope you have the same openness. From the start, you appear to speak dogmatically and quick to label. Perhaps that's just my false perception. Quite possible. I understand terms need to be defined, but if our goal isn't shared--to come to a better understanding of one another's dogma--then I'm wasting your time. One can have dogmas without being dogmatic. I have no intention of convincing you of anything; though I may offer persuasion, it is not my goal.

But to address the content of your reply you use terms like socialism, communism and Marxism. In fact, you tell me that I need to study how they all failed. That assumes they were tried. I'm no scholar on the Russian Revolution or Bolshevism, Stalinism and other alleged non-capitalist systems. But I do in fact know a bit about them and I firmly believe that you are confusing propaganda socialism (used to describe regimes that are allegedly antagonistic to capitalism but are fundamentally capitalist where the workers do not control the means of production) with real socialism (the workers ownership of the means of production). Maybe real socialism as I've listed it here is a failure but it's never been tried in reality. When workers in Russia handed the key to the factories from the Russian Aristocracy over to the State and Lenin, the means of production were still governed by a narrow group of people and the participation of the workers daily lives changed zero. They just had a different supervisor and owner. Collective farming is not communist when you are commanded at gun point where many thousands were slaughtered during the inception of such farms.

In summary, you assume I'm socialist when I have yet to positively assert views on political economy. I'm offering genuine critique of capitalism and you seem to want to ignore the critique for the fact that there's no better system. Or you dismiss the moral critique because you shift the burden on individuals instead of policy. So you prefer to ignore the conditions under which the workers exist in favor of identifying personal shortcomings. I question whether this distinction makes sense to you so let me offer an example.

When people go to work, they work in a totalitarian structure where they have little to no say over their job. Especially when it comes to shipping their livelihood to a more waged depressed area. Do you think if the workers had control over their lives that they would allow their job to be terminated so profits of the board of directors is higher? Why is there a board of directors in the first place? They decide how their workers live, not the workers. This is capitalist enterprise, with deep conflicts with Democracy. So if I understand correctly the goal of an economic system should be the welfare of the board of directors while largely ignoring the well being of communities and the lives of fellow human beings when they close factories?

Lastly, you assume you know about socialism etc. I don't doubt you do but I question how much exposure you've had and the source of exposure. The messenger is often more important than the message in determining the meaning. My opinion is that you've not sought to genuinely understand the substantive debate over capitalism/socialism. I hope you're willing to reconsider some of your assumptions about socialism and economics in general. I also want to state that I respect your earnest and honest reply. Thanks.

 

[Andylusion]

You must have me confused with someone else. Just because I claim to have criticism of capitalism on moral grounds (as well as economic grounds) does not make me Marxist, socialist etc. Although I've actually read Marx, I am no Marxist. There is no -ism like it in the sciences. There is no Einstein-ism. There is also no such thing as Marxism unless one chooses to go beyond his empirical observations to deify Marx. It's no use to deify someone when it detracts from the work they did. Marx's critiques of Capital was factual observations about capital production, commodities, the whole 9 yard. One observation he elaborates on is capitalists are not involved in capitalism for the stuff of life or goods, rather, they is involved for more inert money. Isn't is odd that the goal is not to spend or consume the money, but to use it to make more money for it's own sake? Seems like it detracts from the real economy by directing money away from production. Maybe I'm mistaken.

I could very well be confused about many issues here. I hope you have the same openness. From the start, you appear to speak dogmatically and quick to label. Perhaps that's just my false perception. Quite possible. I understand terms need to be defined, but if our goal isn't shared--to come to a better understanding of one another's dogma--then I'm wasting your time. One can have dogmas without being dogmatic. I have no intention of convincing you of anything; though I may offer persuasion, it is not my goal.

