Capitalism is not corporatism

[Tehon]

Capitalism is fine until the corporations own all the capital .

And the state.

 

[Tehon]

Capitalism is fine until the corporations own all the capital .

And the state.

Just look at Brexit. The people have lost control of the state. It openly defies them.

 

[sakinago]

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.

You just said America is Venezuela. And then said I have faulty logic. So America, a largely capitalistic based country, is just like the socialist country Venezuela where people are drinking sewage because the power grid system, without any built in redundancies, failed. Then at the same time your touting socialism as the better and more virtuous system. Of course your going to claim that Venezuela isn’t socialism, it’s a dictatorship...funny how every socialist country is never run properly, and turns into a tyrannical hell hole. Makes you think that there might be something to the notion that power corrupts, and maybe it’s narcissitic to think that “I could rule this country the best,”.

It’s also funny to hear you talk about the sins of capitalism, the same system that has brought some 90% of the worlds population living in abject poverty out of it in the past 20 years. It’s weird, you only see incredibly poor people in socialist countries like Cuba and Venezuela...but free markets seem to improve everyone’s lives in those countries when they’re implemented. Say China, or India, or in parts of Africa. But yea we should totally let Bernie and AOC put in plans that cost more money in 10 years than is currently circulating the globe today. That’s totally logical. They are totally logical. You ask them how they’re gonna pay for this plan, they say “we’re the wealthiest nation on the planet,” and then turn right back around and say capitalism is evil and sucks. Weird we’re are the wealthiest country in world history...but capitalism sucks. Hmmm seems like there’s a hole in that logic there.

 

[Tehon]

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.

You just said America is Venezuela. And then said I have faulty logic. So America, a largely capitalistic based country, is just like the socialist country Venezuela where people are drinking sewage because the power grid system, without any built in redundancies, failed. Then at the same time your touting socialism as the better and more virtuous system. Of course your going to claim that Venezuela isn’t socialism, it’s a dictatorship...funny how every socialist country is never run properly, and turns into a tyrannical hell hole. Makes you think that there might be something to the notion that power corrupts, and maybe it’s narcissitic to think that “I could rule this country the best,”.

It’s also funny to hear you talk about the sins of capitalism, the same system that has brought some 90% of the worlds population living in abject poverty out of it in the past 20 years. It’s weird, you only see incredibly poor people in socialist countries like Cuba and Venezuela...but free markets seem to improve everyone’s lives in those countries when they’re implemented. Say China, or India, or in parts of Africa. But yea we should totally let Bernie and AOC put in plans that cost more money in 10 years than is currently circulating the globe today. That’s totally logical. They are totally logical. You ask them how they’re gonna pay for this plan, they say “we’re the wealthiest nation on the planet,” and then turn right back around and say capitalism is evil and sucks. Weird we’re are the wealthiest country in world history...but capitalism sucks. Hmmm seems like there’s a hole in that logic there.

You just said America is Venezuela. And then said I have faulty logic. So America, a largely capitalistic based country, is just like the socialist country Venezuela where people are drinking sewage because the power grid system, without any built in redundancies, failed.

Venezuela wasn't always ruled by a "socialist" type system. It was once ruled by plutocrats, just as we are now.

Chavez took power and was legitimized by the people that were struggling under the plutocrat's rule. They thought he was their saviour. Not unlike the hero worship we see in our own political system.

Those people had a legitimate right to want an economy that worked for them. The American people have that same right.

The question is, are you going to recognize that right? Or continue on the path?

 

[Tehon]

It’s also funny to hear you talk about the sins of capitalism, the same system that has brought some 90% of the worlds population living in abject poverty out of it in the past 20 years. It’s weird, you only see incredibly poor people in socialist countries like Cuba and Venezuela...but free markets seem to improve everyone’s lives in those countries when they’re implemented. Say China, or India, or in parts of Africa. But yea we should totally let Bernie and AOC put in plans that cost more money in 10 years than is currently circulating the globe today. That’s totally logical. They are totally logical. You ask them how they’re gonna pay for this plan, they say “we’re the wealthiest nation on the planet,” and then turn right back around and say capitalism is evil and sucks. Weird we’re are the wealthiest country in world history...but capitalism sucks. Hmmm seems like there’s a hole in that logic there.

Capital developed our systems of production, made us an enormously wealthy country. And when our Industrial capabilities were thoroughly developed and our wages also, it fled. It doesn't care about your notions of nationhood. It will flee China once they have been developed. That's why we understand capitalism to be a transformative system of production. It's not forever, like your true love.

 

[Stephen Brandon]

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.

