Capitalism is NOT Democratic: Democracy is NOT Capitalist

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

An actual example is our railroads.
Railroads are almost 100 times more efficient than individual transportation like cars or trucks.

100 times? Prove it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

We need to stop using our cheap oil and gas now, because more expensive in the future is bad?
We should use more expensive oil and gas now!!!

 

[dblack]

Wrong.

First of all, a free market is by far the single most authoritarian, because then the largest application of force rules all, and that would be multi national conglomerates.

Second is that if you look at history, every "free market" has always resulted in tyranny.
When profits are the only unregulated motive, then the cheapest investment with the greatest return is just to hire armed mercenaries to enforce your wll.
All the emperors, kings, barons, popes, pharaohs, sultans, etc. of history were all the result of unbridled capitalism, and always will be.
If you look at recent history, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc obviously were all pure capitalists.
Capitalism is always evil greed, and socialism is always what any sane community does to prevent that from becoming abusive.

You're ignoring, will always ignore it would seem, the fundamental difference between political power and economic power: The power to employ force against those who won't do what you want them to do. Governments have this power, private wealth does not. If you get fed up with Facebook, you can tell them get fucked and ignore them. Try that with government and you'll end up in jail or dead.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obviously Russia never implemented Marxism.
Stalin instead implemented a form of state capitalism, where essentially you only have 1 single capitalism company.

Because if they had implemented Marxism, it would have worked?

 

[Rigby5]

You're ignoring, will always ignore it would seem, the fundamental difference between political power and economic power: The power to employ force against those who won't do what you want them to do. Governments have this power, private wealth does not. If you get fed up with Facebook, you can tell them get fucked and ignore them. Try that with government and you'll end up in jail or dead.

What you have wrong is that political power is held by the majority, and that is automatically then the most trusted and least corruptible.
While economic power not only is the MOST corrupt, but clearly is what has corrupted our democratic political power.
For example, the lies about WMD in Iraq had over 90% of the population fooled by their false media manipulations.
In fact, over 60% of the population believed the insanity that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack.

In a democracy, government power is not the problem because it is regulated by the people.
It is ONLY economic power that is any sort of threat at all, because it is only economic power that can sway a democracy away from the truth.

Ignoring Facebook does not reduce the potential for harm Facebook has.
If government does something harmful, like the War on Drugs for example, you can easily ignore them if you want, or lobby for change.
We did end Prohibition for example.
The whole is much less corrupt than the wealthy elite.

 

[Rigby5]

Because if they had implemented Marxism, it would have worked?

Probably not.
Marxism was very theoretical and idealistic.
It was the first reaction to the evils of the Industrial Revolution, around 1830 or so.
It is when steam powered looms could produce cloth at half the price of cottage industries.
Marx was just putting up a trial balloon.
It turns out unions, anti trust legislation, OSHA, etc., were better or at least easier.

 

[Rigby5]

We need to stop using our cheap oil and gas now, because more expensive in the future is bad?
We should use more expensive oil and gas now!!!

No, the import gas and oil is foolishly cheap now so we should use that now.
Then we should save our limited gas and oil for when it is much more valuable.

 

[dblack]

What you have wrong is that political power is held by the majority, and that is automatically then the most trusted and least corruptible.

And that's what you have wrong. Majority rule is NOT automatically the most trusted and least corruptible. Just look at a populist like Trump.

In a democracy, government power is not the problem because it is regulated by the people.

This is an utterly naive assumption.

Ignoring Facebook does not reduce the potential for harm Facebook has.

Right. Ignoring them isn't enough. You want to control them.

If government does something harmful, like the War on Drugs for example, you can easily ignore them if you want, or lobby for change.

Again, insanely naive. If a private company pisses you off, as mentioned, you can ignore them. You can't ignore armed DEA agents.

We did end Prohibition for example.

After how many lives were lost on senseless "we-know-betterism", how much wasted money? Seriously, if that's your example of how government should "work", I'll pass.

The whole is much less corrupt than the wealthy elite.

Uh huh. And how many have the wealthy elite killed? I'm sure you can find some examples (though they almost always involve collusion with government). Regardless, they pale in comparison the havoc wreaked by totalitarian regimes. You simply can't run a good genocide with coercive state power.

 

[Rigby5]

An actual example is our railroads.
Railroads are almost 100 times more efficient than individual transportation like cars or trucks.

100 times? Prove it.

The problem of trying to prove it is that one can not use Amtrak because US trains are not popular enough to be nearly as efficient as say trains in Japan or China.
But it should not be hard to understand.
Trains always have a much flatter and straighter path than highways, using cuts or tunnels instead of inclines over hills, mountains, etc.
They also are the single most efficient diesel/electrics, that can capture downhill regeneration.
They also do not have to add the inefficiencies of traffic slowing down and speeding up.
About the only way you could get more efficient would be to run the trains in evacuated tubes under ground.

 

[dblack]

What really gnaws at democratic socialists is that, in a free society, the people have more power than the government. Individuals have more power to influence society than the state. That's by design. The purpose of government isn't to shape society or control people. It's to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want, via voluntary collaboration rather than brute force.

 

[Rigby5]

And that's what you have wrong. Majority rule is NOT automatically the most trusted and least corruptible. Just look at a populist like Trump.



This is an utterly naive assumption.

Right. Ignoring them isn't enough. You want to control them.

