Capitalism is not corporatism

[dudmuck]

Capitalism is not the same as corporatism. This is a popular mischaracterization those who denounce capitalism tend to make. They usually talk about corps gaining power, too much power, getting into bed with slimy politicians, etc., and then conclude capitalism is evil. This is corporatism, or cronyism, and there is an element of that today in our country with certain industries. More than what should be acceptable. However, conflating the two is more than just throwing the baby out with the bath water, it’s throwing the wrong baby out of the crib instead of the bath.

Capitalism operates on a few simple but scalable principles. The scalable part is extremely important.
1. Capatilism is free trade between 2 parties. Meaning the 2 parties are the only 2 making the decision for themselves.

2. Wealth is not just money. We use money to help us quantify wealth, but it doesn’t define wealth. This also means that wealth can be created. Skills, education, ideas, creativity, art, ability, beauty, etc., are all some of the many forms of wealth. Once it’s understood that wealth is more than just money, and that it can created in a ridiculous amount of ways, you also come to the conclusion that wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth being a zero sum game is the underlying operating system socialism is based on.

3. For one to build wealth, one needs to serve humanity, at a price that other people are willing to pay.

4. It creates competition, and competition drives further innovation.

You defined capitalism but you didn't contrast it with corporatism.

How are we to know what you mean?

I gave a short example of it in the first paragraph. Basically when corporations are in bed/influencing the government, and vis versa. You’ll hear many denouncers of capitalism talk about how this is actually an oligarchy of corps created by capitalism. This is not at all free trade, it is the opposite. In capitalism there is no such thing as too big to fail. The big fail all the time. This should be especially true now a days, with how fast markets change. You either adapt, find a niche to serve, or wither and die by the wayside. Bad business practices will eventually bite you in the ass and usually be the cause of your demise. The easiest way to cover up your mistakes, or failure to compete is to get help from the government in some sort of way. Maybe through regulation, a tax, a bailout, outlawing, something along those lines.

Now, one could make the argument that cronyism is a result of capitalism. I disagree, as long as the government has its abilities restricted for the promotion of freedom. If government is properly limited in their ability, why would a corporation pay off a politician whose hands are tied? I also think it’s extremely hard for monopolies to form without the help of government. All it takes is the one person with the means to do it better and cheaper than the monopoly, and boom, now there is competition

I never understood what law of capital accumulation prevented monopolies from forming in the absence of government. Do you know?

The fact that anyone could swoop in and create competition in whatever market is in discussion. Monopolies usually form when there are barriers of entries into a market. Most of the extremely difficult barriers to cross are usually put into place or exacerbated by government. If there’s a company like amazon, with their hands in all types of markets, no one is calling them a monopoly since they still have to compete, and they are very competitive in pricing and quality. As long as there is competition, which is very hard to get rid of without government, there isn’t going to be an unstoppable monopoly screwing everyone over, because there are other options to go with.

There is no law of capital accumulation that would prevent monopolies from forming. They are the natural result of competition. It's why right wingers like to say that there are winners and losers in the capitalist system. It's also the reason why the government instituted the first anti trust laws in the first place.

But I'm not going to argue the point as to whether capitalism is the same as corporatism. It probably isn't. I'm not going to argue it because it is irrelevant. Outside of comforting your own sensibilities in some way, it makes no difference. They both share a few things in common which leads to the same outcome. They are driven by capital and capital accumulation is the end goal.

corporatism is just organizing by groups, dont you mean Corporatocracy?

 

[sakinago]

Capitalism is not the same as corporatism. This is a popular mischaracterization those who denounce capitalism tend to make. They usually talk about corps gaining power, too much power, getting into bed with slimy politicians, etc., and then conclude capitalism is evil. This is corporatism, or cronyism, and there is an element of that today in our country with certain industries. More than what should be acceptable. However, conflating the two is more than just throwing the baby out with the bath water, it’s throwing the wrong baby out of the crib instead of the bath.

Capitalism operates on a few simple but scalable principles. The scalable part is extremely important.
1. Capatilism is free trade between 2 parties. Meaning the 2 parties are the only 2 making the decision for themselves.

2. Wealth is not just money. We use money to help us quantify wealth, but it doesn’t define wealth. This also means that wealth can be created. Skills, education, ideas, creativity, art, ability, beauty, etc., are all some of the many forms of wealth. Once it’s understood that wealth is more than just money, and that it can created in a ridiculous amount of ways, you also come to the conclusion that wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth being a zero sum game is the underlying operating system socialism is based on.

3. For one to build wealth, one needs to serve humanity, at a price that other people are willing to pay.

4. It creates competition, and competition drives further innovation.

You defined capitalism but you didn't contrast it with corporatism.

How are we to know what you mean?

I gave a short example of it in the first paragraph. Basically when corporations are in bed/influencing the government, and vis versa. You’ll hear many denouncers of capitalism talk about how this is actually an oligarchy of corps created by capitalism. This is not at all free trade, it is the opposite. In capitalism there is no such thing as too big to fail. The big fail all the time. This should be especially true now a days, with how fast markets change. You either adapt, find a niche to serve, or wither and die by the wayside. Bad business practices will eventually bite you in the ass and usually be the cause of your demise. The easiest way to cover up your mistakes, or failure to compete is to get help from the government in some sort of way. Maybe through regulation, a tax, a bailout, outlawing, something along those lines.

