Capitalism is not corporatism

[Tehon]

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

Interesting. If you ever feel the desire to elaborate, I'd be willing to listen.

 

[task0778]

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.

In today's world, no one produces goods and distributes them without capital. Does not happen. certainly not in this country.

Voluntary trade? Yes. Competition? Yes. Free choices? Yes. Sans capital? NO.

 

[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.

In today's world, no one produces goods and distributes them without capital. Does not happen. certainly not in this country.

Voluntary trade? Yes. Competition? Yes. Free choices? Yes. Sans capital? NO.

I know.

But that is what a socialist system of production is.

 

[sparky]

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

Interesting. If you ever feel the desire to elaborate, I'd be willing to listen.

well there's not a whole lot to elaborate on my end Tehon, i'm a small biz man who's bartered for anything from pig slop on up

not exactly brag worthy

~S~

 

[task0778]

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.

In today's world, no one produces goods and distributes them without capital. Does not happen. certainly not in this country.

Voluntary trade? Yes. Competition? Yes. Free choices? Yes. Sans capital? NO.

I know.

But that is what a socialist system of production is.

Dude, socialism has little to do with voluntary trade, competition, and free choice. Under socialism, the gov't provides the capital for you to produce and distribute goods, but guess what? It is also takes all your revenues and decides how much to give back to you. It ain't your money, it's theirs cuz you don't own squat, they own it.

 

[sparky]

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

Doesn't that essentialy deine the dif in terms betwixt capitalism & corporatism?

~S~

 

[Tehon]

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

Interesting. If you ever feel the desire to elaborate, I'd be willing to listen.

well there's not a whole lot to elaborate on my end Tehon, i'm a small biz man who's bartered for anything from pig slop on up

not exactly brag worthy

~S~

If you have maintained your integrity, those are bragging rights in my book.

 

[sparky]

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

Interesting. If you ever feel the desire to elaborate, I'd be willing to listen.

well there's not a whole lot to elaborate on my end Tehon, i'm a small biz man who's bartered for anything from pig slop on up

not exactly brag worthy

~S~

If you have maintained your integrity, those are bragging rights in my book.

right to the crux of it Tehon......

There must be some kind of way outta here
Said the joker to the thief
There's too much confusion
I can't get no relief
Business men, they drink my wine
Plowman dig my earth
None were level on the mind
Nobody up at his word
Hey, hey

~S~

 

[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.

AT&T was the last monopoly I could think of. They were a monopoly until 1982. They were a monopoly only because of government. They lasted as a monopoly a long ass time. We got almost zero innovation with telephone technology during that time. Then 1982 came around and blam, an explosion of telephone tech followed. The infamous monopolies of industrial revolution were cronies, and also from the banks, who were big perpetrators in cronyism themselves. This was the only way to stop competition from getting in the game and doing it better. They artificially stamped out the rest of the competition

Amazon is definitely not a monopoly. There are practically millions of different ways to buy goods both online and in stores. Malls are antiquated. They were at one time a necessary middle man. But like all middle men, they made goods more expensive, having to pay for a store to rent, the employees, transporting goods to the store, etc. Amazon isn’t artificially keeping malls down. Amazon is just better, cheaper, and waaaay more convienient. If you wanna shop at a mall instead, go for it.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m constantly amazed how America haters never choose to leave America.

 

[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.

AT&T was the last monopoly I could think of. They were a monopoly until 1982. They were a monopoly only because of government. They lasted as a monopoly a long ass time. We got almost zero innovation with telephone technology during that time. Then 1982 came around and blam, an explosion of telephone tech followed. The infamous monopolies of industrial revolution were cronies, and also from the banks, who were big perpetrators in cronyism themselves. This was the only way to stop competition from getting in the game and doing it better. They artificially stamped out the rest of the competition

Amazon is definitely not a monopoly. There are practically millions of different ways to buy goods both online and in stores. Malls are antiquated. They were at one time a necessary middle man. But like all middle men, they made goods more expensive, having to pay for a store to rent, the employees, transporting goods to the store, etc. Amazon isn’t artificially keeping malls down. Amazon is just better, cheaper, and waaaay more convienient. If you wanna shop at a mall instead, go for it.

The problem is not so much monopolies, as it is the coercive effects bought about when corporations and their CEOs attain too much wealth. That wealth in our system equals political power. In my view, the billionaires run this country. They bought it.

Now if we had a government that wasn’t for sale, things might be different.

I believe this is one of the reasons Trump won. Many Americans are tired of government corruption by the wealthy. Trump indicated he intended to stop this. Of course, he hasn’t.

 

[sakinago]

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.

