Capitalism is NOT Democratic: Democracy is NOT Capitalist

[danielpalos]

What do you mean "screw the poor?" You mean we arrest them for robbing people?

Due to unequal protection of the laws?

 

[danielpalos]

How does the government becoming more socialist constitute polorazing the country?

That is your opinion. Why do you believe that?

 

[bripat9643]

Due to unequal protection of the laws?

For instance?

 

[bripat9643]

That is your opinion. Why do you believe that?

Every year he have more laws, more spending and higher taxes.

 

[danielpalos]

For instance?

Unemployment compensation. We need some dissertations on how equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation help reduce corruption and improve the efficiency of our economy and the multiplier.

 

[danielpalos]

Every year he have more laws, more spending and higher taxes.

We need better laws at lower cost. Junk bonds not junk laws!

 

[dblack]

"Why have economies polarized so sharply since the 1980s, and especially since the 2008 crisis? How did we get so indebted without real wage and living standards rising, while cities, states, and entire nations are falling into default?"

Finance Is Not the Economy - Evonomics

It's been explained to you, in excruciating detail, by scores of people by now, how investment and profit perform vital functions in a healthy economy. Yet you always just ignore those explanations. Why? I mean, if you disagree with them - by all means show how they are wrong. But just pretending no one said anything and blithely going back to your propaganda stream isn't compelling. Just makes it seem like you're here doing a job - ie posting your weekly allotment of socialist memes.

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalism, private ownership, solves for the flaw of the commons because individuals care about keep their property clean

Democratic decision making and public ownership of the means of production can only happen under socialism. Capitalism concentrates money and political power in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation. The result is on full display today for all who are not blinded by their authoritarian ideology

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia.

"The history of democratic socialism can be traced back to 19th-century socialist thinkers across Europe and the Chartist movement in Britain, which somewhat differed in their goals but shared a common demand of democratic decision making and public ownership of the means of production, and viewed these as fundamental characteristics of the society they advocated for. In the late 19th to the early 20th century,"

 

[dblack]

Democratic decision making and public ownership of the means of production can only happen under socialism. Capitalism concentrates money and political power in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation. The result is on full display today for all who are not blinded by their authoritarian ideology

Nothing is more authoritarian than the state controlling trade. The idea that it's all hunky dory if it's driven by majority rule is naive and dangerous.

 

[georgephillip]

It's been explained to you, in excruciating detail, by scores of people by now, how investment and profit perform vital functions in a healthy economy. Yet you always just ignore those explanations

Define a "healthy economy".

Link to ONE of the alleged scores of explanations of how investment and profit perform vital functions in a healthy economy.

 

[dblack]

Define a "healthy economy".

Nah, l don't want to equivocate on terms.

Can you answer the question, rather than seeking diversion? Why do you ignore the function of investment and profit in a free market? Are you really so simple minded that you see it all as "money-for-nothing"?

 

[georgephillip]

Why do I need an elected leader for a business that I own?

Depends on the percentage of daily labor you personally perform.

 

[Rigby5]

slavery undermines Capitalism. Slavery is a form of socialism. Under socialism, like slavery, the the slaves own nothing. They can't own anything. It all belongs to the State, or Master. Socialism, is merely slavery on a State level.

As Adam Smith, wrote, slavery is completely innefficient...therefore not compatiable with Captialism. Under capitalism, the idea is to get the most gains, you don't get that with a work force that has no skin in the game....that's why slavery fell, and why all socialist nations end up failing.

Wrong.
Socialism does not at all reduce or effect personal possessions in any way.
You can build and own all the factories you want under socialism.
The only thing socialism does is require collective regulation of industry so that it is not abusive, and it allows for collective investment in industry if the people want.

And obviously Adam Smith is wrong, because every unregulated capitalist society of the past has always reverted to slavery,
Even though it is inefficient, capitalists like slavery because they enjoy feeling superior to the slaves. Their goal is not just to make the maximum profits, but to deliberately reduce the profits of everyone else, compared to them.