Now, one could make the argument that cronyism is a result of capitalism. I disagree, as long as the government has its abilities restricted for the promotion of freedom. If government is properly limited in their ability, why would a corporation pay off a politician whose hands are tied? I also think it’s extremely hard for monopolies to form without the help of government. All it takes is the one person with the means to do it better and cheaper than the monopoly, and boom, now there is competition

I never understood what law of capital accumulation prevented monopolies from forming in the absence of government. Do you know?

The fact that anyone could swoop in and create competition in whatever market is in discussion. Monopolies usually form when there are barriers of entries into a market. Most of the extremely difficult barriers to cross are usually put into place or exacerbated by government. If there’s a company like amazon, with their hands in all types of markets, no one is calling them a monopoly since they still have to compete, and they are very competitive in pricing and quality. As long as there is competition, which is very hard to get rid of without government, there isn’t going to be an unstoppable monopoly screwing everyone over, because there are other options to go with.

There is no law of capital accumulation that would prevent monopolies from forming. They are the natural result of competition. It's why right wingers like to say that there are winners and losers in the capitalist system. It's also the reason why the government instituted the first anti trust laws in the first place.

But I'm not going to argue the point as to whether capitalism is the same as corporatism. It probably isn't. I'm not going to argue it because it is irrelevant. Outside of comforting your own sensibilities in some way, it makes no difference. They both share a few things in common which leads to the same outcome. They are driven by capital and capital accumulation is the end goal.

Oh how nice of you to comfort my sensibilities. Do you want to explain to me how competition leads to no competition? I’m a little confused on how that works. To me that sounds like a non sensical assertion. Also, anti trust laws were created in the glory days of cronyism and graft.

 

[Tehon]

You defined capitalism but you didn't contrast it with corporatism.

How are we to know what you mean?

I gave a short example of it in the first paragraph. Basically when corporations are in bed/influencing the government, and vis versa. You’ll hear many denouncers of capitalism talk about how this is actually an oligarchy of corps created by capitalism. This is not at all free trade, it is the opposite. In capitalism there is no such thing as too big to fail. The big fail all the time. This should be especially true now a days, with how fast markets change. You either adapt, find a niche to serve, or wither and die by the wayside. Bad business practices will eventually bite you in the ass and usually be the cause of your demise. The easiest way to cover up your mistakes, or failure to compete is to get help from the government in some sort of way. Maybe through regulation, a tax, a bailout, outlawing, something along those lines.

Now, one could make the argument that cronyism is a result of capitalism. I disagree, as long as the government has its abilities restricted for the promotion of freedom. If government is properly limited in their ability, why would a corporation pay off a politician whose hands are tied? I also think it’s extremely hard for monopolies to form without the help of government. All it takes is the one person with the means to do it better and cheaper than the monopoly, and boom, now there is competition

I never understood what law of capital accumulation prevented monopolies from forming in the absence of government. Do you know?

The fact that anyone could swoop in and create competition in whatever market is in discussion. Monopolies usually form when there are barriers of entries into a market. Most of the extremely difficult barriers to cross are usually put into place or exacerbated by government. If there’s a company like amazon, with their hands in all types of markets, no one is calling them a monopoly since they still have to compete, and they are very competitive in pricing and quality. As long as there is competition, which is very hard to get rid of without government, there isn’t going to be an unstoppable monopoly screwing everyone over, because there are other options to go with.

There is no law of capital accumulation that would prevent monopolies from forming. They are the natural result of competition. It's why right wingers like to say that there are winners and losers in the capitalist system. It's also the reason why the government instituted the first anti trust laws in the first place.

But I'm not going to argue the point as to whether capitalism is the same as corporatism. It probably isn't. I'm not going to argue it because it is irrelevant. Outside of comforting your own sensibilities in some way, it makes no difference. They both share a few things in common which leads to the same outcome. They are driven by capital and capital accumulation is the end goal.

corporatism is just organizing by groups, dont you mean Corporatocracy?

Good point. That is why I asked for the OP to clarify what he meant. Which he was kind enough to do. I'm working off his definition.

I think corporatocracy is a better fit, but it is not my premise.

 

[Tehon]

You defined capitalism but you didn't contrast it with corporatism.

How are we to know what you mean?

I gave a short example of it in the first paragraph. Basically when corporations are in bed/influencing the government, and vis versa. You’ll hear many denouncers of capitalism talk about how this is actually an oligarchy of corps created by capitalism. This is not at all free trade, it is the opposite. In capitalism there is no such thing as too big to fail. The big fail all the time. This should be especially true now a days, with how fast markets change. You either adapt, find a niche to serve, or wither and die by the wayside. Bad business practices will eventually bite you in the ass and usually be the cause of your demise. The easiest way to cover up your mistakes, or failure to compete is to get help from the government in some sort of way. Maybe through regulation, a tax, a bailout, outlawing, something along those lines.

