Unfettered Capitalism

[task0778]

Liberals love this phrase. Maybe I have a limited vocabulary, but I wasn't really sure what "fettered" meant. So I looked it up:

Any questions?

Unfettered means unrestrained or unlimited. Clearly that is not what capitalism is in this country, did you think otherwise?

I just wanted to provide a visual of what liberals want: fettered capitalism. People in chains.

How odd that progressive liberals do not realize the alternatives to capitalism are far more restrictive. Capitalism is all about choice more than anything else, and any other economic model is more about govt's choice rather than your own. In capitalism you get to decide what you will buy among many options and how much you pay for it. Every other system has much fewer options and directly or indirectly the govt decides how much you pay.

Yeah! Hell Yeah! Just like when those right wing assholes forced the general public to engage in commerce via mandatory health care purchasing.

I thought that was Obama and those left wing assholes that tried to mandate health care insurance.


There seems to be some confusion over what unfettered means. It means unrestrained or unlimited. Capitalism in the 1800s was basically unrestrained, i.e., uncontrolled and as a result we had corruption and enormous abuse of the working people. Towards the end of that century, gov't started to finally institute some controls to preclude the unfair business practices and employee abuses, with some success. Today, capitalism is no longer unfettered, we do have some governance over it; some say not enough or ineffective or inefficient, and the fight goes on.

The "corruption" was all in the government. Any "abuse" of working people was a result of the fact that employers weren't held liable for workplace injuries. The American standard of living grew by leaps and bounds during the period 1865 - 1929. After that, it started swirling down the sewer.

"The "corruption" was all in the government."

Not true bro. There was a heckuva lot of corruption going on until the govt finally passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and other laws that followed.

 

[bripat9643]

Liberals love this phrase. Maybe I have a limited vocabulary, but I wasn't really sure what "fettered" meant. So I looked it up:

Any questions?

Unfettered means unrestrained or unlimited. Clearly that is not what capitalism is in this country, did you think otherwise?

I just wanted to provide a visual of what liberals want: fettered capitalism. People in chains.

How odd that progressive liberals do not realize the alternatives to capitalism are far more restrictive. Capitalism is all about choice more than anything else, and any other economic model is more about govt's choice rather than your own. In capitalism you get to decide what you will buy among many options and how much you pay for it. Every other system has much fewer options and directly or indirectly the govt decides how much you pay.

Yeah! Hell Yeah! Just like when those right wing assholes forced the general public to engage in commerce via mandatory health care purchasing.

I thought that was Obama and those left wing assholes that tried to mandate health care insurance.


There seems to be some confusion over what unfettered means. It means unrestrained or unlimited. Capitalism in the 1800s was basically unrestrained, i.e., uncontrolled and as a result we had corruption and enormous abuse of the working people. Towards the end of that century, gov't started to finally institute some controls to preclude the unfair business practices and employee abuses, with some success. Today, capitalism is no longer unfettered, we do have some governance over it; some say not enough or ineffective or inefficient, and the fight goes on.

The "corruption" was all in the government. Any "abuse" of working people was a result of the fact that employers weren't held liable for workplace injuries. The American standard of living grew by leaps and bounds during the period 1865 - 1929. After that, it started swirling down the sewer.

"The "corruption" was all in the government."

Not true bro. There was a heckuva lot of corruption going on until the govt finally passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and other laws that followed.

Really? Like what?

 

[dblack]

Liberals love this phrase. Maybe I have a limited vocabulary, but I wasn't really sure what "fettered" meant. So I looked it up:

Any questions?

Even Hayek supported some regualations.

Depends on how you define "regulations" and how you differentiate them for ordinary "laws". Rules that prevent fraud and maintain transparency are necessary. Rules that are merely there to establish conformity, usually for the benefit of specific interest groups at the expense of others, are bullshit.

 

[dblack]

Liberals love this phrase. Maybe I have a limited vocabulary, but I wasn't really sure what "fettered" meant. So I looked it up:

Any questions?

no.

You are an idiot and a liar.

and a fascist piece of shit.

FETTERED means; the owner of the plantation doesn't get to live in opulence keeping ALL the profits while coal minors live in shacks, eat dirt and die of black lung by the time they are 40.


fuk you you stinking piece of shit


FETTERED means the owner can get rich but his employees must be paid fairly


fuk you, you LYING stinking fascist piece of human garbage



lets talk about FETTERED FREEDOM;

I noticed that the picture you used showed a gay man, an atheist, a feminists and a pot smoker being FETTERED because YOU are a nazi!

