Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If I were given to conspiracy theories, I might also notice the way the system is almost engineered such that once someone "gets in the system" they "stay in the system". I might notice the difference between the legal representation of someone with means as opposed to someone without means. But in the end, I'd prefer to elect representatives that will treat people justly. An act of larceny should not equate to a life sentence.If I understand Alexander's point, there's a prison "brand" that follows all ex-cons throughout their lives. This "brand" makes many of them ineligible for food stamps, housing assistance, employment, schooling, and non-emergency medical care. If I was given to conspiracy theories, I would suspect these policies were designed to encourage recidivism and the private profits which flow from having the largest prison population in the world.I meant to respond to this earlier. A non-violent offender, to my mind, should be square with society after he pays his dues. Unfortunately, a conviction on their record may disqualify a non-violent offender from a number of jobs. I'm not sure it is conducive to rehabilitation of non-violent offenders to put scarlet letters around them for life.
A violent offender, on the hand, I am not so apt to forgive.
Hi gnarly,
Thank you for your insight. I snipped your quote because I think it would be best if we got this discussion back on track.
I think the boom and bust cycle occur naturally. Let's consider Tulip bulbs in the Netherlands. The reason Tulip bulbs became worth so much is because everyone wanted to have them. People would invest in and then resell Tulip bulbs to cash in on the mania. Then the price collapsed.Thirdly, do you suspect a boom-bust pattern or the business cycle is sustainable? Hasn't government necessarily served as the safety valve for the normal processes of mass transfer of wealth upwards that capitalism succeeds in doing so well? The 40s-60s were egalitarian-ish but then free market ideology took over and we see the results. Wouldn't it make sense to investigate whether this boom-bust pattern is really beneficial for society in comparison to potential alternatives? I'm not advocating for anything in particular, merely an inquiry. I don't think regular crisis is appropriate for wealthiest and most free nation in history.
First, do people have the right to be so inexplicably infatuated with some material thing? I think they do. Second, do other people have the right to observe this infatuation and begin making speculative investments to profit from this demand? I think they do.
What I'm describing is a speculative bubble not a boom-bust cycle, but these two concepts share some traits. And at least for me visualizing the rise and fall of one commodity is easier than visualizing aggregate demand. If we establish that people have the right to throw their money at tulip bulbs, and thus allow popular demand to determine worth, then I think the boom and bust cycle is a pattern that must be endured. It is not that the boom and bust cycle is beneficial to the total output of a society, but rather the effect of having millions of individuals making individual decisions and sometimes not good ones.
I think that the boom-bust cycle makes people happy overall. They suffer in the bust, but they are so elated in the boom. In order to take away boom and bust, the government would have to engage in significant economic planning.
I believe there is an alternative. Keynes offered this alternative. The boom and bust cycles can be mitigated by government policy. The extensive literature of Keynesianism would offer a better explanation than I would. Ultimately I conclude that laissez-faire Capitalism is unworkable; regulated Capitalism is an economic system fit for actual use.
As for the accumulation of wealth in a few hands, there are concepts like Distributism, from where we get our anti-trust legislation.
Distributism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We have distributist influences in our modern laws.
Distributism does not prevent boom-bust cycles, but it does seek to maximize the spread of property ownership.
Why don't we have single payer today?Ever since the Democrats lost three consecutive presidential elections, they seem to have gone over to the "dark side." If both parties depend on the same 1% of the voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements, how do progressives accomplish anything within the two party duopoly?
False equivalency.
If we had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House, things would be different.
"In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers, giving President Obama a Democratic majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency."
111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
OK, now that you have said all that, can you explain why it is caused by capitalism? Or do you recognize that bad men from any system can and will do the same thing?Here's a left-wing view written in 1920 about Wall Street's influence in Haiti:Of course there is good....and bad, about any economic system. But in my opinion it is better to start with the one which has historically more successful in elevating people from poverty. Maybe a better regulated capitalist economy? Certainly no type of Marxism which has historically made more people poor and done more harm to our ecosystems.