Now, one could make the argument that cronyism is a result of capitalism. I disagree, as long as the government has its abilities restricted for the promotion of freedom. If government is properly limited in their ability, why would a corporation pay off a politician whose hands are tied? I also think it’s extremely hard for monopolies to form without the help of government. All it takes is the one person with the means to do it better and cheaper than the monopoly, and boom, now there is competition

I never understood what law of capital accumulation prevented monopolies from forming in the absence of government. Do you know?

The fact that anyone could swoop in and create competition in whatever market is in discussion. Monopolies usually form when there are barriers of entries into a market. Most of the extremely difficult barriers to cross are usually put into place or exacerbated by government. If there’s a company like amazon, with their hands in all types of markets, no one is calling them a monopoly since they still have to compete, and they are very competitive in pricing and quality. As long as there is competition, which is very hard to get rid of without government, there isn’t going to be an unstoppable monopoly screwing everyone over, because there are other options to go with.

There is no law of capital accumulation that would prevent monopolies from forming. They are the natural result of competition. It's why right wingers like to say that there are winners and losers in the capitalist system. It's also the reason why the government instituted the first anti trust laws in the first place.

But I'm not going to argue the point as to whether capitalism is the same as corporatism. It probably isn't. I'm not going to argue it because it is irrelevant. Outside of comforting your own sensibilities in some way, it makes no difference. They both share a few things in common which leads to the same outcome. They are driven by capital and capital accumulation is the end goal.

Oh how nice of you to comfort my sensibilities. Do you want to explain to me how competition leads to no competition? I’m a little confused on how that works. To me that sounds like a non sensical assertion. Also, anti trust laws were created in the glory days of cronyism and graft.

I think you are trying to comfort yourself with this ridiculous assertion. As if it cleanses capitalism of its sins. It doesn't.

Winners and losers. There is a natural cycle to competition. There is no magical equilibrium. Doesn't matter if government is involved or not.

 

[Brain357]

I gave a short example of it in the first paragraph. Basically when corporations are in bed/influencing the government, and vis versa. You’ll hear many denouncers of capitalism talk about how this is actually an oligarchy of corps created by capitalism. This is not at all free trade, it is the opposite. In capitalism there is no such thing as too big to fail. The big fail all the time. This should be especially true now a days, with how fast markets change. You either adapt, find a niche to serve, or wither and die by the wayside. Bad business practices will eventually bite you in the ass and usually be the cause of your demise. The easiest way to cover up your mistakes, or failure to compete is to get help from the government in some sort of way. Maybe through regulation, a tax, a bailout, outlawing, something along those lines.

Now, one could make the argument that cronyism is a result of capitalism. I disagree, as long as the government has its abilities restricted for the promotion of freedom. If government is properly limited in their ability, why would a corporation pay off a politician whose hands are tied? I also think it’s extremely hard for monopolies to form without the help of government. All it takes is the one person with the means to do it better and cheaper than the monopoly, and boom, now there is competition

I never understood what law of capital accumulation prevented monopolies from forming in the absence of government. Do you know?

The fact that anyone could swoop in and create competition in whatever market is in discussion. Monopolies usually form when there are barriers of entries into a market. Most of the extremely difficult barriers to cross are usually put into place or exacerbated by government. If there’s a company like amazon, with their hands in all types of markets, no one is calling them a monopoly since they still have to compete, and they are very competitive in pricing and quality. As long as there is competition, which is very hard to get rid of without government, there isn’t going to be an unstoppable monopoly screwing everyone over, because there are other options to go with.

There is no law of capital accumulation that would prevent monopolies from forming. They are the natural result of competition. It's why right wingers like to say that there are winners and losers in the capitalist system. It's also the reason why the government instituted the first anti trust laws in the first place.

But I'm not going to argue the point as to whether capitalism is the same as corporatism. It probably isn't. I'm not going to argue it because it is irrelevant. Outside of comforting your own sensibilities in some way, it makes no difference. They both share a few things in common which leads to the same outcome. They are driven by capital and capital accumulation is the end goal.

Oh how nice of you to comfort my sensibilities. Do you want to explain to me how competition leads to no competition? I’m a little confused on how that works. To me that sounds like a non sensical assertion. Also, anti trust laws were created in the glory days of cronyism and graft.

I think you are trying to comfort yourself with this ridiculous assertion. As if it cleanses capitalism of its sins. It doesn't.

Winners and losers. There is a natural cycle to competition. There is no magical equilibrium. Doesn't matter if government is involved or not.

Winners and losers in capitalism. Only losers in your socialism.

 

[Tehon]

Also, anti trust laws were created in the glory days of cronyism and graft.

The American Tobacco Company, also known as the tobacco trust. Use that as an example to highlight corruption and graft.

American Tobacco Company - Wikipedia

In the 1880s, while Duke was beginning to machine-roll all his cigarettes, he saw that growth rates in the cigarette industry were declining. His solution was to combine companies and found “one of the first great holding companies in American history.”[6] Duke spent $800,000 on advertising in 1889 and lowered his prices, accepting net profits of less than $400,000, forcing his major competitors to lower their prices and, in 1890, join his consortium by the name of the American Tobacco Company.[7][8] The five constituent companies of American Tobacco: W. Duke & Sons, Allen & Ginter, W.S. Kimball & Company, Kinney Tobacco, and Goodwin & Company – produced 90% of the cigarettes made in 1890, the first year the American Tobacco Company was listed on the NYSE. Within two decades of its founding, the American Tobacco company absorbed about 250 companies and produced 80% of the cigarettes, plug tobacco, smoking tobacco, and snuff produced in the United States.[6][9] With Duke's market control, American Tobacco grew its equity from $25,000,000 to $316,000,000.