But to address the content of your reply you use terms like socialism, communism and Marxism. In fact, you tell me that I need to study how they all failed. That assumes they were tried. I'm no scholar on the Russian Revolution or Bolshevism, Stalinism and other alleged non-capitalist systems. But I do in fact know a bit about them and I firmly believe that you are confusing propaganda socialism (used to describe regimes that are allegedly antagonistic to capitalism but are fundamentally capitalist where the workers do not control the means of production) with real socialism (the workers ownership of the means of production). Maybe real socialism as I've listed it here is a failure but it's never been tried in reality. When workers in Russia handed the key to the factories from the Russian Aristocracy over to the State and Lenin, the means of production were still governed by a narrow group of people and the participation of the workers daily lives changed zero. They just had a different supervisor and owner. Collective farming is not communist when you are commanded at gun point where many thousands were slaughtered during the inception of such farms.

In summary, you assume I'm socialist when I have yet to positively assert views on political economy. I'm offering genuine critique of capitalism and you seem to want to ignore the critique for the fact that there's no better system. Or you dismiss the moral critique because you shift the burden on individuals instead of policy. So you prefer to ignore the conditions under which the workers exist in favor of identifying personal shortcomings. I question whether this distinction makes sense to you so let me offer an example.

When people go to work, they work in a totalitarian structure where they have little to no say over their job. Especially when it comes to shipping their livelihood to a more waged depressed area. Do you think if the workers had control over their lives that they would allow their job to be terminated so profits of the board of directors is higher? Why is there a board of directors in the first place? They decide how their workers live, not the workers. This is capitalist enterprise, with deep conflicts with Democracy. So if I understand correctly the goal of an economic system should be the welfare of the board of directors while largely ignoring the well being of communities and the lives of fellow human beings when they close factories?

Lastly, you assume you know about socialism etc. I don't doubt you do but I question how much exposure you've had and the source of exposure. The messenger is often more important than the message in determining the meaning. My opinion is that you've not sought to genuinely understand the substantive debate over capitalism/socialism. I hope you're willing to reconsider some of your assumptions about socialism and economics in general. I also want to state that I respect your earnest and honest reply. Thanks.

There is only two fundamental economic methods. There is either Capitalism, or there is Socialism.

All economic models, either believe in people owning their own property, and doing with it as they see fit.... or they believe in some form of government controlling property.

Free-Market Capitalism, is the economic theory of private ownership, private control.

All other theories are just various forms of Socialism. Social ownership, and social control over property.

When you are "critical" of capitalism, you imply that Socialism is better. Because Socialism is the only alternative to Capitalism. There is no non-private control, non-government control, system.

There is no non-government control over private capital. I'm going to do with my car, my home, and my money whatever I want. The only way you are going to change what I do with my property, is by using the force of government, which is socialism.

And by any and all measurements possible, socialism is consistently and universally worse than Capitalism.

So if you do not support Socialism, and you are only critical of the best possible economic system, with zero idea for a better system.... then why heck are you here wasting our time and yours?

If you have a better system, let's hear it. But there is only two systems... private control, or government control. You can pick your choice of government control versions, Marxism, Maoism, Stalinism, Communism, Nazism.... but all of them are just variations of Socialism.

 

[gnarlylove]

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.

You note that really free markets is too severe for the normal person. It concentrates wealth to the haves and destitutes the have nots. Though you recognize this fact and seem to acknowledge the validity of re-distribution, you come down against the government--always assuring capitalism is far from responsible.

Here's the kernel of critque:

We have an economic system that concentrates wealth in such a way that it cannot sustain itself so that you must "fix capitalism" as noted by Keynes, his words not mine. Why have a system that unravels itself, or put differently, why distribute the wealth poorly in the first place? The current means of distributing wealth is not a law of nature, it's a matter of economic policy. The policy creates such disastrous situations in communities and individuals that are constantly under stress often facing major financial insecurities. It's commonplace.

