Unrestrained Capitalism Would Cause........

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Explain how a State Bank, as in say North Dakota, is going to oppress the people.

buy charging 20% interest rates

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

those involved with the production are also those that allocate the proceeds..

wouldn't they allocate the proceeds to themselves??

 

[Tehon]

Inequality

Imagine the Horrors !!!!!

Real democracy!!!!!!

Unrestrained democracy?

No man. Representative democracy works fine. The super rich will lose the ability to buy the government.

But you'd agree that unrestrained democracy is also a danger, right?

I recognize the problems with pure democracy.

 

[Tehon]

Nothing would change in a Socialist system. The market would still serve as vehicle for exchange of commodities. The only thing cut out would be the capitalist.

Have you ever given much thought to what it is that capitalists do? what function they perform in an economy?

Seriously, Tehon - capitalists allocate labor and resources in a free market. That job still needs to get done in a state-run economy. Do you really think government officials can do a better job that private investors?

It is not going to be a state run economy.

Huh? What's not going to be? How do you see capital getting distributed under socialism?

The same as it is done now.

 

[Tehon]

those involved with the production are also those that allocate the proceeds..

wouldn't they allocate the proceeds to themselves??

Of course they will pay themselves for their work. No one works for free.

 

[Timmy]

We pretty much had unchecked capitalism in the early 1900s. It nearly destroyed the country.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Of course they will pay themselves for their work. No one works for free.

so then investors don't get paid, company goes bankrupt, and workers lose their jobs and 120 million slowly starve to death like in USSR and Red China????

 

[dblack]

Nothing would change in a Socialist system. The market would still serve as vehicle for exchange of commodities. The only thing cut out would be the capitalist.

Have you ever given much thought to what it is that capitalists do? what function they perform in an economy?

Seriously, Tehon - capitalists allocate labor and resources in a free market. That job still needs to get done in a state-run economy. Do you really think government officials can do a better job that private investors?

It is not going to be a state run economy.

Huh? What's not going to be? How do you see capital getting distributed under socialism?

The same as it is done now.

Capitalists do it now. Who would do it in your system?

 

[bripat9643]

You mean they are sole proprietors? How would socialism mean individuals selling goods and services and earning a profit?

Anytime someone or a group of people produce a commodity, value is created. The difference between socialism and capitalism is how the surplus value is distributed. In capitalism that surplus value goes to the capitalist. In socialism that surplus value is distributed among the producers of the commodity.

You still haven't explained who is producing the commodity. If it's not the government and it's not a "capitalist," then who is it? Why would anyone produce a commodity if they stand to gain nothing from it? How do they produce it? Where does the plant and machinery come from?

I already told you it's the people. The capitalist does nothing but provide the capital. State chartered banks could fill that role.

"The people" of Egypt built the pyramids, but they were all slaves. You're weaseling. You have no clue how your system is going to work without business owners or government, so you dodge and weave when asked to explain it.

You're a typical socialist who wants to tear down the existing system but doesn't have a clue about what to replace it with.

It's roughly the same system you have now minus the capitalist. We don't need the capitalist, who uses his gains to create a system that protects himself. Big government serves to protect the capitalist system.

The system we have now minus the capitalists would be Feudalism. You keep insisting your proposed system doesn't require government or capitalists. Then who makes runs the productive enterprises? Don't tell me "the people." Capitalists are people as are government storm troopers.

 

[bripat9643]

Have you ever given much thought to what it is that capitalists do? what function they perform in an economy?

Seriously, Tehon - capitalists allocate labor and resources in a free market. That job still needs to get done in a state-run economy. Do you really think government officials can do a better job that private investors?

It is not going to be a state run economy.

Huh? What's not going to be? How do you see capital getting distributed under socialism?

The same as it is done now.

Capitalists do it now. Who would do it in your system?

Fairies and unicorns.

 

[bripat9643]

Heh... yup. That's the final 'power-up' for the banksters - merging economic power with state power!

There would be no private banking.

They're already merged under the current system. You must realize that.