 

[sakinago]

I gave a short example of it in the first paragraph. Basically when corporations are in bed/influencing the government, and vis versa. You’ll hear many denouncers of capitalism talk about how this is actually an oligarchy of corps created by capitalism. This is not at all free trade, it is the opposite. In capitalism there is no such thing as too big to fail. The big fail all the time. This should be especially true now a days, with how fast markets change. You either adapt, find a niche to serve, or wither and die by the wayside. Bad business practices will eventually bite you in the ass and usually be the cause of your demise. The easiest way to cover up your mistakes, or failure to compete is to get help from the government in some sort of way. Maybe through regulation, a tax, a bailout, outlawing, something along those lines.

Now, one could make the argument that cronyism is a result of capitalism. I disagree, as long as the government has its abilities restricted for the promotion of freedom. If government is properly limited in their ability, why would a corporation pay off a politician whose hands are tied? I also think it’s extremely hard for monopolies to form without the help of government. All it takes is the one person with the means to do it better and cheaper than the monopoly, and boom, now there is competition

I never understood what law of capital accumulation prevented monopolies from forming in the absence of government. Do you know?

The fact that anyone could swoop in and create competition in whatever market is in discussion. Monopolies usually form when there are barriers of entries into a market. Most of the extremely difficult barriers to cross are usually put into place or exacerbated by government. If there’s a company like amazon, with their hands in all types of markets, no one is calling them a monopoly since they still have to compete, and they are very competitive in pricing and quality. As long as there is competition, which is very hard to get rid of without government, there isn’t going to be an unstoppable monopoly screwing everyone over, because there are other options to go with.

There is no law of capital accumulation that would prevent monopolies from forming. They are the natural result of competition. It's why right wingers like to say that there are winners and losers in the capitalist system. It's also the reason why the government instituted the first anti trust laws in the first place.

But I'm not going to argue the point as to whether capitalism is the same as corporatism. It probably isn't. I'm not going to argue it because it is irrelevant. Outside of comforting your own sensibilities in some way, it makes no difference. They both share a few things in common which leads to the same outcome. They are driven by capital and capital accumulation is the end goal.

Oh how nice of you to comfort my sensibilities. Do you want to explain to me how competition leads to no competition? I’m a little confused on how that works. To me that sounds like a non sensical assertion. Also, anti trust laws were created in the glory days of cronyism and graft.

I think you are trying to comfort yourself with this ridiculous assertion. As if it cleanses capitalism of its sins. It doesn't.

Winners and losers. There is a natural cycle to competition. There is no magical equilibrium. Doesn't matter if government is involved or not.

That cycle is in every aspect of life. It’s a part of life whether you see it or not, and your actively participating in it whether you realize it or not. And it’s a healthy and necessary part of society, it’s not just a shitty game of power. You want the best surgeon or whatever to take care of you, and they don’t become the best because they are the most powerful and tyrannical. Your posisition as winner or loser is also not cemented in place, even when it comes to wealth, at least not in a capitalistic society. Most young people haven’t accumulated much wealth and resources, the main factor there is they haven’t had time to. Wealth takes time to accumulate, which is a no duh statement, but one that is quickly forgotten. It also takes time to accumulate marketable skills and education, which would be considered part of wealth, but we’ll go with the single minded definition of wealth as money. It also takes discipline and wisdom built up over time to help accumulate wealth and resources. In America, some 75% of people will make it to the top 10% at some point in their life. That’s a pretty damn good system. It’s dumb and misleading to take a snapshot of the “haves” and “have nots” at a single point in time, and then complain about it. No shit there are “have nots”, you don’t just instantly become a have. 99% of the time it takes a lot of time and hard work. Age is the biggest determination of wealth, and again wealth is not a zero sum game. If it was, we wouldn’t ever see GDP growth, like we have been seeing for the past couple hundred years.

 

[Tehon]

I never understood what law of capital accumulation prevented monopolies from forming in the absence of government. Do you know?

The fact that anyone could swoop in and create competition in whatever market is in discussion. Monopolies usually form when there are barriers of entries into a market. Most of the extremely difficult barriers to cross are usually put into place or exacerbated by government. If there’s a company like amazon, with their hands in all types of markets, no one is calling them a monopoly since they still have to compete, and they are very competitive in pricing and quality. As long as there is competition, which is very hard to get rid of without government, there isn’t going to be an unstoppable monopoly screwing everyone over, because there are other options to go with.

There is no law of capital accumulation that would prevent monopolies from forming. They are the natural result of competition. It's why right wingers like to say that there are winners and losers in the capitalist system. It's also the reason why the government instituted the first anti trust laws in the first place.