 

[georgephillip]

the alternative is socialism where there is no wealth, everyone is poor and slaves to the state who owns it all

That's a definition of socialism that no one advocates.
You are blinded by your capitalist ideology to all the many types of socialism currently being considered.

What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

"Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit.

"We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society."

 

[Rigby5]

Every year he have more laws, more spending and higher taxes.

Having more laws would not necessarily be a bad thing because rights are infinite, so then possible abuses of rights have to also be infinite.
We also at one time were mostly a frontier where survival was fairly easy independently. But now most property is private, resource are more scarce, etc., so survival is much more complex than it used to be.

As far as more spending, I think that is almost all the fault of the military.
The use spends much more on the military than it admits.
For example, I think the interest on the national debt is military, most social services spending in on military related projects like GIBill, VA centers, etc.

Since there are so many loopholes in our tax codes, I think taxes for the wealthy actually are lower, not higher.

 

[Rigby5]

Nothing is more authoritarian than the state controlling trade. The idea that it's all hunky dory if it's driven by majority rule is naive and dangerous.

Better to have state control, (which essentially is your neighbors), than to be controlled by remote, wealthy, elite, or even worse, multi national conglomerate.

 

[georgephillip]

That really worked out for the Soviet Union, eh?

How did it work out for Hitler?

 

[dblack]

Better to have state control, (which essentially is your neighbors), than to be controlled by remote, wealthy, elite, or even worse, multi national conglomerate.

No. It's not. Because there is a fundamental, overriding difference between the power held by private wealth and the power held by government. Until you actually acknowledge this and account for it, I can't take your position seriously at all.

 

[Rigby5]

Nah, l don't want to equivocate on terms.

Can you answer the question, rather than seeking diversion? Why do you ignore the function of investment and profit in a free market? Are you really so simple minded that you see it all as "money-for-nothing"?

Profit motive is awful.
It has no stabilizing factors, such as promoting essential food production over foofy luxuries, even if the food production is less profitable.

An actual example is our railroads.
Railroads are almost 100 times more efficient than individual transportation like cars or trucks.
But the capital investments to keep up the infrastructure is high.
So then many companies that owned railroads gutted the railroads and instead invested the money in alternative high yield returns.
Very short sighted and risky speculation, over the essential well-being of the entire society.

The essential problem is that with capitalism and the stock market, short term visually obvious returns get massive priority to the more important and stable, long term investments that are more essential to society.

If you want another example, consider oil and natural gas.
The US actually hardly has any of either, compared to the rest of the world.
And right now, the rest of the world is producing so much oil and gas, that our oil and gas can't be sold for much.
But we are selling it anyway, because we are greedy.
And it will soon run out.
Something like 10 to 30 years.
So then later after our oil and gas is all gone, the prices will eventually go much higher, like 10 times what they are now.
But since we will have wasted all our oil when it was cheap, we will not have any oil or gas, so will have to buy and import much more of this expensive oil and gas than we would have if we had instead conserved.

 

[dblack]

Profit motive is awful.
It has no stabilizing factors, such as promoting essential food production over foofy luxuries, even if the food production is less profitable.

An actual example is our railroads.
Railroads are almost 100 times more efficient than individual transportation like cars or trucks.
But the capital investments to keep up the infrastructure is high.
So then many companies that owned railroads gutted the railroads and instead invested the money in alternative high yield returns.
Very short sighted and risky speculation, over the essential well-being of the entire society.

The essential problem is that with capitalism and the stock market, short term visually obvious returns get massive priority to the more important and stable, long term investments that are more essential to society.

If you want another example, consider oil and natural gas.
The US actually hardly has any of either, compared to the rest of the world.
And right now, the rest of the world is producing so much oil and gas, that our oil and gas can't be sold for much.
But we are selling it anyway, because we are greedy.
And it will soon run out.
Something like 10 to 30 years.
So then later after our oil and gas is all gone, the prices will eventually go much higher, like 10 times what they are now.
But since we will have wasted all our oil when it was cheap, we will not have any oil or gas, so will have to buy and import much more of this expensive oil and gas than we would have if we had instead conserved.

None of this address the post you are responding to. Was it meant for someone else?