So the idea is to blame the government, ignoring the reality that the economic system distributes wealth in such a way as to conflict with the interest of the majority of the citizenry? That only makes sense if you buy the hotair that the profit motive is all there is but that plainly can't be true. You act out of love towards your wife I'm sure. The relationships we care most to cultivate are one's not motivated out of profit. So why base an economic system around an appealing veneer when what it offers to the majority of humans is commonplace misery and insecurity?

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/23725-better-than-redistributing-income

 

[gnarlylove]

There is only two fundamental economic methods. There is either Capitalism, or there is Socialism.

All economic models, either believe in people owning their own property, and doing with it as they see fit.... or they believe in some form of government controlling property.

Free-Market Capitalism, is the economic theory of private ownership, private control.

All other theories are just various forms of Socialism. Social ownership, and social control over property.

What animates property? What justifies the claim to a stake in something?

That you made the thing? Nope. Didn't create land.

That you bought it? Who could you buy it from originally? It presumes there was an owner, but supposing, as we know at one time there was no such thing as ownership since as we also know humans did not exist.

Upon the arrivals of human beings did humans start to lay claim to land (or rather much later after the advent of society, mostly around the 17th century and John Locke et al). They simply invented the idea and eventually drew up documents claiming no one else was allowed access. So what legitimizes such a document? Other humans with similar interests (the government with it's military and police might). Sounds like a good bunch of bro's ready to hustle and swindle to exclude the majority of people from access to life (i.e. earth).

So despite property being ad hoc, why is it legitimate? We can see it's use is clear: to maintain a ruling class like unto an aristocracy. But no one thinks such a use is justification for property. So what makes property legitimate? The fact that the self-proclaimed owners of property want it that way? That is not very settling justification either. Are you willing to tell me that human beings are incapable of organizing raw materials, labor etc. in such a way as to produce adequate food, water, medical care etc. without ownership? You realize ownership does not change the nature of things or people in any way. As long as we have the knowledge we do about how the world operates, property becomes superfluous in arranging society in a productive economy. Economy is not defined by property. It is defined by how people organize their labor, production of goods, distribution etc.

There is no legitimate justification of property in the first place. So your extremely narrow range of economic theories rests on a flawed premise. I guess you've never heard of the Magna Carta and the idea of the Commons.

 

[dblack]

There is only two fundamental economic methods. There is either Capitalism, or there is Socialism.

All economic models, either believe in people owning their own property, and doing with it as they see fit.... or they believe in some form of government controlling property.

Free-Market Capitalism, is the economic theory of private ownership, private control.

All other theories are just various forms of Socialism. Social ownership, and social control over property.

What animates property? What justifies the claim to a stake in something?

That you made the thing? Nope. Didn't create land.

That you bought it? Who could you buy it from originally? It presumes there was an owner, but supposing, as we know at one time there was no such thing as ownership since as we also know humans did not exist.

Upon the arrivals of human beings did humans start to lay claim to land (or rather much later after the advent of society, mostly around the 17th century and John Locke et al). They simply invented the idea and eventually drew up documents claiming no one else was allowed access. So what legitimizes such a document? Other humans with similar interests (the government with it's military and police might). Sounds like a good bunch of bro's ready to hustle and swindle to exclude the majority of people from access to life (i.e. earth).

So despite property being ad hoc, why is it legitimate? We can see it's use is clear: to maintain a ruling class like unto an aristocracy. But no one thinks such a use is justification for property. So what makes property legitimate? The fact that the self-proclaimed owners of property want it that way? That is not very settling justification either. Are you willing to tell me that human beings are incapable of organizing raw materials, labor etc. in such a way as to produce adequate food, water, medical care etc. without ownership? You realize ownership does not change the nature of things or people in any way. As long as we have the knowledge we do about how the world operates, property becomes superfluous in arranging society in a productive economy. Economy is not defined by property. It is defined by how people organize their labor, production of goods, distribution etc.

There is no legitimate justification of property in the first place. So your extremely narrow range of economic theories rests on a flawed premise.