We already have voluntary trade. Money is a relatively new tech in human history that allows trade to be more exact and fairer. There was way more inequality back before money was invented. Nothing is going to change the fact inequality exists. It’s a universal law called the preto distribution. By universal I mean we literally see the preto distribution played out all over the universe, in nature, bacteria, stars, molecules, whatever. You cannot eliminate inequality because it’s inherent in human nature and nature in general. The best you can do is allow people to create their own wealth, which is what capitalism does. If you live in America, you are in the top 1% compared to the rest of humanity. It’s jealousy, resentment, naivety to the rest of the world, and ungratefullness that make you want to tear the system that millions of people fought and died for...just because you’re not “winning” currently, so let’s just throw the game board on the ground. You don’t care for the poor, you merely just hate the rich. It’s niave to think you can get a nation of over 300 million to all of sudden become barterers, and have that not end in disasterous collapse.

 

[task0778]

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.

AT&T was the last monopoly I could think of. They were a monopoly until 1982. They were a monopoly only because of government. They lasted as a monopoly a long ass time. We got almost zero innovation with telephone technology during that time. Then 1982 came around and blam, an explosion of telephone tech followed. The infamous monopolies of industrial revolution were cronies, and also from the banks, who were big perpetrators in cronyism themselves. This was the only way to stop competition from getting in the game and doing it better. They artificially stamped out the rest of the competition

Amazon is definitely not a monopoly. There are practically millions of different ways to buy goods both online and in stores. Malls are antiquated. They were at one time a necessary middle man. But like all middle men, they made goods more expensive, having to pay for a store to rent, the employees, transporting goods to the store, etc. Amazon isn’t artificially keeping malls down. Amazon is just better, cheaper, and waaaay more convienient. If you wanna shop at a mall instead, go for it.

The problem is not so much monopolies, as it is the coercive effects bought about when corporations and their CEOs attain too much wealth. That wealth in our system equals political power. In my view, the billionaires run this country. They bought it.

Now if we had a government that wasn’t for sale, things might be different.

I believe this is one of the reasons Trump won. Many Americans are tired of government corruption by the wealthy. Trump indicated he intended to stop this. Of course, he hasn’t.

Just wondering if you believe the billionaires wanted Obama to win re-election over Romney? Are they the ones that flipped the House back to the Dems? Hard to believe the Dem party even exists if the billionaires and big corps run the place. LOL, I'll bet they just love AOC, Pocahontas, Spartacus, Harris, and the rest of those loonies.

How do the billionaires that are in charge feel about the MSM? Or academia? Or Hollywood?

So, how much political power did Amazon have in New York? The financial capitol of the world, and Amazon didn't have enough power to quell the uprising?

I dunno man, it doesn't feel like the wealthy run this country to me. Powerful? Yes. Control? NO.

 

[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.

We already have voluntary trade. Money is a relatively new tech in human history that allows trade to be more exact and fairer. There was way more inequality back before money was invented. Nothing is going to change the fact inequality exists. It’s a universal law called the preto distribution. By universal I mean we literally see the preto distribution played out all over the universe, in nature, bacteria, stars, molecules, whatever. You cannot eliminate inequality because it’s inherent in human nature and nature in general. The best you can do is allow people to create their own wealth, which is what capitalism does. If you live in America, you are in the top 1% compared to the rest of humanity. It’s jealousy, resentment, naivety to the rest of the world, and ungratefullness that make you want to tear the system that millions of people fought and died for...just because you’re not “winning” currently, so let’s just throw the game board on the ground. You don’t care for the poor, you merely just hate the rich. It’s niave to think you can get a nation of over 300 million to all of sudden become barterers, and have that not end in disasterous collapse.

What makes you think I'm not winning? How do you define winning?

And who are you to say what motivates me?

What arrogance causes you to argue against what I'm saying when you don't even understand what I am saying?

You're arguing against a preconceived notion inside your own head. One that has been inculcated there by the regulation of information by a capitalist ruling class.

 

[gipper]

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.

AT&T was the last monopoly I could think of. They were a monopoly until 1982. They were a monopoly only because of government. They lasted as a monopoly a long ass time. We got almost zero innovation with telephone technology during that time. Then 1982 came around and blam, an explosion of telephone tech followed. The infamous monopolies of industrial revolution were cronies, and also from the banks, who were big perpetrators in cronyism themselves. This was the only way to stop competition from getting in the game and doing it better. They artificially stamped out the rest of the competition

Amazon is definitely not a monopoly. There are practically millions of different ways to buy goods both online and in stores. Malls are antiquated. They were at one time a necessary middle man. But like all middle men, they made goods more expensive, having to pay for a store to rent, the employees, transporting goods to the store, etc. Amazon isn’t artificially keeping malls down. Amazon is just better, cheaper, and waaaay more convienient. If you wanna shop at a mall instead, go for it.

The problem is not so much monopolies, as it is the coercive effects bought about when corporations and their CEOs attain too much wealth. That wealth in our system equals political power. In my view, the billionaires run this country. They bought it.