So, for example, Microsoft or Walmart buying up all potential competitors or putting them out of business creates competition? Capitalism without regulation leads to monopoly. Yes, there's a reason why the board game is called Monopoly. How does it work to make the lives of Americans better? The effect it seems seems to have is making everyone's life the same. Sure Capitalism drives us, given the capital, to innovate and sell our product. But in the real world, those innovations are either swallowed up by larger fish, and/or killed by them.

 

[Stephen Brandon]

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.

Monopolies form by lack of government barriers (anti-trust enforcement). Amazon is not a monopoly? What planet are you living on. Been to a mall lately? You could shoot a cannon through them most days and not hit anyone.

 

[Tehon]

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.

Monopolies form by lack of government barriers (anti-trust enforcement). Amazon is not a monopoly? What planet are you living on. Been to a mall lately? You could shoot a cannon through them most days and not hit anyone.

Better not try that in the mall near me. There is a big church in it now.

 

[sakinago]

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.

You just said America is Venezuela. And then said I have faulty logic. So America, a largely capitalistic based country, is just like the socialist country Venezuela where people are drinking sewage because the power grid system, without any built in redundancies, failed. Then at the same time your touting socialism as the better and more virtuous system. Of course your going to claim that Venezuela isn’t socialism, it’s a dictatorship...funny how every socialist country is never run properly, and turns into a tyrannical hell hole. Makes you think that there might be something to the notion that power corrupts, and maybe it’s narcissitic to think that “I could rule this country the best,”.

It’s also funny to hear you talk about the sins of capitalism, the same system that has brought some 90% of the worlds population living in abject poverty out of it in the past 20 years. It’s weird, you only see incredibly poor people in socialist countries like Cuba and Venezuela...but free markets seem to improve everyone’s lives in those countries when they’re implemented. Say China, or India, or in parts of Africa. But yea we should totally let Bernie and AOC put in plans that cost more money in 10 years than is currently circulating the globe today. That’s totally logical. They are totally logical. You ask them how they’re gonna pay for this plan, they say “we’re the wealthiest nation on the planet,” and then turn right back around and say capitalism is evil and sucks. Weird we’re are the wealthiest country in world history...but capitalism sucks. Hmmm seems like there’s a hole in that logic there.

You just said America is Venezuela. And then said I have faulty logic. So America, a largely capitalistic based country, is just like the socialist country Venezuela where people are drinking sewage because the power grid system, without any built in redundancies, failed.

Venezuela wasn't always ruled by a "socialist" type system. It was once ruled by plutocrats, just as we are now.

Chavez took power and was legitimized by the people that were struggling under the plutocrat's rule. They thought he was their saviour. Not unlike the hero worship we see in our own political system.

Those people had a legitimate right to want an economy that worked for them. The American people have that same right.

The question is, are you going to recognize that right? Or continue on the path?

At tops, 20% of the country wants socialism. And 90% of that 20% don’t know what socialism actually is. And we have a constitution in this country that would get in the way of socialism. So are we gonna have another glorious revolution like in Russia and China? Those worked out well

 

[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.

Monopolies form by lack of government barriers (anti-trust enforcement). Amazon is not a monopoly? What planet are you living on. Been to a mall lately? You could shoot a cannon through them most days and not hit anyone.

Someone doesn’t know their history.

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.

So, for example, Microsoft or Walmart buying up all potential competitors or putting them out of business creates competition? Capitalism without regulation leads to monopoly. Yes, there's a reason why the board game is called Monopoly. How does it work to make the lives of Americans better? The effect it seems seems to have is making everyone's life the same. Sure Capitalism drives us, given the capital, to innovate and sell our product. But in the real world, those innovations are either swallowed up by larger fish, and/or killed by them.

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.

So, for example, Microsoft or Walmart buying up all potential competitors or putting them out of business creates competition? Capitalism without regulation leads to monopoly. Yes, there's a reason why the board game is called Monopoly. How does it work to make the lives of Americans better? The effect it seems seems to have is making everyone's life the same. Sure Capitalism drives us, given the capital, to innovate and sell our product. But in the real world, those innovations are either swallowed up by larger fish, and/or killed by them.

Mmm not how that works. Neither Walmart nor Microsoft are monopolies, and they have plenty of competition. Walmart has a shit ton of competition, both brick and mortar and internet outlets. Microsoft competes with apple, and some other smaller outfits directly, and other businesses big and small indirectly concerning their operating system. They have a shit ton of competition elsewhere in all their other tech ventures. Both businesses you cited simply kicked ass at serving their customers, which is how they got so big. Walmart sells a bunch of stuff cheap, almost every Knick knack you could think of all in one place. They helped raise the standard of living for the not so wealthy and middle class alike selling affordable luxuries, even if it’s shit you don’t need. Microsoft’s windows OS completely revolutionized computing. We owe a lot to Microsoft and the path they paved and how convienient our tech is today. Both companies now aren’t even close to the juggernauts they were.