Property rights are a means of distributing control over land and resources. Private ownership of property allows us to distribute that control freely through voluntary trade. State ownership of property assigns that control exclusively to government.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

You note that really free markets is too severe for the normal person. It concentrates wealth to the haves and destitutes the have nots. Though you recognize this fact and seem to acknowledge the validity of re-distribution, you come down against the government--always assuring capitalism is far from responsible.

Here's the kernel of critque:

We have an economic system that concentrates wealth in such a way that it cannot sustain itself so that you must "fix capitalism" as noted by Keynes, his words not mine. Why have a system that unravels itself, or put differently, why distribute the wealth poorly in the first place? The current means of distributing wealth is not a law of nature, it's a matter of economic policy. The policy creates such disastrous situations in communities and individuals that are constantly under stress often facing major financial insecurities. It's commonplace.

So the idea is to blame the government, ignoring the reality that the economic system distributes wealth in such a way as to conflict with the interest of the majority of the citizenry? That only makes sense if you buy the hotair that the profit motive is all there is but that plainly can't be true. You act out of love towards your wife I'm sure. The relationships we care most to cultivate are one's not motivated out of profit. So why base an economic system around an appealing veneer when what it offers to the majority of humans is commonplace misery and insecurity?

It concentrates wealth to the haves and destitutes the have nots.

That's only possible when the have nots freely purchase the goods offered by the haves.

The Waltons are worth billions not because a single customer was forced to shop at WalMart. Their customers shop there to save money, not because the goods are too expensive.

Bill Gates is worth billions not because anyone was forced to buy Windows.

Your claims are idiotic, as usual.

 

[hipeter924]

[...]So the idea is to blame the government, ignoring the reality that the economic system distributes wealth in such a way as to conflict with the interest of the majority of the citizenry? That only makes sense if you buy the hotair that the profit motive is all there is but that plainly can't be true. You act out of love towards your wife I'm sure. The relationships we care most to cultivate are one's not motivated out of profit. So why base an economic system around an appealing veneer when what it offers to the majority of humans is commonplace misery and insecurity?

Which makes no sense, as you have to blame institutions, corporations and governments, not either or. Neo-Liberalism is a cancer in society, as it teaches people to ignore reality, and believe that all the problems of the world are caused by poor people; and that the rich are being exploited by the poverty stricken.

But I consider the French Revolution, and would warn the '1%' that if they cut the welfare net, we will have another revolution but on a global scale. Neoliberals ignore that modern day capitalism can't exist without a welfare state, as if you remove the veneer of civilized society (which is the welfare system) we are left with slavery and exploitation - a perfect breeding ground for revolution. When Europe was in ruins after WW2 and most of the population was poverty stricken, the US feared that it would fall to communism - because as poverty and inequality increases so will lack of faith in capitalism.

But in the meantime, watching neoliberals and lasseiz faire capitalists shoot themselves in the foot and lose their credibility would be a form of entertainment, if they didn't still have so much control over the global economy.

 

[georgephillip]

What problem?

Predatory capitalism.

Though admirable as a humanist ideal, study after study has shown that in the real world socialism doesn’t work very well. Sadly, it leaves the work force insufficiently motivated to put forth its best effort—simply because it doesn’t finally “pay” to do so. So such a political or commercial system ends up stunting individual initiative, and also leaves the economy floundering.

I agree, we should avoid socialism.

We should cure cancer:

"On the other hand, capitalism—and competition—is regularly extolled as bringing out the best in us. It prods us to be more productive and remunerates our efforts accordingly.

"At least, capitalism at its best does that.

"But in this country today, we seem to have drifted toward a mutant (cancerous?) form of capitalism, or free enterprise. One that's under-regulated, dysregulated—or both.

"One that's all too likely to reward those who excel not in generating useful products or fertile ideas, but rather in manipulating and deceiving the populace for personal gain.