Wow.... you go off your meds?

 

[dblack]

Liberals love this phrase. Maybe I have a limited vocabulary, but I wasn't really sure what "fettered" meant. So I looked it up:

Any questions?

It's called President GW and caused a world wide depression.

It really was the combination of Clinton and W who caused the great recession. It was Clinton's policies that were continued through W until the bubble burst

The bottom line is that, as always, both parties agreed the US economy needed a party and looked the other way.

We have a Commerce Clause, a Congress, and a Central Bank; why does the right wing only know how to lose money under Capitalism with a Commerce Clause in their Constitution for Government?

View attachment 383289

Daniel is the only poster I ever put on ignore just for being a complete and total airhead

I haven't put daniel on ignore. I just ignore him, mostly. Sometimes his blathering is hilarious.

 

[task0778]

Liberals love this phrase. Maybe I have a limited vocabulary, but I wasn't really sure what "fettered" meant. So I looked it up:

Any questions?

Unfettered means unrestrained or unlimited. Clearly that is not what capitalism is in this country, did you think otherwise?

I just wanted to provide a visual of what liberals want: fettered capitalism. People in chains.

How odd that progressive liberals do not realize the alternatives to capitalism are far more restrictive. Capitalism is all about choice more than anything else, and any other economic model is more about govt's choice rather than your own. In capitalism you get to decide what you will buy among many options and how much you pay for it. Every other system has much fewer options and directly or indirectly the govt decides how much you pay.

Yeah! Hell Yeah! Just like when those right wing assholes forced the general public to engage in commerce via mandatory health care purchasing.

I thought that was Obama and those left wing assholes that tried to mandate health care insurance.


There seems to be some confusion over what unfettered means. It means unrestrained or unlimited. Capitalism in the 1800s was basically unrestrained, i.e., uncontrolled and as a result we had corruption and enormous abuse of the working people. Towards the end of that century, gov't started to finally institute some controls to preclude the unfair business practices and employee abuses, with some success. Today, capitalism is no longer unfettered, we do have some governance over it; some say not enough or ineffective or inefficient, and the fight goes on.

The "corruption" was all in the government. Any "abuse" of working people was a result of the fact that employers weren't held liable for workplace injuries. The American standard of living grew by leaps and bounds during the period 1865 - 1929. After that, it started swirling down the sewer.

"The "corruption" was all in the government."

Not true bro. There was a heckuva lot of corruption going on until the govt finally passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and other laws that followed.

Really? Like what?

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was the first measure passed by the U.S. Congress to prohibit abusive monopolies, and in some ways it remains the most important.

Trusts and Monopolies

A trust was an arrangement by which stockholders in several companies transferred their shares to a single set of trustees. In exchange, the stockholders received a certificate entitling them to a specified share of the consolidated earnings of the jointly managed companies. The trusts came to dominate a number of major industries, and were, in effect, monopolies.

A monopoly is a situation in which there is a single supplier or seller of a good or service for which there are no close substitutes. Economists and others have long known that unregulated monopolies tend to damage the economy by (1) charging higher prices, (2) providing inferior goods and services and (3) suppressing innovation, as compared with a competitive situation (i.e., the existence of numerous, competing suppliers of the good or service).

The most infamous of the trusts was the Standard Oil Trust, which was formed in January, 1882. At that time, Standard Oil and its affiliates controlled more than 90 percent of the oil refining capacity and most of the oil marketing facilities in the U.S. Trusts were also established in numerous other industries, some of the largest of which were sugar, tobacco, railroads, steel and meatpacking.

The idea of the trust was conceived by Samuel Dodd, an attorney for Standard Oil. In the case of this company, a board of trustees was set up and it was given control of all of the Standard Oil properties. Every stockholder received 20 trust certificates for each share of Standard Oil stock. All profits from the component companies were sent to the nine trustees, who set the dividends. The nine trustees also selected the directors and officers of all the component companies. This allowed Standard Oil to function as a monopoly.

Trusts used a number of techniques to eliminate competitors, including (1) buying them out, (2) temporarily undercutting their prices, (3) forcing customers to sign long-term contracts (4) forcing customers to buy unwanted products in order to receive the products they wanted and (5) dispatching thugs to use intimidation and violence when all other means of persuasion failed.

This falls under the heading of corruption IMHO.