Neither company gobbled up the competition around them. That is a silly notion. Did they outcompete antequated businesses around them, sure. That’s what happens with capitalism. Facebook does it better than MySpace, myspace goes away. Now Facebook is approaching the end of their social media dominance with apps like IG killing it. The mighty rise and fall all the time, people with limited, short sighted perception just don’t see it. Most of the time, someone selling their company is a voluntary decision. The only forceful take overs happen with publicly traded companies and those are extremely rare.

The only companies that are close to being monopolies also happen to be in the industries that are the most heavily regulated, like energy and cable. As I said before it’s extremely hard to create a monopoly without government bending the rules in your favor.

 

[Tehon]

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.

You just said America is Venezuela. And then said I have faulty logic. So America, a largely capitalistic based country, is just like the socialist country Venezuela where people are drinking sewage because the power grid system, without any built in redundancies, failed. Then at the same time your touting socialism as the better and more virtuous system. Of course your going to claim that Venezuela isn’t socialism, it’s a dictatorship...funny how every socialist country is never run properly, and turns into a tyrannical hell hole. Makes you think that there might be something to the notion that power corrupts, and maybe it’s narcissitic to think that “I could rule this country the best,”.

It’s also funny to hear you talk about the sins of capitalism, the same system that has brought some 90% of the worlds population living in abject poverty out of it in the past 20 years. It’s weird, you only see incredibly poor people in socialist countries like Cuba and Venezuela...but free markets seem to improve everyone’s lives in those countries when they’re implemented. Say China, or India, or in parts of Africa. But yea we should totally let Bernie and AOC put in plans that cost more money in 10 years than is currently circulating the globe today. That’s totally logical. They are totally logical. You ask them how they’re gonna pay for this plan, they say “we’re the wealthiest nation on the planet,” and then turn right back around and say capitalism is evil and sucks. Weird we’re are the wealthiest country in world history...but capitalism sucks. Hmmm seems like there’s a hole in that logic there.

You just said America is Venezuela. And then said I have faulty logic. So America, a largely capitalistic based country, is just like the socialist country Venezuela where people are drinking sewage because the power grid system, without any built in redundancies, failed.

Venezuela wasn't always ruled by a "socialist" type system. It was once ruled by plutocrats, just as we are now.

Chavez took power and was legitimized by the people that were struggling under the plutocrat's rule. They thought he was their saviour. Not unlike the hero worship we see in our own political system.

Those people had a legitimate right to want an economy that worked for them. The American people have that same right.

The question is, are you going to recognize that right? Or continue on the path?

At tops, 20% of the country wants socialism. And 90% of that 20% don’t know what socialism actually is. And we have a constitution in this country that would get in the way of socialism. So are we gonna have another glorious revolution like in Russia and China? Those worked out well

There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates the use of capital in our economic system of production. There is nothing in it that would prevent us from building a cooperative society free of capital's corrosive influence.

Why does the right always fall back on fallacy and use it like a crutch? Is it just laziness? Russia and China were not first world economies like what we have in the US.

 

[gipper]

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.

Monopolies form by lack of government barriers (anti-trust enforcement). Amazon is not a monopoly? What planet are you living on. Been to a mall lately? You could shoot a cannon through them most days and not hit anyone.

Someone doesn’t know their history.

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.

So, for example, Microsoft or Walmart buying up all potential competitors or putting them out of business creates competition? Capitalism without regulation leads to monopoly. Yes, there's a reason why the board game is called Monopoly. How does it work to make the lives of Americans better? The effect it seems seems to have is making everyone's life the same. Sure Capitalism drives us, given the capital, to innovate and sell our product. But in the real world, those innovations are either swallowed up by larger fish, and/or killed by them.

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.

So, for example, Microsoft or Walmart buying up all potential competitors or putting them out of business creates competition? Capitalism without regulation leads to monopoly. Yes, there's a reason why the board game is called Monopoly. How does it work to make the lives of Americans better? The effect it seems seems to have is making everyone's life the same. Sure Capitalism drives us, given the capital, to innovate and sell our product. But in the real world, those innovations are either swallowed up by larger fish, and/or killed by them.