"One that enables cold-blooded individualists to craftily 'work' the system to their economic advantage (loopholes, anyone?).

"These relentless opportunists—or corporations—frequently prevent others from succeeding through hard work, diligence, and perseverance.

"In other words, the American Way (not to mention the American Dream) has become increasingly perverted."

Are You a Victim of Predatory Capitalism? | Psychology Today

 

[georgephillip]

Obama and his Republican AND Democrat predecessors serve the same 1% of Americans.
If you have the slightest interest in enhancing opportunity of equality, choosing between rich Republicans or rich Democrats won't help you very much.

Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and expanding equality of opportunity only increases it

your solution to this problem, please. I'm quite sure many would be interested in hearing it.

Determine the purpose of an economy; what is the prime reason for individual and collective toil?

CH Douglas suggested the following three choices:

"1. The first of these is that it is a disguised Government, of which the primary, though admittedly not the only, object is to impose upon the world a system of thought and action.

"2. The second alternative has a certain similarity to the first, but is simpler. It assumes that the primary objective of the industrial system is the provision of employment.

"3. And the third, which is essentially simpler still, in fact, so simple that it appears entirely unintelligible to the majority, is that the object of the industrial system is merely to provide goods and services."

Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

Determine the purpose of an economy; what is the prime reason for individual and collective toil?

These are to very different questions.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

I disagree with the premise. I have never met a rich person that felt "entitled" to being rich. They were rich because they did something that people found worth while to pay them for.

My uncle made well over six-figures for years. He didn't feel "entitled" to it. He worked his butt off, making high end manufacturing equipment that other people found valuable. He was paid that much because others deemed him worth paying for what he did.

The reason the burger flipper gets paid what they are paid, is because customers don't want to pay $30 for a cheap fast food burger. What the burger flipper is doing, isn't worth as much, as what my uncle was doing.

Equally, my uncle invest tons of that money into worthy investments. He didn't feel "entitled" to a huge return on investments. He simply got it because he invested wisely.

You people on the left, simply 'make up' what you think other people are thinking. I would guess, this is because you yourselves are the ones who feel they are entitled to stuff, so you just assume everyone else is like you.

We're not. I don't feel 'entitled' to anything. My stock portfolio made 23% last year. Not because I was 'entitled' to it. I simply picked wise investments, and they paid off. Perhaps next they will only get 5%, or maybe negative.

Most of the wealthy, make their money on investments. Instead of b!tching about them, how about you stop complaining and start investing.

Do you understand the difference between producers like your uncle and parasites like the Walton heirs or John Paulson who earn more in a single hour than your industrious uncle earns in an entire year?

Today's titans of capitalism don't get rich from producing wealth; they prosper from extracting wealth. They ship millions of jobs to China and India. They control the levers of government and the Federal Reserve. The profit from eternal wars and endless taxation, and the corporations they control use government agencies like the NSA to deprive productive citizens of their right to privacy.

Is that worth a 23% return to you?

 

[georgephillip]

Determine the purpose of an economy; what is the prime reason for individual and collective toil?

These are to very different questions.

Pick one.

 

[bripat9643]

Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and expanding equality of opportunity only increases it

your solution to this problem, please. I'm quite sure many would be interested in hearing it.

Determine the purpose of an economy; what is the prime reason for individual and collective toil?

CH Douglas suggested the following three choices:

"1. The first of these is that it is a disguised Government, of which the primary, though admittedly not the only, object is to impose upon the world a system of thought and action.

"2. The second alternative has a certain similarity to the first, but is simpler. It assumes that the primary objective of the industrial system is the provision of employment.

"3. And the third, which is essentially simpler still, in fact, so simple that it appears entirely unintelligible to the majority, is that the object of the industrial system is merely to provide goods and services."

Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Determining the purpose of an economy is like determining the purpose of a forest. It just is. They are a fact of nature.

Each actor in an economy has a purpose. An economy, on the other hand, is simply the result of people acting to achieve their goals.