But I'm not going to argue the point as to whether capitalism is the same as corporatism. It probably isn't. I'm not going to argue it because it is irrelevant. Outside of comforting your own sensibilities in some way, it makes no difference. They both share a few things in common which leads to the same outcome. They are driven by capital and capital accumulation is the end goal.

Oh how nice of you to comfort my sensibilities. Do you want to explain to me how competition leads to no competition? I’m a little confused on how that works. To me that sounds like a non sensical assertion. Also, anti trust laws were created in the glory days of cronyism and graft.

I think you are trying to comfort yourself with this ridiculous assertion. As if it cleanses capitalism of its sins. It doesn't.

Winners and losers. There is a natural cycle to competition. There is no magical equilibrium. Doesn't matter if government is involved or not.

That cycle is in every aspect of life. It’s a part of life whether you see it or not, and your actively participating in it whether you realize it or not. And it’s a healthy and necessary part of society, it’s not just a shitty game of power. You want the best surgeon or whatever to take care of you, and they don’t become the best because they are the most powerful and tyrannical. Your posisition as winner or loser is also not cemented in place, even when it comes to wealth, at least not in a capitalistic society. Most young people haven’t accumulated much wealth and resources, the main factor there is they haven’t had time to. Wealth takes time to accumulate, which is a no duh statement, but one that is quickly forgotten. It also takes time to accumulate marketable skills and education, which would be considered part of wealth, but we’ll go with the single minded definition of wealth as money. It also takes discipline and wisdom built up over time to help accumulate wealth and resources. In America, some 75% of people will make it to the top 10% at some point in their life. That’s a pretty damn good system. It’s dumb and misleading to take a snapshot of the “haves” and “have nots” at a single point in time, and then complain about it. No shit there are “have nots”, you don’t just instantly become a have. 99% of the time it takes a lot of time and hard work. Age is the biggest determination of wealth, and again wealth is not a zero sum game. If it was, we wouldn’t ever see GDP growth, like we have been seeing for the past couple hundred years.

We have an abundance of social wealth, already accumulated. It only takes time, when you privatize that wealth, to accumulate it in a personal way.

And there is both competition and cooperation in all aspects of life. Whether you see it or not.

We built a society and have an economy that is failing to serve everyone's needs. We need more cooperation, not less.

 

[Tehon]

It also takes time to accumulate marketable skills and education, which would be considered part of wealth, but we’ll go with the single minded definition of wealth as money.

We don't need to dumb things down. Based on what you said I think we both have an understanding that wealth is the ability to acquire what we need in order to satisfy our wants and needs.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Capitalism is not the same as corporatism. This is a popular mischaracterization those who denounce capitalism tend to make. They usually talk about corps gaining power, too much power, getting into bed with slimy politicians, etc., and then conclude capitalism is evil. This is corporatism, or cronyism, and there is an element of that today in our country with certain industries. More than what should be acceptable. However, conflating the two is more than just throwing the baby out with the bath water, it’s throwing the wrong baby out of the crib instead of the bath.

Capitalism operates on a few simple but scalable principles. The scalable part is extremely important.
1. Capatilism is free trade between 2 parties. Meaning the 2 parties are the only 2 making the decision for themselves.

2. Wealth is not just money. We use money to help us quantify wealth, but it doesn’t define wealth. This also means that wealth can be created. Skills, education, ideas, creativity, art, ability, beauty, etc., are all some of the many forms of wealth. Once it’s understood that wealth is more than just money, and that it can created in a ridiculous amount of ways, you also come to the conclusion that wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth being a zero sum game is the underlying operating system socialism is based on.

3. For one to build wealth, one needs to serve humanity, at a price that other people are willing to pay.

4. It creates competition, and competition drives further innovation.

I’m constantly amazed that people who claim to be capitalists fully support crony special tax incentives like Foxconn got in WI.

You are confused. There are no crony special interests at work in Wi; the purpose of the tax breaks is to bring manufacturing jobs to Wi, not to enrich any particular company.

You are confused. It is the government picking winners and losers. And politicians make bad deals with tax payer dollars. It is noted you are a crony.

Obviously you don't know what the word, crony, means and since there were no other contenders picking winners and losers makes no sense. This was simply about trying to provide jobs for workers in Wind it is no different than the state building roads or bridges to facilitate commerce.

 

[Brain357]

Capitalism is not the same as corporatism. This is a popular mischaracterization those who denounce capitalism tend to make. They usually talk about corps gaining power, too much power, getting into bed with slimy politicians, etc., and then conclude capitalism is evil. This is corporatism, or cronyism, and there is an element of that today in our country with certain industries. More than what should be acceptable. However, conflating the two is more than just throwing the baby out with the bath water, it’s throwing the wrong baby out of the crib instead of the bath.

Capitalism operates on a few simple but scalable principles. The scalable part is extremely important.
1. Capatilism is free trade between 2 parties. Meaning the 2 parties are the only 2 making the decision for themselves.

2. Wealth is not just money. We use money to help us quantify wealth, but it doesn’t define wealth. This also means that wealth can be created. Skills, education, ideas, creativity, art, ability, beauty, etc., are all some of the many forms of wealth. Once it’s understood that wealth is more than just money, and that it can created in a ridiculous amount of ways, you also come to the conclusion that wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth being a zero sum game is the underlying operating system socialism is based on.