Again, insanely naive. If a private company pisses you off, as mentioned, you can ignore them. You can't ignore armed DEA agents.

After how many lives were lost on senseless "we-know-betterism", how much wasted money? Seriously, if that's your example of how government should "work", I'll pass.

Uh huh. And how many have the wealthy elite killed? I'm sure you can find some examples (though they almost always involve collusion with government). Regardless, they pale in comparison the havoc wreaked by totalitarian regimes. You simply can't run a good genocide with coercive state power.

Interesting, in that what you are implying is that the wealthy elite, by virtue of being more economically successful, may be better at decision making than the average person?
Could be.
But I still do not trust the wealthy elite, and historically they have always been the problem.

As far as Trump, I actually do understand his Populism and did not find it all that distasteful, even though I am very far left.
At least he did not start any wars and he correctly identified China as an economic threat.
I also think his take on covid was correct.

And you certainly have a point in armed DEA agents.
However, I consider the War on Drugs to be from the wealthy elite and not average people.
But I have no proof of that.

 

[Rigby5]

What really gnaws at democratic socialists is that, in a free society, the people have more power than the government. Individuals have more power to influence society than the state. That's by design. The purpose of government isn't to shape society or control people. It's to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want, via voluntary collaboration rather than brute force.

I disagree, because I think it is private corporations who are the ones pushing and controlling "brute force".
For example, after WWII in Europe, they made lots of 1 liter engine cars that got over 40 mpg.
But the problem is there is much less profit in making many inexpensive cars, as making a few expensive ones.
That is why you will see so many SUVs and 4 door pickups in this country, even though they are much less efficient and much more expensive.
What we really need and want, is not being made.
Most people do not want power windows, automatic door locking after 5 mph, backup cameras, EVs, autonomous vehicles, etc., but they are forced upon us.

 

[dblack]

Interesting, in that what you are implying is that the wealthy elite, by virtue of being more economically successful, may be better at decision making than the average person?
Could be.
But I still do not trust the wealthy elite, and historically they have always been the problem.

The problem for whom? Compared to whom? Wanna compare Bill Gates to Stalin, point for point. Go for it.

As far as Trump, I actually do understand his Populism and did not find it all that distasteful, even though I am very far left.

I'm not surprised.

And you certainly have a point in armed DEA agents.
However, I consider the War on Drugs to be from the wealthy elite and not average people.

Doesn't matter who it's "from" - it's delivered via government.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, the import gas and oil is foolishly cheap now so we should use that now.
Then we should save our limited gas and oil for when it is much more valuable.

If we stop our production, oil and gas will immediately become more expensive.
By a lot.

 

[dblack]

I disagree, because I think it is private corporations who are the ones pushing and controlling "brute force".

Yes. You've proven impervious to the fact that political power and economic power are radically different. Private corporations aren't empowered by society to apply brute force. Government is. Continue to ignore that - I'll continue to point out how naive your ignorance is.

For example, after WWII in Europe, they made lots of 1 liter engine cars that got over 40 mpg.
But the problem is there is much less profit in making many inexpensive cars, as making a few expensive ones.
That is why you will see so many SUVs and 4 door pickups in this country, even though they are much less efficient and much more expensive.
What we really need and want, is not being made.
Most people do not want power windows, automatic door locking after 5 mph, backup cameras, EVs, autonomous vehicles, etc., but they are forced upon us.

You realize that the automobile industry is heavily regulated and the manipulation you're talking about is implemented via laws, right? The lobbyists may write these laws (obviously for benefit their employers) but Congress passes them. The democratically elected representatives of the people are feeding their friends in industry and convincing the dupes that "it's for their own good". Your government in action.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

How do unemployment laws apply differently to the wealthy than the poor?

 

[bripat9643]

Due to unequal protection of the laws?

How is it unequal?

 

[bripat9643]

Obviously Russia never implemented Marxism.
Stalin instead implemented a form of state capitalism, where essentially you only have 1 single capitalism company.
That is reverting back to a form of capitalist feudalism.
In Russia, the wealthy elite, like Stalin, did not produce or need all the wealth they took.

Yes, and no one ever drew a triangle with four sides. That's all you're saying. Marxism can't be implemented.

 

[bripat9643]

Maybe I misunderstood, but what you wrote was:
{...
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"?
...}

And my point is that investment and profit do not have a function in a fair society or market.
Individuals trying to maximize their return is a very disorganized and counter productive means of running anything.
And the easiest way to maximize profits is to create deliberate scarcity instead of production.
And one should never use the phrase, "free market", because that implies absolutely no regulation at all, which means there is nothing to prevent crime, such as feudalism or slavery, based on "might makes right", or the "power of the sword".

What the point of debating economic systems with someone who is totally ignorant of economics?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The problem of trying to prove it is that one can not use Amtrak because US trains are not popular enough to be nearly as efficient as say trains in Japan or China.
But it should not be hard to understand.
Trains always have a much flatter and straighter path than highways, using cuts or tunnels instead of inclines over hills, mountains, etc.
They also are the single most efficient diesel/electrics, that can capture downhill regeneration.
They also do not have to add the inefficiencies of traffic slowing down and speeding up.
About the only way you could get more efficient would be to run the trains in evacuated tubes under ground.

So you have no proof?

Use a foreign example.

Or admit you pulled it out of your ass.