Mmm not how that works. Neither Walmart nor Microsoft are monopolies, and they have plenty of competition. Walmart has a shit ton of competition, both brick and mortar and internet outlets. Microsoft competes with apple, and some other smaller outfits directly, and other businesses big and small indirectly concerning their operating system. They have a shit ton of competition elsewhere in all their other tech ventures. Both businesses you cited simply kicked ass at serving their customers, which is how they got so big. Walmart sells a bunch of stuff cheap, almost every Knick knack you could think of all in one place. They helped raise the standard of living for the not so wealthy and middle class alike selling affordable luxuries, even if it’s shit you don’t need. Microsoft’s windows OS completely revolutionized computing. We owe a lot to Microsoft and the path they paved and how convienient our tech is today. Both companies now aren’t even close to the juggernauts they were.

Neither company gobbled up the competition around them. That is a silly notion. Did they outcompete antequated businesses around them, sure. That’s what happens with capitalism. Facebook does it better than MySpace, myspace goes away. Now Facebook is approaching the end of their social media dominance with apps like IG killing it. The mighty rise and fall all the time, people with limited, short sighted perception just don’t see it. Most of the time, someone selling their company is a voluntary decision. The only forceful take overs happen with publicly traded companies and those are extremely rare.

The only companies that are close to being monopolies also happen to be in the industries that are the most heavily regulated, like energy and cable. As I said before it’s extremely hard to create a monopoly without government bending the rules in your favor.

There is something wrong when one creepy dude ( Bezos) can attain more wealth than entire nations...multiple nations possess. He then uses that wealth to buy favors and protection from a corrupt government.

Amazon doesn’t only sell shit online, they are deeply imbedded with the federal government in all sorts of shit.

 

[Tehon]

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.

Monopolies form by lack of government barriers (anti-trust enforcement). Amazon is not a monopoly? What planet are you living on. Been to a mall lately? You could shoot a cannon through them most days and not hit anyone.

Someone doesn’t know their history.

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.

So, for example, Microsoft or Walmart buying up all potential competitors or putting them out of business creates competition? Capitalism without regulation leads to monopoly. Yes, there's a reason why the board game is called Monopoly. How does it work to make the lives of Americans better? The effect it seems seems to have is making everyone's life the same. Sure Capitalism drives us, given the capital, to innovate and sell our product. But in the real world, those innovations are either swallowed up by larger fish, and/or killed by them.

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.

So, for example, Microsoft or Walmart buying up all potential competitors or putting them out of business creates competition? Capitalism without regulation leads to monopoly. Yes, there's a reason why the board game is called Monopoly. How does it work to make the lives of Americans better? The effect it seems seems to have is making everyone's life the same. Sure Capitalism drives us, given the capital, to innovate and sell our product. But in the real world, those innovations are either swallowed up by larger fish, and/or killed by them.

Mmm not how that works. Neither Walmart nor Microsoft are monopolies, and they have plenty of competition. Walmart has a shit ton of competition, both brick and mortar and internet outlets. Microsoft competes with apple, and some other smaller outfits directly, and other businesses big and small indirectly concerning their operating system. They have a shit ton of competition elsewhere in all their other tech ventures. Both businesses you cited simply kicked ass at serving their customers, which is how they got so big. Walmart sells a bunch of stuff cheap, almost every Knick knack you could think of all in one place. They helped raise the standard of living for the not so wealthy and middle class alike selling affordable luxuries, even if it’s shit you don’t need. Microsoft’s windows OS completely revolutionized computing. We owe a lot to Microsoft and the path they paved and how convienient our tech is today. Both companies now aren’t even close to the juggernauts they were.

Neither company gobbled up the competition around them. That is a silly notion. Did they outcompete antequated businesses around them, sure. That’s what happens with capitalism. Facebook does it better than MySpace, myspace goes away. Now Facebook is approaching the end of their social media dominance with apps like IG killing it. The mighty rise and fall all the time, people with limited, short sighted perception just don’t see it. Most of the time, someone selling their company is a voluntary decision. The only forceful take overs happen with publicly traded companies and those are extremely rare.

The only companies that are close to being monopolies also happen to be in the industries that are the most heavily regulated, like energy and cable. As I said before it’s extremely hard to create a monopoly without government bending the rules in your favor.

There is something wrong when one creepy dude ( Bezos) can attain more wealth than entire nations...multiple nations possess. He then uses that wealth to buy favors and protection from a corrupt government.

Amazon doesn’t only sell shit online, they are deeply imbedded with the federal government in all sorts of shit.

Capital is the power to command. It's a social power.

That power is inherent. It does not derive its power from government.

We can say we want to limit government. We can say we want to change campaign laws or lobbying laws.

But we can't prevent capital interests from convincing half the population that those things are not in their best interests.

This is why we can't effect change through our democratic process.

It's also why we don't take seriously those who wish to draw a distinction between capitalism and cronyism.