3. For one to build wealth, one needs to serve humanity, at a price that other people are willing to pay.

4. It creates competition, and competition drives further innovation.

I’m constantly amazed that people who claim to be capitalists fully support crony special tax incentives like Foxconn got in WI.

You are confused. There are no crony special interests at work in Wi; the purpose of the tax breaks is to bring manufacturing jobs to Wi, not to enrich any particular company.

You are confused. It is the government picking winners and losers. And politicians make bad deals with tax payer dollars. It is noted you are a crony.

Obviously you don't know what the word, crony, means and since there were no other contenders picking winners and losers makes no sense. This was simply about trying to provide jobs for workers in Wind it is no different than the state building roads or bridges to facilitate commerce.

You don’t understand capitalism. Foxconn has competitors.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Capitalism is not the same as corporatism. This is a popular mischaracterization those who denounce capitalism tend to make. They usually talk about corps gaining power, too much power, getting into bed with slimy politicians, etc., and then conclude capitalism is evil. This is corporatism, or cronyism, and there is an element of that today in our country with certain industries. More than what should be acceptable. However, conflating the two is more than just throwing the baby out with the bath water, it’s throwing the wrong baby out of the crib instead of the bath.

Capitalism operates on a few simple but scalable principles. The scalable part is extremely important.
1. Capatilism is free trade between 2 parties. Meaning the 2 parties are the only 2 making the decision for themselves.

2. Wealth is not just money. We use money to help us quantify wealth, but it doesn’t define wealth. This also means that wealth can be created. Skills, education, ideas, creativity, art, ability, beauty, etc., are all some of the many forms of wealth. Once it’s understood that wealth is more than just money, and that it can created in a ridiculous amount of ways, you also come to the conclusion that wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth being a zero sum game is the underlying operating system socialism is based on.

3. For one to build wealth, one needs to serve humanity, at a price that other people are willing to pay.

4. It creates competition, and competition drives further innovation.

I’m constantly amazed that people who claim to be capitalists fully support crony special tax incentives like Foxconn got in WI.

You are confused. There are no crony special interests at work in Wi; the purpose of the tax breaks is to bring manufacturing jobs to Wi, not to enrich any particular company.

You are confused. It is the government picking winners and losers. And politicians make bad deals with tax payer dollars. It is noted you are a crony.

Obviously you don't know what the word, crony, means and since there were no other contenders picking winners and losers makes no sense. This was simply about trying to provide jobs for workers in Wind it is no different than the state building roads or bridges to facilitate commerce.

You don’t understand capitalism. Foxconn has competitors.

There were no competitors for the plant in Wi. You are arguing that the state government should choose your half assed idology over the welfare of its citizens.

 

[Brain357]

I’m constantly amazed that people who claim to be capitalists fully support crony special tax incentives like Foxconn got in WI.

You are confused. There are no crony special interests at work in Wi; the purpose of the tax breaks is to bring manufacturing jobs to Wi, not to enrich any particular company.

You are confused. It is the government picking winners and losers. And politicians make bad deals with tax payer dollars. It is noted you are a crony.

Obviously you don't know what the word, crony, means and since there were no other contenders picking winners and losers makes no sense. This was simply about trying to provide jobs for workers in Wind it is no different than the state building roads or bridges to facilitate commerce.

You don’t understand capitalism. Foxconn has competitors.

There were no competitors for the plant in Wi. You are arguing that the state government should choose your half assed idology over the welfare of its citizens.

Every citizen can use roads and bridges. Are they all guaranteed jobs?

Much of the land was farm land in use by farmers who didn’t want to sell. There is also very low unemployment there.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You are confused. There are no crony special interests at work in Wi; the purpose of the tax breaks is to bring manufacturing jobs to Wi, not to enrich any particular company.

You are confused. It is the government picking winners and losers. And politicians make bad deals with tax payer dollars. It is noted you are a crony.

Obviously you don't know what the word, crony, means and since there were no other contenders picking winners and losers makes no sense. This was simply about trying to provide jobs for workers in Wind it is no different than the state building roads or bridges to facilitate commerce.

You don’t understand capitalism. Foxconn has competitors.

There were no competitors for the plant in Wi. You are arguing that the state government should choose your half assed idology over the welfare of its citizens.

Every citizen can use roads and bridges. Are they all guaranteed jobs?

Much of the land was farm land in use by farmers who didn’t want to sell. There is also very low unemployment there.

Your post are getting more and more stupid. While everyone can use public roads not everyone in WI will have reason to use the same public roads, so why did the state choose to build a public road not everyone will use. Is the state choosing winners and losers according to your fucked up ideology?

 

[Brain357]

You are confused. It is the government picking winners and losers. And politicians make bad deals with tax payer dollars. It is noted you are a crony.

Obviously you don't know what the word, crony, means and since there were no other contenders picking winners and losers makes no sense. This was simply about trying to provide jobs for workers in Wind it is no different than the state building roads or bridges to facilitate commerce.

You don’t understand capitalism. Foxconn has competitors.

There were no competitors for the plant in Wi. You are arguing that the state government should choose your half assed idology over the welfare of its citizens.