Effectively my entire time on this forum has been recognizing just how much better capitalism is than any other system known to mankind. Most of the infighting has been about degree and disagreement as to specific effects certain stimuli has had on the economy.
You have consistently exonerated capitalism when you admit misdeeds have occurred. In the case of Haiti you said:
"Whether the US chose to interfere in Haiti's affairs indicts the government, not capitalism."
You've made at least 2 very similar exonerations regarding other misdeeds. I find it puzzling you insist capitalism is innocent in cases of wrongdoing while also agreeing it is not innocent, not perfect and has bad parts, but, as you would surely add: is the best damn economic system we have currently--which may be true. But if you conclude from that that there are no viable alternatives, you are mistaken. It is a logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot envision or don't want to imagine another way of organizing an economy does not mean that they do not exist. It only means you are unaware of better alternatives. I'm not advocating for alternatives at present, I'm merely identifying your ambivalence about capitalism and invalid logic that you seem to regularly deploy in support of capitalism.
Can you identify an instance where capitalism is the engine, the cause of wrongdoing? Apparently you don't think so in Haiti but understanding Woodrow Wilson's thinking which lead to the invasion of Haiti during his Presidency is helpful. So let's just read what he wrote:
"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."
I think this leaves no question as to the fact that increasing market share drives governments to deploy force to expand markets. Is the desire to expand market share of US corporations a motivating factor in Haiti? Yes. It may not be the only motivation but certainly among the key motivations that resulted in the decimation of Haitian society, from which is has not recovered to this day. The massive presence of US corporations in Haiti's economy is a sure sign that the motivation to increase market share paid off for wealthy investors and corporations. Not surprisingly it has had the opposite effect on Haitians.
Do you assert Haitians are mostly at fault? Or is the desire to expand markets at fault? ya know, the profit motive? Does the desire to expand markets potentially threaten human rights and freedom?
"To know the reasons for the present political situation in Haiti, to understand why the United States landed and has for five years maintained military forces in that country, why some three thousand Haitian men, women, and children have been shot down by American rifles and machine guns, it is necessary, among other things, to know that the National City Bank of New York is very much interested in Haiti.
"It is necessary to know that the National City Bank controls the National Bank of Haiti and is the depository for all of the Haitian national funds that are being collected by American officials, and that Mr. R. L. Farnham, vice-president of the National City Bank, is virtually the representative of the State Department in matters relating to the island republic."
Snipped for brevity. I agree, laissez-faire Capitalism is unworkable. Can you give me an example of where on exists today?Ultimately I conclude that laissez-faire Capitalism is unworkable; regulated Capitalism is an economic system fit for actual use.
There may be correlation, but can you prove causation? No, you can't.Canada does not allow any corporate campaign contributions. As a result they have universal healthcare, gay marriage, sensible gun laws, and a well regulated banking system. In fact since 1790 the United States has had 16 banking system failures, Canada has had 0.
War is the result of power hungry humans, not capitalism, and not socialism. Communism maybe. But the pure fact is, capitalism is not at fault, people are; greedy people are; and no economic system eliminates greedy human beings.I am familiar with Keynes. But capital accumulation can only be mitigated. And as we are seeing in our political arena, wars etc. which are fully subservient to capital and economic interests.
If you stop right here you would be correct. History is rife with various inequities between humans, in every economic system ever known."The abstract possibility [of an inverted relation between real assets and speculative assets] lay in the fact, emphasized by both Marx and Keynes, that the capital accumulation process was twofold: involving the ownership of real assets and also the holding of paper claims to those real assets. Under these circumstances the possibility of a contradiction between real accumulation and financial speculation was intrinsic to the system from the start."