Where is the corruption when this shit is done openly in front of a complacent population who think they are free? Our entire social relationship has been corrupted by our economic system of production.

 

[sakinago]

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.

You just said America is Venezuela. And then said I have faulty logic. So America, a largely capitalistic based country, is just like the socialist country Venezuela where people are drinking sewage because the power grid system, without any built in redundancies, failed. Then at the same time your touting socialism as the better and more virtuous system. Of course your going to claim that Venezuela isn’t socialism, it’s a dictatorship...funny how every socialist country is never run properly, and turns into a tyrannical hell hole. Makes you think that there might be something to the notion that power corrupts, and maybe it’s narcissitic to think that “I could rule this country the best,”.

It’s also funny to hear you talk about the sins of capitalism, the same system that has brought some 90% of the worlds population living in abject poverty out of it in the past 20 years. It’s weird, you only see incredibly poor people in socialist countries like Cuba and Venezuela...but free markets seem to improve everyone’s lives in those countries when they’re implemented. Say China, or India, or in parts of Africa. But yea we should totally let Bernie and AOC put in plans that cost more money in 10 years than is currently circulating the globe today. That’s totally logical. They are totally logical. You ask them how they’re gonna pay for this plan, they say “we’re the wealthiest nation on the planet,” and then turn right back around and say capitalism is evil and sucks. Weird we’re are the wealthiest country in world history...but capitalism sucks. Hmmm seems like there’s a hole in that logic there.

You just said America is Venezuela. And then said I have faulty logic. So America, a largely capitalistic based country, is just like the socialist country Venezuela where people are drinking sewage because the power grid system, without any built in redundancies, failed.

Venezuela wasn't always ruled by a "socialist" type system. It was once ruled by plutocrats, just as we are now.

Chavez took power and was legitimized by the people that were struggling under the plutocrat's rule. They thought he was their saviour. Not unlike the hero worship we see in our own political system.

Those people had a legitimate right to want an economy that worked for them. The American people have that same right.

The question is, are you going to recognize that right? Or continue on the path?

At tops, 20% of the country wants socialism. And 90% of that 20% don’t know what socialism actually is. And we have a constitution in this country that would get in the way of socialism. So are we gonna have another glorious revolution like in Russia and China? Those worked out well

There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates the use of capital in our economic system of production. There is nothing in it that would prevent us from building a cooperative society free of capital's corrosive influence.

Why does the right always fall back on fallacy and use it like a crutch? Is it just laziness? Russia and China were not first world economies like what we have in the US.

You keep using the word cooperative, I don’t think you know what it means. You propose to take people’s money and redistribute it by force. It then gets redistributed in a way that’s not as the people calling for the taking of money see fit, but in a way that a very minuscule percent of the population that’s in charge see fit. That’s not cooperation. All this is in contrast to a system, capitalism, where only voluntary trading is taking place.

And you’re reading the constitution wrong, there’s nothing in it that grants government the power to do what you propose, and the 9th and 10th amendments that tells government they are not to fuck with anything they weren’t explicitly given permission too in the constitution.

 

[sakinago]

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.

Monopolies form by lack of government barriers (anti-trust enforcement). Amazon is not a monopoly? What planet are you living on. Been to a mall lately? You could shoot a cannon through them most days and not hit anyone.

Someone doesn’t know their history.

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.

So, for example, Microsoft or Walmart buying up all potential competitors or putting them out of business creates competition? Capitalism without regulation leads to monopoly. Yes, there's a reason why the board game is called Monopoly. How does it work to make the lives of Americans better? The effect it seems seems to have is making everyone's life the same. Sure Capitalism drives us, given the capital, to innovate and sell our product. But in the real world, those innovations are either swallowed up by larger fish, and/or killed by them.

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.

So, for example, Microsoft or Walmart buying up all potential competitors or putting them out of business creates competition? Capitalism without regulation leads to monopoly. Yes, there's a reason why the board game is called Monopoly. How does it work to make the lives of Americans better? The effect it seems seems to have is making everyone's life the same. Sure Capitalism drives us, given the capital, to innovate and sell our product. But in the real world, those innovations are either swallowed up by larger fish, and/or killed by them.

Mmm not how that works. Neither Walmart nor Microsoft are monopolies, and they have plenty of competition. Walmart has a shit ton of competition, both brick and mortar and internet outlets. Microsoft competes with apple, and some other smaller outfits directly, and other businesses big and small indirectly concerning their operating system. They have a shit ton of competition elsewhere in all their other tech ventures. Both businesses you cited simply kicked ass at serving their customers, which is how they got so big. Walmart sells a bunch of stuff cheap, almost every Knick knack you could think of all in one place. They helped raise the standard of living for the not so wealthy and middle class alike selling affordable luxuries, even if it’s shit you don’t need. Microsoft’s windows OS completely revolutionized computing. We owe a lot to Microsoft and the path they paved and how convienient our tech is today. Both companies now aren’t even close to the juggernauts they were.