Every citizen can use roads and bridges. Are they all guaranteed jobs?

Much of the land was farm land in use by farmers who didn’t want to sell. There is also very low unemployment there.

Your post are getting more and more stupid. While everyone can use public roads not everyone in WI will have reason to use the same public roads, so why did the state choose to build a public road not everyone will use. Is the state choosing winners and losers according to your fucked up ideology?

No because everyone can use the roads and bridges. Is everyone guaranteed a job?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Obviously you don't know what the word, crony, means and since there were no other contenders picking winners and losers makes no sense. This was simply about trying to provide jobs for workers in Wind it is no different than the state building roads or bridges to facilitate commerce.

You don’t understand capitalism. Foxconn has competitors.

There were no competitors for the plant in Wi. You are arguing that the state government should choose your half assed idology over the welfare of its citizens.

Every citizen can use roads and bridges. Are they all guaranteed jobs?

Much of the land was farm land in use by farmers who didn’t want to sell. There is also very low unemployment there.

Your post are getting more and more stupid. While everyone can use public roads not everyone in WI will have reason to use the same public roads, so why did the state choose to build a public road not everyone will use. Is the state choosing winners and losers according to your fucked up ideology?

No because everyone can use the roads and bridges. Is everyone guaranteed a job?

That's just stupid. Clearly, some roads are more useful to some people than others, so in your words the state picked and chose winners, those who have a use for that particular road and losers,those who have no use for that particular roads. No one is guaranteed a job at the plant, but everyone is free to apply for a job.

If you were able to think, you would understand capitalism doesn't exist anywhere in the world. It is simply a theory developed about 250 years ago about how free market economy works. It assumes all competition is price competition and it does not take into account the functions of government. Believing that pure capitalism can exist is pure idiocy.

 

[Brain357]

You don’t understand capitalism. Foxconn has competitors.

There were no competitors for the plant in Wi. You are arguing that the state government should choose your half assed idology over the welfare of its citizens.

Every citizen can use roads and bridges. Are they all guaranteed jobs?

Much of the land was farm land in use by farmers who didn’t want to sell. There is also very low unemployment there.

Your post are getting more and more stupid. While everyone can use public roads not everyone in WI will have reason to use the same public roads, so why did the state choose to build a public road not everyone will use. Is the state choosing winners and losers according to your fucked up ideology?

No because everyone can use the roads and bridges. Is everyone guaranteed a job?

That's just stupid. Clearly, some roads are more useful to some people than others, so in your words the state picked and chose winners, those who have a use for that particular road and losers,those who have no use for that particular roads. No one is guaranteed a job at the plant, but everyone is free to apply for a job.

If you were able to think, you would understand capitalism doesn't exist anywhere in the world. It is simply a theory developed about 250 years ago about how free market economy works. It assumes all competition is price competition and it does not take into account the functions of government. Believing that pure capitalism can exist is pure idiocy.

Believing that corrupt politicians can make these deals is pure idiocy. The break even is in 25 years. It’s unlikely the technology will still be in use then. Huge waste of tax dollars.

 

[sakinago]

The fact that anyone could swoop in and create competition in whatever market is in discussion. Monopolies usually form when there are barriers of entries into a market. Most of the extremely difficult barriers to cross are usually put into place or exacerbated by government. If there’s a company like amazon, with their hands in all types of markets, no one is calling them a monopoly since they still have to compete, and they are very competitive in pricing and quality. As long as there is competition, which is very hard to get rid of without government, there isn’t going to be an unstoppable monopoly screwing everyone over, because there are other options to go with.

There is no law of capital accumulation that would prevent monopolies from forming. They are the natural result of competition. It's why right wingers like to say that there are winners and losers in the capitalist system. It's also the reason why the government instituted the first anti trust laws in the first place.

But I'm not going to argue the point as to whether capitalism is the same as corporatism. It probably isn't. I'm not going to argue it because it is irrelevant. Outside of comforting your own sensibilities in some way, it makes no difference. They both share a few things in common which leads to the same outcome. They are driven by capital and capital accumulation is the end goal.

Oh how nice of you to comfort my sensibilities. Do you want to explain to me how competition leads to no competition? I’m a little confused on how that works. To me that sounds like a non sensical assertion. Also, anti trust laws were created in the glory days of cronyism and graft.

I think you are trying to comfort yourself with this ridiculous assertion. As if it cleanses capitalism of its sins. It doesn't.

Winners and losers. There is a natural cycle to competition. There is no magical equilibrium. Doesn't matter if government is involved or not.

That cycle is in every aspect of life. It’s a part of life whether you see it or not, and your actively participating in it whether you realize it or not. And it’s a healthy and necessary part of society, it’s not just a shitty game of power. You want the best surgeon or whatever to take care of you, and they don’t become the best because they are the most powerful and tyrannical. Your posisition as winner or loser is also not cemented in place, even when it comes to wealth, at least not in a capitalistic society. Most young people haven’t accumulated much wealth and resources, the main factor there is they haven’t had time to. Wealth takes time to accumulate, which is a no duh statement, but one that is quickly forgotten. It also takes time to accumulate marketable skills and education, which would be considered part of wealth, but we’ll go with the single minded definition of wealth as money. It also takes discipline and wisdom built up over time to help accumulate wealth and resources. In America, some 75% of people will make it to the top 10% at some point in their life. That’s a pretty damn good system. It’s dumb and misleading to take a snapshot of the “haves” and “have nots” at a single point in time, and then complain about it. No shit there are “have nots”, you don’t just instantly become a have. 99% of the time it takes a lot of time and hard work. Age is the biggest determination of wealth, and again wealth is not a zero sum game. If it was, we wouldn’t ever see GDP growth, like we have been seeing for the past couple hundred years.