Now if we had a government that wasn’t for sale, things might be different.

I believe this is one of the reasons Trump won. Many Americans are tired of government corruption by the wealthy. Trump indicated he intended to stop this. Of course, he hasn’t.

Just wondering if you believe the billionaires wanted Obama to win re-election over Romney? Are they the ones that flipped the House back to the Dems? Hard to believe the Dem party even exists if the billionaires and big corps run the place. LOL, I'll bet they just love AOC, Pocahontas, Spartacus, Harris, and the rest of those loonies.

How do the billionaires that are in charge feel about the MSM? Or academia? Or Hollywood?

So, how much political power did Amazon have in New York? The financial capitol of the world, and Amazon didn't have enough power to quell the uprising?

I dunno man, it doesn't feel like the wealthy run this country to me. Powerful? Yes. Control? NO.

They run it, period.

I doubt they cared who won in 2012. Clearly both candidates were entirely owned by the wealthy. I suspect they really wanted Hillary because they knew she was owned, while Trump was a bit unknown and disliked by them.

The billionaires own the MSM and Hollywood. This is evident in the promotion for nonstop wars of aggression. Nothing enriches the Ruling Class like war. Open borders is another issue they demand and Uncle happily provides.

Amazon doesn’t give a shit about NYC denying them. They’ll find another sucker easily.

 

[Tehon]

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.

In today's world, no one produces goods and distributes them without capital. Does not happen. certainly not in this country.

Voluntary trade? Yes. Competition? Yes. Free choices? Yes. Sans capital? NO.

I know.

But that is what a socialist system of production is.

Dude, socialism has little to do with voluntary trade, competition, and free choice. Under socialism, the gov't provides the capital for you to produce and distribute goods, but guess what? It is also takes all your revenues and decides how much to give back to you. It ain't your money, it's theirs cuz you don't own squat, they own it.

That is a common misconception. Probably built on a misconception of "capital".

 

[Tehon]

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

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

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.

AT&T was the last monopoly I could think of. They were a monopoly until 1982. They were a monopoly only because of government. They lasted as a monopoly a long ass time. We got almost zero innovation with telephone technology during that time. Then 1982 came around and blam, an explosion of telephone tech followed. The infamous monopolies of industrial revolution were cronies, and also from the banks, who were big perpetrators in cronyism themselves. This was the only way to stop competition from getting in the game and doing it better. They artificially stamped out the rest of the competition

Amazon is definitely not a monopoly. There are practically millions of different ways to buy goods both online and in stores. Malls are antiquated. They were at one time a necessary middle man. But like all middle men, they made goods more expensive, having to pay for a store to rent, the employees, transporting goods to the store, etc. Amazon isn’t artificially keeping malls down. Amazon is just better, cheaper, and waaaay more convienient. If you wanna shop at a mall instead, go for it.

The problem is not so much monopolies, as it is the coercive effects bought about when corporations and their CEOs attain too much wealth. That wealth in our system equals political power. In my view, the billionaires run this country. They bought it.

Now if we had a government that wasn’t for sale, things might be different.

I believe this is one of the reasons Trump won. Many Americans are tired of government corruption by the wealthy. Trump indicated he intended to stop this. Of course, he hasn’t.

Just wondering if you believe the billionaires wanted Obama to win re-election over Romney? Are they the ones that flipped the House back to the Dems? Hard to believe the Dem party even exists if the billionaires and big corps run the place. LOL, I'll bet they just love AOC, Pocahontas, Spartacus, Harris, and the rest of those loonies.

How do the billionaires that are in charge feel about the MSM? Or academia? Or Hollywood?

So, how much political power did Amazon have in New York? The financial capitol of the world, and Amazon didn't have enough power to quell the uprising?

I dunno man, it doesn't feel like the wealthy run this country to me. Powerful? Yes. Control? NO.

It generally doesn't matter who wins presidential elections. There are always competing capital interests vying for their guy or gal. Those competing capital interests own the process.

 

[sakinago]

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

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

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

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

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.

AT&T was the last monopoly I could think of. They were a monopoly until 1982. They were a monopoly only because of government. They lasted as a monopoly a long ass time. We got almost zero innovation with telephone technology during that time. Then 1982 came around and blam, an explosion of telephone tech followed. The infamous monopolies of industrial revolution were cronies, and also from the banks, who were big perpetrators in cronyism themselves. This was the only way to stop competition from getting in the game and doing it better. They artificially stamped out the rest of the competition

Amazon is definitely not a monopoly. There are practically millions of different ways to buy goods both online and in stores. Malls are antiquated. They were at one time a necessary middle man. But like all middle men, they made goods more expensive, having to pay for a store to rent, the employees, transporting goods to the store, etc. Amazon isn’t artificially keeping malls down. Amazon is just better, cheaper, and waaaay more convienient. If you wanna shop at a mall instead, go for it.