Further:

The Sherman Antitrust Act was born against a backdrop of increasing monopolies and abuses of power by large corporations and railroad conglomerates. In 1887, in response to increasing public indignation about abuses of power and malpractices by railroad companies, Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Act, which spawned the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)—whose purpose was to regulate interstate transportation entities. In particular, the ICC had jurisdiction over U.S. railroads and all common carriers, requiring them to submit annual reports and prohibiting unfair practices such as discriminatory rates.

 

[kaz]

Liberals love this phrase. Maybe I have a limited vocabulary, but I wasn't really sure what "fettered" meant. So I looked it up:

Any questions?

It's called President GW and caused a world wide depression.

It really was the combination of Clinton and W who caused the great recession. It was Clinton's policies that were continued through W until the bubble burst

The bottom line is that, as always, both parties agreed the US economy needed a party and looked the other way.

We have a Commerce Clause, a Congress, and a Central Bank; why does the right wing only know how to lose money under Capitalism with a Commerce Clause in their Constitution for Government?

View attachment 383289

Daniel is the only poster I ever put on ignore just for being a complete and total airhead

I haven't put daniel on ignore. I just ignore him, mostly. Sometimes his blathering is hilarious.

I found Daniel too empty to even be funny. But there are posters I agree with you on that. I only don't put them on ignore because they crack me up

 

[bendog]

Liberals love this phrase. Maybe I have a limited vocabulary, but I wasn't really sure what "fettered" meant. So I looked it up:

Any questions?

Even Hayek supported some regualations.

Depends on how you define "regulations" and how you differentiate them for ordinary "laws". Rules that prevent fraud and maintain transparency are necessary. Rules that are merely there to establish conformity, usually for the benefit of specific interest groups at the expense of others, are bullshit.

Hayek clearly stated that unregulated capitalism would result in pollution and forest eradication. I'm just unclear what anyone means when they type unfettered capitalism. no on in the US is for it. Even the Kochs and Trump see govt as a means to line their pockets by using power to give them a leg up on the competition. LOL

 

[dblack]

Depends on how you define "regulations" and how you differentiate them for ordinary "laws". Rules that prevent fraud and maintain transparency are necessary. Rules that are merely there to establish conformity, usually for the benefit of specific interest groups at the expense of others, are bullshit.

Hayek clearly stated that unregulated capitalism would result in pollution and forest eradication.

Nothing wrong with laws prohibiting pollution. The government has a genuine responsibility to protect the commons.

I'm just unclear what anyone means when they type unfettered capitalism.

I think most leftists just mean the absence of government control. They want to transfer economic control from private interests to government.

Even the Kochs and Trump see govt as a means to line their pockets by using power to give them a leg up on the competition. LOL

OH, yeah. Trump is as big a corporatist as most Democrats. I don't know much about the Kochs.

 

[bendog]

Depends on how you define "regulations" and how you differentiate them for ordinary "laws". Rules that prevent fraud and maintain transparency are necessary. Rules that are merely there to establish conformity, usually for the benefit of specific interest groups at the expense of others, are bullshit.

Hayek clearly stated that unregulated capitalism would result in pollution and forest eradication.

Nothing wrong with laws prohibiting pollution. The government has a genuine responsibility to protect the commons.

I'm just unclear what anyone means when they type unfettered capitalism.

I think most leftists just mean the absence of government control. They want to transfer economic control from private interests to government.

Even the Kochs and Trump see govt as a means to line their pockets by using power to give them a leg up on the competition. LOL

OH, yeah. Trump is as big a corporatist as most Democrats. I don't know much about the Kochs.

Ah, I see. I really don't know about AOC. Is she really an avowed hard socialist? Even in the most left leaning developed states, a person can open a small biz. Inarguably it's easier here, and that's why even now with a govt and society unable to cope with something like Covid that is pretty simple to hinder spread. Pressly is not so bad. Omar … well, she's a nut but economics isn't her main problem. She and her base are still assimilating.

RW pols give people like Ammon Bundy some political shade, but really we're never going back to just free range grazing of cattle wherever someone can find some range. It's not economically possible to make a living that way anymore, to say nothing of it's just not ok gun down people with competing interests in the land use, which was the approach of ranchers Bundy wants to emulate.

Cuban style socialism and unfettered capitalism are just not feasible. But I admit, it'd be fun to be Andrew Jackson for a day in Tenn.