Neither company gobbled up the competition around them. That is a silly notion. Did they outcompete antequated businesses around them, sure. That’s what happens with capitalism. Facebook does it better than MySpace, myspace goes away. Now Facebook is approaching the end of their social media dominance with apps like IG killing it. The mighty rise and fall all the time, people with limited, short sighted perception just don’t see it. Most of the time, someone selling their company is a voluntary decision. The only forceful take overs happen with publicly traded companies and those are extremely rare.

The only companies that are close to being monopolies also happen to be in the industries that are the most heavily regulated, like energy and cable. As I said before it’s extremely hard to create a monopoly without government bending the rules in your favor.

There is something wrong when one creepy dude ( Bezos) can attain more wealth than entire nations...multiple nations possess. He then uses that wealth to buy favors and protection from a corrupt government.

Amazon doesn’t only sell shit online, they are deeply imbedded with the federal government in all sorts of shit.

Capital is the power to command. It's a social power.

That power is inherent. It does not derive its power from government.

We can say we want to limit government. We can say we want to change campaign laws or lobbying laws.

But we can't prevent capital interests from convincing half the population that those things are not in their best interests.

This is why we can't effect change through our democratic process.

It's also why we don't take seriously those who wish to draw a distinction between capitalism and cronyism.

Where is the corruption when this shit is done openly in front of a complacent population who think they are free? Our entire social relationship has been corrupted by our economic system of production.

If what you’re saying is true, it isn’t... Why on earth would it be more beneficial to put even more power in hands the a very small amount of people in charge? In capitalism you actually get to vote on what you like with your dollars. If you don’t like a business because of their practices, service, products, the owner, whatever, just shop some where else. If you don’t like factory farming, you buy free range beef. In socialism, the government determines how to raise, treat, butcher, and process. The beef you’d buy at the grocery store or restaurant is the beef prepared the way the government dictates. That’s all you get. You ain’t getting free range grass feed beef. You ain’t getting Kobe beef. You ain’t getting aged beef. You ain’t getting any USDA grade A highest quality beef. You’re definitely not getting even close to organic because there’s a shit ton of mouths to feed and the governments resources are limited and need to be allocated elsewhere. Unless you’re part of the ruling elite or one of their crony’s. Then you get to enjoy the luxuries from elsewhere. That’s an even more extreme inequality.

 

[Tehon]

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.

You just said America is Venezuela. And then said I have faulty logic. So America, a largely capitalistic based country, is just like the socialist country Venezuela where people are drinking sewage because the power grid system, without any built in redundancies, failed. Then at the same time your touting socialism as the better and more virtuous system. Of course your going to claim that Venezuela isn’t socialism, it’s a dictatorship...funny how every socialist country is never run properly, and turns into a tyrannical hell hole. Makes you think that there might be something to the notion that power corrupts, and maybe it’s narcissitic to think that “I could rule this country the best,”.

It’s also funny to hear you talk about the sins of capitalism, the same system that has brought some 90% of the worlds population living in abject poverty out of it in the past 20 years. It’s weird, you only see incredibly poor people in socialist countries like Cuba and Venezuela...but free markets seem to improve everyone’s lives in those countries when they’re implemented. Say China, or India, or in parts of Africa. But yea we should totally let Bernie and AOC put in plans that cost more money in 10 years than is currently circulating the globe today. That’s totally logical. They are totally logical. You ask them how they’re gonna pay for this plan, they say “we’re the wealthiest nation on the planet,” and then turn right back around and say capitalism is evil and sucks. Weird we’re are the wealthiest country in world history...but capitalism sucks. Hmmm seems like there’s a hole in that logic there.

You just said America is Venezuela. And then said I have faulty logic. So America, a largely capitalistic based country, is just like the socialist country Venezuela where people are drinking sewage because the power grid system, without any built in redundancies, failed.

Venezuela wasn't always ruled by a "socialist" type system. It was once ruled by plutocrats, just as we are now.

Chavez took power and was legitimized by the people that were struggling under the plutocrat's rule. They thought he was their saviour. Not unlike the hero worship we see in our own political system.

Those people had a legitimate right to want an economy that worked for them. The American people have that same right.

The question is, are you going to recognize that right? Or continue on the path?