"There is no necessary direct connection between productive investment and the amassing of financial assets. It is thus possible for the two to be “decoupled” to a considerable degree. However, without a mature financial system this contradiction went no further than the speculative bubbles that dot the history
That means nothing.(of capitalism, normally signaling the end of a boom.")
Is there any wonder why you have been referred to as a left wing fanatic? Do you believe any of that crap?"It took the rise of monopoly capitalism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and the development of a market for industrial securities before finance could take center-stage, and before the contradiction between production and finance could mature."
The Financialization of Capitalism This article was prepared for a panel organized by the Union for Radical Political Economics at the Left Forum in New York, March 11, 2007.
Paper assets are valuable based on trust and the soundness of the system. Only a capitalist system can be trusted to make the paper assets worth the investment. Financialism became the key to capitalism when the agrarian era ended and the old (outdated) concept of capital as the excess production of labor fell in disgrace. Until many producers of excess combined their "capital" as money to invest there was never any expectation of progressive economics.I think it's quite obvious such a system is unsustainable given sophistic politics, environmental degradation, and the endless goal and legal maxim of increasing profits each quarter without respect for the long term stability. It will reach a point at which the speculative nature will create a problem no government can counter. The paper/digital claims to assets will disappear since those assets didn't exist in reality to begin with thus drying up the alleged wealth of potentially billions. Ensuing thereafter will be the most lasting crisis to have ever tango-ed with mankind, especially if the climate is involved. I do not trust regulated capitalism to present a sustainable future.
I accuse someone of malevolence when and if they try to put words into my mouth. And I have noted that you, zombie and George have put names other than mine on comments I made, so don't claim success of formatting. I don't consider format or ritual important. The solution is, if you don't like my formatting, don't read my posts. Yet, not one person on this thread has once, not even once, offered a better economic solution than Capitalism. So, you can get off your high horse and recognize that the claims of the "progressives" on this thread have over looked the validity of empirical studies about economic situations and instead offer a pseudo intellectual discussion which means absolutely nothing in the real world.As for your first statement, dnsmith has consistently churned out terrible formats (not necessarily his fault--he's not a "techie" and USMB formatting is sub-par). Yet as a result of the poor formatting so that it appears who is saying what is false, he then accuses someone of malevolence.
Your link, Homeschool:
"The act is 'often cited as a cause' of the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis 'even by some of its onetime supporters.'[26]
Opinion.
Opinion. The same Obama that was suing banks to make bad loans.
I just proved that most of the companies would not be effected by Glass Steagall. Regardless, what does this have to do with sub-prime mortgages? Nothing.
So both noted that it didn't "deregulate" at all. Great. And how does this prove the act contributed to sub-prime loans? No proof here at all.
Well I would agree with that. We should have a gold standard, and we should have no FDIC. Great. What's this got to do with sub-prime lending? Nothing.
What does this have to do with sub-prime lending.
Opinion.
Again, I just proved that the act didn't affect the companies that crashed. So.... he's wrong. Are you too dumb to think for yourself?
"Other critics also assert that proponents and defenders of the Act espouse a form of 'eliteconomics' that has, with the passage of the Act, directly precipitated the current economic recession while at the same time shifting the burden of belt-tightening measures onto the lower- and middle-income classes.[32]"
What's this got to do with sub-prime lending?
Idiot. You are just so absolutely stupid, you don't even realize how moronic your posts are.
Are you just too plain stupid to think for yourself? Glass Steagall, didn't have anything to do with 90% of what you said, and the other 10%, it was just wrong. I just proved that those companies where not Retail, Commercial, Investment and Insurance companies.
That's the ONLY THINK that Glass-Steagall prevented, was one bank doing all four things.
None of what you just said, matters to that, except for the claim that repealing it allowed the banks to get bigger.... which I just proved did not apply. Those banks that failed were not doing that. Glass-Steagall would not effect them.
Are you too dumb to figure that out? Are you so blindly stupid, all you can do is repost other people's opinions? Are you idiotic, that you think opinions are the same as facts??