The problem is not so much monopolies, as it is the coercive effects bought about when corporations and their CEOs attain too much wealth. That wealth in our system equals political power. In my view, the billionaires run this country. They bought it.

Now if we had a government that wasn’t for sale, things might be different.

I believe this is one of the reasons Trump won. Many Americans are tired of government corruption by the wealthy. Trump indicated he intended to stop this. Of course, he hasn’t.

The root of the problem is the fact that government has enough power to effect business as they do now. If they didn’t have the power, who’d give a shit if they are for sale if they can’t do anything to help.

 

[sakinago]

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.

We already have voluntary trade. Money is a relatively new tech in human history that allows trade to be more exact and fairer. There was way more inequality back before money was invented. Nothing is going to change the fact inequality exists. It’s a universal law called the preto distribution. By universal I mean we literally see the preto distribution played out all over the universe, in nature, bacteria, stars, molecules, whatever. You cannot eliminate inequality because it’s inherent in human nature and nature in general. The best you can do is allow people to create their own wealth, which is what capitalism does. If you live in America, you are in the top 1% compared to the rest of humanity. It’s jealousy, resentment, naivety to the rest of the world, and ungratefullness that make you want to tear the system that millions of people fought and died for...just because you’re not “winning” currently, so let’s just throw the game board on the ground. You don’t care for the poor, you merely just hate the rich. It’s niave to think you can get a nation of over 300 million to all of sudden become barterers, and have that not end in disasterous collapse.

What makes you think I'm not winning? How do you define winning?

And who are you to say what motivates me?

What arrogance causes you to argue against what I'm saying when you don't even understand what I am saying?

You're arguing against a preconceived notion inside your own head. One that has been inculcated there by the regulation of information by a capitalist ruling class.

By getting rid of capital, you mean getting rid of money, which means you want a reset. You want a reset thinking that you’ll have a better chance at getting ahead or at least bring everyone else down to your level because you don’t feel like your “winning”...whatever winning is to you. I don’t know and don’t care what it means to you. You want to screw 100s of millions of Americans over with this reset who are doing just fine and don’t want that. You live in the most successful nation in human history, during the safest most plentiful era of human history. Yet you’re talking about democracy and our system not working, clearly you’re naive and/or ungrateful, and do not feel like you’re “winning”. The only people who want to throw the game board on the ground, or in other words want a reset, are the poor sports who aren’t winning. Except in this case the game board is a nation and throwing it in the ground means creating hell on earth.

 

[Tehon]

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.

We already have voluntary trade. Money is a relatively new tech in human history that allows trade to be more exact and fairer. There was way more inequality back before money was invented. Nothing is going to change the fact inequality exists. It’s a universal law called the preto distribution. By universal I mean we literally see the preto distribution played out all over the universe, in nature, bacteria, stars, molecules, whatever. You cannot eliminate inequality because it’s inherent in human nature and nature in general. The best you can do is allow people to create their own wealth, which is what capitalism does. If you live in America, you are in the top 1% compared to the rest of humanity. It’s jealousy, resentment, naivety to the rest of the world, and ungratefullness that make you want to tear the system that millions of people fought and died for...just because you’re not “winning” currently, so let’s just throw the game board on the ground. You don’t care for the poor, you merely just hate the rich. It’s niave to think you can get a nation of over 300 million to all of sudden become barterers, and have that not end in disasterous collapse.

What makes you think I'm not winning? How do you define winning?

And who are you to say what motivates me?

What arrogance causes you to argue against what I'm saying when you don't even understand what I am saying?

You're arguing against a preconceived notion inside your own head. One that has been inculcated there by the regulation of information by a capitalist ruling class.

By getting rid of capital, you mean getting rid of money, which means you want a reset. You want a reset thinking that you’ll have a better chance at getting ahead or at least bring everyone else down to your level because you don’t feel like your “winning”...whatever winning is to you. I don’t know and don’t care what it means to you. You want to screw 100s of millions of Americans over with this reset who are doing just fine and don’t want that. You live in the most successful nation in human history, during the safest most plentiful era of human history. Yet you’re talking about democracy and our system not working, clearly you’re naive and/or ungrateful, and do not feel like you’re “winning”. The only people who want to throw the game board on the ground, or in other words want a reset, are the poor sports who aren’t winning. Except in this case the game board is a nation and throwing it in the ground means creating hell on earth.

Money is not capital in general. So no, that is not what I'm saying.

I don't need a better chance at getting ahead. I'm doing fine.

I'm talking about the decay of our society. I am pinpointing what I believe to be the source of the decay. I am saying we should think about a new socioeconomic relationship that will address the problems we are seeing.

Why do you think I am self centered? Are you projecting?