 

[danielpalos]

Liberals love this phrase. Maybe I have a limited vocabulary, but I wasn't really sure what "fettered" meant. So I looked it up:

Any questions?

It's called President GW and caused a world wide depression.

It really was the combination of Clinton and W who caused the great recession. It was Clinton's policies that were continued through W until the bubble burst

The bottom line is that, as always, both parties agreed the US economy needed a party and looked the other way.

We have a Commerce Clause, a Congress, and a Central Bank; why does the right wing only know how to lose money under Capitalism with a Commerce Clause in their Constitution for Government?

View attachment 383289

Daniel is the only poster I ever put on ignore just for being a complete and total airhead

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument, like usual.

Refusing to have a battle of wits with a totally unarmed person isn't conceding anything, super-dullard.

lol. Projecting much. All you need is a valid argument. Don't have one like usual.

 

[impuretrash]

Well, considering all the recent middle east wars were done to benefit oil companies and globalist corporations want to flood this nation with 3rd world labor and that almost everything is owned by like, six mega-corporations and nothing is manufactured in the US anymore....yeah I wouldn't mind there being a few fetters put on.

 

[Oddball]

Liberals love this phrase. Maybe I have a limited vocabulary, but I wasn't really sure what "fettered" meant. So I looked it up:

Any questions?

It's called President GW and caused a world wide depression.

It really was the combination of Clinton and W who caused the great recession. It was Clinton's policies that were continued through W until the bubble burst

The bottom line is that, as always, both parties agreed the US economy needed a party and looked the other way.

We have a Commerce Clause, a Congress, and a Central Bank; why does the right wing only know how to lose money under Capitalism with a Commerce Clause in their Constitution for Government?

View attachment 383289

Daniel is the only poster I ever put on ignore just for being a complete and total airhead

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument, like usual.

Refusing to have a battle of wits with a totally unarmed person isn't conceding anything, super-dullard.

lol. Projecting much. All you need is a valid argument. Don't have one like usual.

Shut your fucking face, dope.

 

[danielpalos]

Liberals love this phrase. Maybe I have a limited vocabulary, but I wasn't really sure what "fettered" meant. So I looked it up:

Any questions?

It's called President GW and caused a world wide depression.

It really was the combination of Clinton and W who caused the great recession. It was Clinton's policies that were continued through W until the bubble burst

The bottom line is that, as always, both parties agreed the US economy needed a party and looked the other way.

We have a Commerce Clause, a Congress, and a Central Bank; why does the right wing only know how to lose money under Capitalism with a Commerce Clause in their Constitution for Government?

View attachment 383289

Daniel is the only poster I ever put on ignore just for being a complete and total airhead

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument, like usual.

Refusing to have a battle of wits with a totally unarmed person isn't conceding anything, super-dullard.

lol. Projecting much. All you need is a valid argument. Don't have one like usual.

Shut your fucking face, dope.

lol. Typical of the right wing. No better solutions at lower cost only their socialism on a national basis.

 

[kaz]

Liberals love this phrase. Maybe I have a limited vocabulary, but I wasn't really sure what "fettered" meant. So I looked it up:

Any questions?

It's called President GW and caused a world wide depression.

It really was the combination of Clinton and W who caused the great recession. It was Clinton's policies that were continued through W until the bubble burst

The bottom line is that, as always, both parties agreed the US economy needed a party and looked the other way.

We have a Commerce Clause, a Congress, and a Central Bank; why does the right wing only know how to lose money under Capitalism with a Commerce Clause in their Constitution for Government?

View attachment 383289

Daniel is the only poster I ever put on ignore just for being a complete and total airhead

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument, like usual.

Refusing to have a battle of wits with a totally unarmed person isn't conceding anything, super-dullard.

lol. Projecting much. All you need is a valid argument. Don't have one like usual.

Shut your fucking face, dope.

Good luck with that. That was when I put him on ignore. When he made it clear he wasn't gong to stop following me around with the inane crap he spews. I wouldn't have put him on ignore if I could control it by not responding when it got tired. But he wouldn't stop

 

[danielpalos]

Liberals love this phrase. Maybe I have a limited vocabulary, but I wasn't really sure what "fettered" meant. So I looked it up:

Any questions?

It's called President GW and caused a world wide depression.

It really was the combination of Clinton and W who caused the great recession. It was Clinton's policies that were continued through W until the bubble burst

The bottom line is that, as always, both parties agreed the US economy needed a party and looked the other way.