Get off the forum. You are too immature to be here. Grow up, learn something, and maybe we'll bother listening to you again.
I'm done with you. You have proven yourself incapable of reason, incapable of logic, you post opinion as fact, then demand proof. You are an idiot. You are waste of oxygen. You couldn't argue your way out of a 4th grade debate club. You and me... we're done. I'm not wasting my time with such a pathetic idiot.
I wonder if he realizes that calling you home school is not an insult. Home schooled kids consistently out score public school kids here in Alabama, as the AEA has consistently lowered education standards in the process of improving their own lot.
You've provided the answer to that question numerous times.OK, now that you have said all that, can you explain why it is caused by capitalism? Or do you recognize that bad men from any system can and will do the same thing?Here's a left-wing view written in 1920 about Wall Street's influence in Haiti:You have consistently exonerated capitalism when you admit misdeeds have occurred. In the case of Haiti you said:
"Whether the US chose to interfere in Haiti's affairs indicts the government, not capitalism."
You've made at least 2 very similar exonerations regarding other misdeeds. I find it puzzling you insist capitalism is innocent in cases of wrongdoing while also agreeing it is not innocent, not perfect and has bad parts, but, as you would surely add: is the best damn economic system we have currently--which may be true. But if you conclude from that that there are no viable alternatives, you are mistaken. It is a logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot envision or don't want to imagine another way of organizing an economy does not mean that they do not exist. It only means you are unaware of better alternatives. I'm not advocating for alternatives at present, I'm merely identifying your ambivalence about capitalism and invalid logic that you seem to regularly deploy in support of capitalism.
Can you identify an instance where capitalism is the engine, the cause of wrongdoing? Apparently you don't think so in Haiti but understanding Woodrow Wilson's thinking which lead to the invasion of Haiti during his Presidency is helpful. So let's just read what he wrote:
"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."
I think this leaves no question as to the fact that increasing market share drives governments to deploy force to expand markets. Is the desire to expand market share of US corporations a motivating factor in Haiti? Yes. It may not be the only motivation but certainly among the key motivations that resulted in the decimation of Haitian society, from which is has not recovered to this day. The massive presence of US corporations in Haiti's economy is a sure sign that the motivation to increase market share paid off for wealthy investors and corporations. Not surprisingly it has had the opposite effect on Haitians.
Do you assert Haitians are mostly at fault? Or is the desire to expand markets at fault? ya know, the profit motive? Does the desire to expand markets potentially threaten human rights and freedom?
"To know the reasons for the present political situation in Haiti, to understand why the United States landed and has for five years maintained military forces in that country, why some three thousand Haitian men, women, and children have been shot down by American rifles and machine guns, it is necessary, among other things, to know that the National City Bank of New York is very much interested in Haiti.
"It is necessary to know that the National City Bank controls the National Bank of Haiti and is the depository for all of the Haitian national funds that are being collected by American officials, and that Mr. R. L. Farnham, vice-president of the National City Bank, is virtually the representative of the State Department in matters relating to the island republic."
"On Friday, the city of Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase accusing it of pushing minority borrowers to take on risky home loans that would ultimately cost the city at least $1.7 billion in lost revenue and maintenance.Opinion.
Opinion. The same Obama that was suing banks to make bad loans.
I just proved that most of the companies would not be effected by Glass Steagall. Regardless, what does this have to do with sub-prime mortgages? Nothing.
So both noted that it didn't "deregulate" at all. Great. And how does this prove the act contributed to sub-prime loans? No proof here at all.
Well I would agree with that. We should have a gold standard, and we should have no FDIC. Great. What's this got to do with sub-prime lending? Nothing.
What does this have to do with sub-prime lending.
Opinion.
Again, I just proved that the act didn't affect the companies that crashed. So.... he's wrong. Are you too dumb to think for yourself?
What's this got to do with sub-prime lending?