At tops, 20% of the country wants socialism. And 90% of that 20% don’t know what socialism actually is. And we have a constitution in this country that would get in the way of socialism. So are we gonna have another glorious revolution like in Russia and China? Those worked out well

There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates the use of capital in our economic system of production. There is nothing in it that would prevent us from building a cooperative society free of capital's corrosive influence.

Why does the right always fall back on fallacy and use it like a crutch? Is it just laziness? Russia and China were not first world economies like what we have in the US.

You keep using the word cooperative, I don’t think you know what it means. You propose to take people’s money and redistribute it by force. It then gets redistributed in a way that’s not as the people calling for the taking of money see fit, but in a way that a very minuscule percent of the population that’s in charge see fit. That’s not cooperation. All this is in contrast to a system, capitalism, where only voluntary trading is taking place.

And you’re reading the constitution wrong, there’s nothing in it that grants government the power to do what you propose, and the 9th and 10th amendments that tells government they are not to fuck with anything they weren’t explicitly given permission too in the constitution.

You propose to take people’s money and redistribute it by force.

I do no such thing.

I propose a system of voluntary trade.

Where people produce goods and distribute them via a marketplace. Sans capital.

 

[sparky]

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.

Monopolies form by lack of government barriers (anti-trust enforcement). Amazon is not a monopoly? What planet are you living on. Been to a mall lately? You could shoot a cannon through them most days and not hit anyone.

Someone doesn’t know their history.

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.

So, for example, Microsoft or Walmart buying up all potential competitors or putting them out of business creates competition? Capitalism without regulation leads to monopoly. Yes, there's a reason why the board game is called Monopoly. How does it work to make the lives of Americans better? The effect it seems seems to have is making everyone's life the same. Sure Capitalism drives us, given the capital, to innovate and sell our product. But in the real world, those innovations are either swallowed up by larger fish, and/or killed by them.

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.

So, for example, Microsoft or Walmart buying up all potential competitors or putting them out of business creates competition? Capitalism without regulation leads to monopoly. Yes, there's a reason why the board game is called Monopoly. How does it work to make the lives of Americans better? The effect it seems seems to have is making everyone's life the same. Sure Capitalism drives us, given the capital, to innovate and sell our product. But in the real world, those innovations are either swallowed up by larger fish, and/or killed by them.

Mmm not how that works. Neither Walmart nor Microsoft are monopolies, and they have plenty of competition. Walmart has a shit ton of competition, both brick and mortar and internet outlets. Microsoft competes with apple, and some other smaller outfits directly, and other businesses big and small indirectly concerning their operating system. They have a shit ton of competition elsewhere in all their other tech ventures. Both businesses you cited simply kicked ass at serving their customers, which is how they got so big. Walmart sells a bunch of stuff cheap, almost every Knick knack you could think of all in one place. They helped raise the standard of living for the not so wealthy and middle class alike selling affordable luxuries, even if it’s shit you don’t need. Microsoft’s windows OS completely revolutionized computing. We owe a lot to Microsoft and the path they paved and how convienient our tech is today. Both companies now aren’t even close to the juggernauts they were.

Neither company gobbled up the competition around them. That is a silly notion. Did they outcompete antequated businesses around them, sure. That’s what happens with capitalism. Facebook does it better than MySpace, myspace goes away. Now Facebook is approaching the end of their social media dominance with apps like IG killing it. The mighty rise and fall all the time, people with limited, short sighted perception just don’t see it. Most of the time, someone selling their company is a voluntary decision. The only forceful take overs happen with publicly traded companies and those are extremely rare.

The only companies that are close to being monopolies also happen to be in the industries that are the most heavily regulated, like energy and cable. As I said before it’s extremely hard to create a monopoly without government bending the rules in your favor.

There is something wrong when one creepy dude ( Bezos) can attain more wealth than entire nations...multiple nations possess. He then uses that wealth to buy favors and protection from a corrupt government.

Amazon doesn’t only sell shit online, they are deeply imbedded with the federal government in all sorts of shit.

Capital is the power to command. It's a social power.

That power is inherent. It does not derive its power from government.

We can say we want to limit government. We can say we want to change campaign laws or lobbying laws.

But we can't prevent capital interests from convincing half the population that those things are not in their best interests.

This is why we can't effect change through our democratic process.

It's also why we don't take seriously those who wish to draw a distinction between capitalism and cronyism.

Where is the corruption when this shit is done openly in front of a complacent population who think they are free? Our entire social relationship has been corrupted by our economic system of production.

well said Tehon ~S~

 

[sparky]

You just said America is Venezuela. And then said I have faulty logic. So America, a largely capitalistic based country, is just like the socialist country Venezuela where people are drinking sewage because the power grid system, without any built in redundancies, failed. Then at the same time your touting socialism as the better and more virtuous system. Of course your going to claim that Venezuela isn’t socialism, it’s a dictatorship...funny how every socialist country is never run properly, and turns into a tyrannical hell hole. Makes you think that there might be something to the notion that power corrupts, and maybe it’s narcissitic to think that “I could rule this country the best,”.