We have a Commerce Clause, a Congress, and a Central Bank; why does the right wing only know how to lose money under Capitalism with a Commerce Clause in their Constitution for Government?

View attachment 383289

Daniel is the only poster I ever put on ignore just for being a complete and total airhead

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument, like usual.

Refusing to have a battle of wits with a totally unarmed person isn't conceding anything, super-dullard.

lol. Projecting much. All you need is a valid argument. Don't have one like usual.

Shut your fucking face, dope.

Good luck with that. That was when I put him on ignore. When he made it clear he wasn't gong to stop following me around with the inane crap he spews. I wouldn't have put him on ignore if I could control it by not responding when it got tired. But he wouldn't stop

You have lousy arguments. Cute snatch?

 

[Ken Mac]

Liberals love this phrase. Maybe I have a limited vocabulary, but I wasn't really sure what "fettered" meant. So I looked it up:

Any questions?

Unfettered means unrestrained or unlimited. Clearly that is not what capitalism is in this country, did you think otherwise?

I just wanted to provide a visual of what liberals want: fettered capitalism. People in chains.

How odd that progressive liberals do not realize the alternatives to capitalism are far more restrictive. Capitalism is all about choice more than anything else, and any other economic model is more about govt's choice rather than your own. In capitalism you get to decide what you will buy among many options and how much you pay for it. Every other system has much fewer options and directly or indirectly the govt decides how much you pay.

Yeah! Hell Yeah! Just like when those right wing assholes forced the general public to engage in commerce via mandatory health care purchasing.

I thought that was Obama and those left wing assholes that tried to mandate health care insurance.


There seems to be some confusion over what unfettered means. It means unrestrained or unlimited. Capitalism in the 1800s was basically unrestrained, i.e., uncontrolled and as a result we had corruption and enormous abuse of the working people. Towards the end of that century, gov't started to finally institute some controls to preclude the unfair business practices and employee abuses, with some success. Today, capitalism is no longer unfettered, we do have some governance over it; some say not enough or ineffective or inefficient, and the fight goes on.

I was being sarcastic. It wasn't obvious?

 

[task0778]

Liberals love this phrase. Maybe I have a limited vocabulary, but I wasn't really sure what "fettered" meant. So I looked it up:

Any questions?

Unfettered means unrestrained or unlimited. Clearly that is not what capitalism is in this country, did you think otherwise?

I just wanted to provide a visual of what liberals want: fettered capitalism. People in chains.

How odd that progressive liberals do not realize the alternatives to capitalism are far more restrictive. Capitalism is all about choice more than anything else, and any other economic model is more about govt's choice rather than your own. In capitalism you get to decide what you will buy among many options and how much you pay for it. Every other system has much fewer options and directly or indirectly the govt decides how much you pay.

Yeah! Hell Yeah! Just like when those right wing assholes forced the general public to engage in commerce via mandatory health care purchasing.

I thought that was Obama and those left wing assholes that tried to mandate health care insurance.


There seems to be some confusion over what unfettered means. It means unrestrained or unlimited. Capitalism in the 1800s was basically unrestrained, i.e., uncontrolled and as a result we had corruption and enormous abuse of the working people. Towards the end of that century, gov't started to finally institute some controls to preclude the unfair business practices and employee abuses, with some success. Today, capitalism is no longer unfettered, we do have some governance over it; some say not enough or ineffective or inefficient, and the fight goes on.

I was being sarcastic. It wasn't obvious?

There's too many idiots on the USMB to know who is being sarcastic and who is an idiot. Apologies. Request the use of a sarcasm emoji or something, I guess I'm too oblivious.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Liberals love this phrase. Maybe I have a limited vocabulary, but I wasn't really sure what "fettered" meant. So I looked it up:

Any questions?

Yeah. Why do you think the super rich ought to have total unaccountable power over your life?

I don't. Spare me the strawman.

That's what "unfettered capitalism" is. An amoral system where the super rich are untouchable by the same system of laws that can easily cost you everything.

"Unfettered capitalism" also refers to reckless, irresponsible, and unwarranted deregulation that jeopardizes the environment, endangers the health and safety of workers, and places consumers at risk, the victims of unscrupulous corporations.

‘Liberals’ advocate for a clean environment, worker safety, and healthy consumers.

‘Liberals’ are such terrible people.

 

[Agit8r]

Anarcho-fascist would be a better description