Idiot. You are just so absolutely stupid, you don't even realize how moronic your posts are.
Are you just too plain stupid to think for yourself? Glass Steagall, didn't have anything to do with 90% of what you said, and the other 10%, it was just wrong. I just proved that those companies where not Retail, Commercial, Investment and Insurance companies.
That's the ONLY THINK that Glass-Steagall prevented, was one bank doing all four things.
None of what you just said, matters to that, except for the claim that repealing it allowed the banks to get bigger.... which I just proved did not apply. Those banks that failed were not doing that. Glass-Steagall would not effect them.
Are you too dumb to figure that out? Are you so blindly stupid, all you can do is repost other people's opinions? Are you idiotic, that you think opinions are the same as facts??
Get off the forum. You are too immature to be here. Grow up, learn something, and maybe we'll bother listening to you again.
I'm done with you. You have proven yourself incapable of reason, incapable of logic, you post opinion as fact, then demand proof. You are an idiot. You are waste of oxygen. You couldn't argue your way out of a 4th grade debate club. You and me... we're done. I'm not wasting my time with such a pathetic idiot.
I wonder if he realizes that calling you home school is not an insult. Home schooled kids consistently out score public school kids here in Alabama, as the AEA has consistently lowered education standards in the process of improving their own lot.
Of course not. This guy debates like he's STILL in a public middle school debate club.
It's people like him, that are perfect examples of what Thomas Sowell said years ago.
Sowell was set debate a well known economist I believe, and the night before the debate told his people he was going home to get rest. When they thought he should prepare for the debate instead, Sowell explained:
I dont mind debating smart people. They know the limitations of their position. Its debating stupid people thats hard.
This guys is exactly who Sowell was talking about. Too dumb to even know the limits of his own position.
FWIW, I have never deliberately assigned another's name to any of your posts.I accuse someone of malevolence when and if they try to put words into my mouth. And I have noted that you, zombie and George have put names other than mine on comments I made, so don't claim success of formatting. I don't consider format or ritual important. The solution is, if you don't like my formatting, don't read my posts. Yet, not one person on this thread has once, not even once, offered a better economic solution than Capitalism. So, you can get off your high horse and recognize that the claims of the "progressives" on this thread have over looked the validity of empirical studies about economic situations and instead offer a pseudo intellectual discussion which means absolutely nothing in the real world.As for your first statement, dnsmith has consistently churned out terrible formats (not necessarily his fault--he's not a "techie" and USMB formatting is sub-par). Yet as a result of the poor formatting so that it appears who is saying what is false, he then accuses someone of malevolence.
Who controls US Government, Wall Street or Main Street?"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force" -Atlas Shrugged
War is the result of power hungry humans, not capitalism, and not socialism. Communism maybe. But the pure fact is, capitalism is not at fault, people are; greedy people are; and no economic system eliminates greedy human beings.
War is the result of power hungry humans, not capitalism, and not socialism. Communism maybe. But the pure fact is, capitalism is not at fault, people are; greedy people are; and no economic system eliminates greedy human beings.
And why would people be power hungry if it wasn't worthwhile? People become clever as a result of seeing what works--and capitalism rewards individuals who forsake the interests of communities for their own private pursuits. So they do coal mining and ruin aquifers but have little concern since they don't actually live in that community.
Capitalism provides the system by which power hungry individuals are rewarded for being hyper-focused on profit maximization. Those who make the biggest bucks are those on Wall St. and they are the most concentrated group of psychopaths among any profession. These are the men who are heralded on Fortune 500 and other magazines.