It’s also funny to hear you talk about the sins of capitalism, the same system that has brought some 90% of the worlds population living in abject poverty out of it in the past 20 years. It’s weird, you only see incredibly poor people in socialist countries like Cuba and Venezuela...but free markets seem to improve everyone’s lives in those countries when they’re implemented. Say China, or India, or in parts of Africa. But yea we should totally let Bernie and AOC put in plans that cost more money in 10 years than is currently circulating the globe today. That’s totally logical. They are totally logical. You ask them how they’re gonna pay for this plan, they say “we’re the wealthiest nation on the planet,” and then turn right back around and say capitalism is evil and sucks. Weird we’re are the wealthiest country in world history...but capitalism sucks. Hmmm seems like there’s a hole in that logic there.

You just said America is Venezuela. And then said I have faulty logic. So America, a largely capitalistic based country, is just like the socialist country Venezuela where people are drinking sewage because the power grid system, without any built in redundancies, failed.

Venezuela wasn't always ruled by a "socialist" type system. It was once ruled by plutocrats, just as we are now.

Chavez took power and was legitimized by the people that were struggling under the plutocrat's rule. They thought he was their saviour. Not unlike the hero worship we see in our own political system.

Those people had a legitimate right to want an economy that worked for them. The American people have that same right.

The question is, are you going to recognize that right? Or continue on the path?

At tops, 20% of the country wants socialism. And 90% of that 20% don’t know what socialism actually is. And we have a constitution in this country that would get in the way of socialism. So are we gonna have another glorious revolution like in Russia and China? Those worked out well

There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates the use of capital in our economic system of production. There is nothing in it that would prevent us from building a cooperative society free of capital's corrosive influence.

Why does the right always fall back on fallacy and use it like a crutch? Is it just laziness? Russia and China were not first world economies like what we have in the US.

You keep using the word cooperative, I don’t think you know what it means. You propose to take people’s money and redistribute it by force. It then gets redistributed in a way that’s not as the people calling for the taking of money see fit, but in a way that a very minuscule percent of the population that’s in charge see fit. That’s not cooperation. All this is in contrast to a system, capitalism, where only voluntary trading is taking place.

And you’re reading the constitution wrong, there’s nothing in it that grants government the power to do what you propose, and the 9th and 10th amendments that tells government they are not to fuck with anything they weren’t explicitly given permission too in the constitution.

You propose to take people’s money and redistribute it by force.

I do no such thing.

I propose a system of voluntary trade.

Where people produce goods and distribute them via a marketplace. Sans capital.

methinks i might already be doing that ~S~

 

[Tehon]

Venezuela wasn't always ruled by a "socialist" type system. It was once ruled by plutocrats, just as we are now.

Chavez took power and was legitimized by the people that were struggling under the plutocrat's rule. They thought he was their saviour. Not unlike the hero worship we see in our own political system.

Those people had a legitimate right to want an economy that worked for them. The American people have that same right.

The question is, are you going to recognize that right? Or continue on the path?

At tops, 20% of the country wants socialism. And 90% of that 20% don’t know what socialism actually is. And we have a constitution in this country that would get in the way of socialism. So are we gonna have another glorious revolution like in Russia and China? Those worked out well

There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates the use of capital in our economic system of production. There is nothing in it that would prevent us from building a cooperative society free of capital's corrosive influence.

Why does the right always fall back on fallacy and use it like a crutch? Is it just laziness? Russia and China were not first world economies like what we have in the US.

You keep using the word cooperative, I don’t think you know what it means. You propose to take people’s money and redistribute it by force. It then gets redistributed in a way that’s not as the people calling for the taking of money see fit, but in a way that a very minuscule percent of the population that’s in charge see fit. That’s not cooperation. All this is in contrast to a system, capitalism, where only voluntary trading is taking place.

And you’re reading the constitution wrong, there’s nothing in it that grants government the power to do what you propose, and the 9th and 10th amendments that tells government they are not to fuck with anything they weren’t explicitly given permission too in the constitution.

You propose to take people’s money and redistribute it by force.

I do no such thing.

I propose a system of voluntary trade.

Where people produce goods and distribute them via a marketplace. Sans capital.

methinks i might already be doing that ~S~

Are you part of a cooperative?

 

[sparky]

depends how you define it Tehon , bartering might fit? ~S~