We have an abundance of social wealth, already accumulated. It only takes time, when you privatize that wealth, to accumulate it in a personal way.

And there is both competition and cooperation in all aspects of life. Whether you see it or not.

We built a society and have an economy that is failing to serve everyone's needs. We need more cooperation, not less.

Cooperation is the main tenant of capitalism. That’s what the whole free trade thing means. I post my boat for sale for 8,000. You come over and offer me 6500 cash on the spot, I talk you up to 7,000. You get a boat, I get money, we both win. That’s cooperation as opposed to a socialist or communist system, where I probably don’t own a boat and you wouldn’t have enough free income to buy one...but whatever we’d be trading, if it’s allowed to be traded, would have all types of market manipulation restrictions and rules dictating how to trade, for how much, etc. That’s coercion, not cooperation. Coercion coming from a small group of elites who think they know what’s better for you than what you know for yourself.

 

[Tehon]

There is no law of capital accumulation that would prevent monopolies from forming. They are the natural result of competition. It's why right wingers like to say that there are winners and losers in the capitalist system. It's also the reason why the government instituted the first anti trust laws in the first place.

But I'm not going to argue the point as to whether capitalism is the same as corporatism. It probably isn't. I'm not going to argue it because it is irrelevant. Outside of comforting your own sensibilities in some way, it makes no difference. They both share a few things in common which leads to the same outcome. They are driven by capital and capital accumulation is the end goal.

Oh how nice of you to comfort my sensibilities. Do you want to explain to me how competition leads to no competition? I’m a little confused on how that works. To me that sounds like a non sensical assertion. Also, anti trust laws were created in the glory days of cronyism and graft.

I think you are trying to comfort yourself with this ridiculous assertion. As if it cleanses capitalism of its sins. It doesn't.

Winners and losers. There is a natural cycle to competition. There is no magical equilibrium. Doesn't matter if government is involved or not.

That cycle is in every aspect of life. It’s a part of life whether you see it or not, and your actively participating in it whether you realize it or not. And it’s a healthy and necessary part of society, it’s not just a shitty game of power. You want the best surgeon or whatever to take care of you, and they don’t become the best because they are the most powerful and tyrannical. Your posisition as winner or loser is also not cemented in place, even when it comes to wealth, at least not in a capitalistic society. Most young people haven’t accumulated much wealth and resources, the main factor there is they haven’t had time to. Wealth takes time to accumulate, which is a no duh statement, but one that is quickly forgotten. It also takes time to accumulate marketable skills and education, which would be considered part of wealth, but we’ll go with the single minded definition of wealth as money. It also takes discipline and wisdom built up over time to help accumulate wealth and resources. In America, some 75% of people will make it to the top 10% at some point in their life. That’s a pretty damn good system. It’s dumb and misleading to take a snapshot of the “haves” and “have nots” at a single point in time, and then complain about it. No shit there are “have nots”, you don’t just instantly become a have. 99% of the time it takes a lot of time and hard work. Age is the biggest determination of wealth, and again wealth is not a zero sum game. If it was, we wouldn’t ever see GDP growth, like we have been seeing for the past couple hundred years.

We have an abundance of social wealth, already accumulated. It only takes time, when you privatize that wealth, to accumulate it in a personal way.

And there is both competition and cooperation in all aspects of life. Whether you see it or not.

We built a society and have an economy that is failing to serve everyone's needs. We need more cooperation, not less.

Cooperation is the main tenant of capitalism. That’s what the whole free trade thing means. I post my boat for sale for 8,000. You come over and offer me 6500 cash on the spot, I talk you up to 7,000. You get a boat, I get money, we both win. That’s cooperation as opposed to a socialist or communist system, where I probably don’t own a boat and you wouldn’t have enough free income to buy one...but whatever we’d be trading, if it’s allowed to be traded, would have all types of market manipulation restrictions and rules dictating how to trade, for how much, etc. That’s coercion, not cooperation. Coercion coming from a small group of elites who think they know what’s better for you than what you know for yourself.

I know we have a fundamental difference of opinion here, but.
The capitalist system of production is a social relationship, it's a collaboration. But it is driven by competition. The things produced by this system are sold in the market via mutual transactions.

The socialist system of production is a social relationship, it's a collaboration. But it is not driven by competition. It is driven by the realization that we as a society must necessarily reproduce the means of our existence to survive. The things this system produces are made available in a market place via mutual transactions.

Everything you post about coercion and government control is fallacy. It is faulty logic.

America is Venezuela. You just don't see it yet. And you won't see it till it's too late if you don't dispense with the faulty logic.

 

[sartre play]

Capitalism is fine until the corporations own all the capital .