Is Wall Street Full of Psychopaths? - James Silver - The Atlantic
Lessons From The Brain-Damaged Investor - WSJ
The Shocking Stat About Psychos On Wall Street - Business Insider
And when a person disregards others and nature for his own benefit, we see the devastation of whole societies while a small minority benefit enormously. Amy Chua has written about this in "World on Fire" where she catalogs dozens of societies where the minority population control the society and the vast majority are under abject living conditions:
"In the Philippines, Chua explains, the Chinese Filipino is 1% of the population but controls 60% of the economy, with the result being envy and bitterness on the part of the majority against the Chinese minorityin other words, an ethnic conflict. Similarly, in Indonesia the Chinese Indonesians are 3% of the population but control 70% of the economy. There is a similar pattern in other Southeast Asia nations.
According to Chua, examples of what she calls ethnic market-dominant minorities include overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia; whites in Latin America; Jews in America; Croats in the former Yugoslavia; and Igbos, Kikuyus, Tutsis, Indians and Lebanese, among others, in Africa."
While capitalism is not the agent it is the mechanism by which agents stake claims (thereby denying access of the community who depend on resources like water, land) and have them defended by repressive governments, including in the US.
As I quoted Woodrow Wilson, there is urgency behind expanding formerly closed markets for the sake of private wealth even if it makes sovereign nations outraged by annexing their resources. By taking resources by force from sovereign nations, you are rewarded. Capitalism is the mechanism of wealth production for individual profit maximization which often takes little to no account of external costs. These costs range from infant mortality, pollution, destruction of culture and countless other costs that are not calculated as part of the profit.
Capitalism is the engine that churns out "bad people." Though I don't agree with your assessment; people are not bad and certainly not born bad. People learn how to behave and what works and the systems in place determine what works and what doesn't. Placing the individual over the community is the essence of capitalist enterprise and has helped wrought untold suffering and deceit for the sake of private gain.
I'm not saying capitalism only creates horrid circumstances. Those living where capital is concentrated are better in relative terms. However, that is no excuse for neglecting the facts about the horrid side of capitalism.
Yes I have, but you left out the part in which I say factually, "making a larger part of our population more prosperous.You've provided the answer to that question numerous times.OK, now that you have said all that, can you explain why it is caused by capitalism? Or do you recognize that bad men from any system can and will do the same thing?Here's a left-wing view written in 1920 about Wall Street's influence in Haiti:
"To know the reasons for the present political situation in Haiti, to understand why the United States landed and has for five years maintained military forces in that country, why some three thousand Haitian men, women, and children have been shot down by American rifles and machine guns, it is necessary, among other things, to know that the National City Bank of New York is very much interested in Haiti.
"It is necessary to know that the National City Bank controls the National Bank of Haiti and is the depository for all of the Haitian national funds that are being collected by American officials, and that Mr. R. L. Farnham, vice-president of the National City Bank, is virtually the representative of the State Department in matters relating to the island republic."
Capitalism is spectacularly successful at creating wealth (remember?)
It is equally unsuccessful at distributing wealth equitably.You supposition fails here because it is not "capitalism" which is distributing wealth inequitably. Your cries of the income inequality gap fail when you actually examine how few actually get extraordinary income are now less of an issue than it was during the Vanderbilt/Rockefeller/Carnegie era. The gap is not from the poor or the middle class to the 1%, it is between the .99% and the .01%. Certainly the recessions we have had; Recessions of 1969–70, 1973–75, 1980, July 1981–Nov 1982, March 2001–Nov 2001, Dec 2007–June 2009 have hurt the less wealthy more than the more wealthy, not in $$$s lost, but in the ability to maintain a dignified standard of living.I absolutely disagree with that comment in its entirety.Since every government yet devised exists to serve its richest citizens at the expense of its majority,Why are you blaming the system when it is not the system at all? Capitalism has spread the money around to a larger proportion of its citizenry than any other system.capitalism produces "bad men" a spectacularly, and in direct proportion, to wealth itself.
Note: Married couples are disproportionately represented in the upper two quintiles, compared to the bottom three quintiles. That tends to represent two family incomes. To compare individual incomes of the top two quintiles to the bottom three, one must cut the mean income of the top two quintiles in half, which then reflects a much lower gap than many people claim.