It's already happening, yes. That's what I was getting at. Banning private economic investment, and centralizing such power under authoritarian government, is the final step. You nitwits think you're socializing corporations, but you're not. You're corporatizing government.

Nonsense, you guys keep screaming government but nothing I have said increases government.

You're right. State chartered banks wouldn't increase government power at all. How silly of me.

Explain how a State Bank, as in say North Dakota, is going to oppress the people.

Simple, it can loan money only to those who support the government or charge them lower interest rates. Comply with rule XYZ or you don't get a mortgage.

 

[bripat9643]

You're right. State chartered banks wouldn't increase government power at all. How silly of me.

Explain how a State Bank, as in say North Dakota, is going to oppress the people.

Well, you offered up the idea as a replacement for capitalists. That means these banks are going to be making society's major decisions regarding how its wealth is utilized. I'm sort of surprised you don't see the potential for abuse there. But we can walk through an example if you like.

Let's say food production and sales is no longer driving by capitalists striving for profits, but by state banks, controlled by government. The state is conservative and has a basket of deplorables currently running things. Do you think they're likely to stock up on halal food? They might even decide not to stock it at all, eh? Or let's say a movie producer is looking for capital to make a new movie, and this movie producer is known for making politically radical films. Is she likely to get a loan from the state bank to do a documentary exposing their corruption?

Food production. Remove the capitalist that has consolidated the production of food for private profit and return it back to the communities. Let the community decide what their food needs are. The states role will be limited. That's what we want isn't it.

It's not what I want, no. I can decide my food needs myself.

Nothing would change in a Socialist system. The market would still serve as vehicle for exchange of commodities. The only thing cut out would be the capitalist.

There is no market in a socialist system. When the government makes everything, who is it going to exchange goods with?

 

[bripat9643]

It's already happening, yes. That's what I was getting at. Banning private economic investment, and centralizing such power under authoritarian government, is the final step. You nitwits think you're socializing corporations, but you're not. You're corporatizing government.

Nonsense, you guys keep screaming government but nothing I have said increases government.

You're right. State chartered banks wouldn't increase government power at all. How silly of me.

Explain how a State Bank, as in say North Dakota, is going to oppress the people.

Well, you offered up the idea as a replacement for capitalists. That means these banks are going to be making society's major decisions regarding how its wealth is utilized. I'm sort of surprised you don't see the potential for abuse there. But we can walk through an example if you like.

Let's say food production and sales is no longer driving by capitalists striving for profits, but by state banks, controlled by government. The state is conservative and has a basket of deplorables currently running things. Do you think they're likely to stock up on halal food? They might even decide not to stock it at all, eh? Or let's say a movie producer is looking for capital to make a new movie, and this movie producer is known for making politically radical films. Is she likely to get a loan from the state bank to do a documentary exposing their corruption?

Food production. Remove the capitalist that has consolidated the production of food for private profit and return it back to the communities. Let the community decide what their food needs are. The states role will be limited. That's what we want isn't it.

How will "the community" enforce any of its decisions without employing the monopoly on the use of force, ie., the government?

 

[bripat9643]

Nothing would change in a Socialist system. The market would still serve as vehicle for exchange of commodities. The only thing cut out would be the capitalist.

Have you ever given much thought to what it is that capitalists do? what function they perform in an economy?

Seriously, Tehon - capitalists allocate labor and resources in a free market. That job still needs to get done in a state-run economy. Do you really think government officials can do a better job that private investors?

It is not going to be a state run economy.

Of course it is. Who is going to decide how much oil is produced?

 

[bripat9643]

Nothing would change in a Socialist system. The market would still serve as vehicle for exchange of commodities. The only thing cut out would be the capitalist.

Have you ever given much thought to what it is that capitalists do? what function they perform in an economy?

Seriously, Tehon - capitalists allocate labor and resources in a free market. That job still needs to get done in a state-run economy. Do you really think government officials can do a better job that private investors?

It is not going to be a state run economy.

Huh? What's not going to be? How do you see capital getting distributed under socialism?

The same as it is done now.

How could it possibly be the same when you have said there wouldn't be any capitalists?

 

[bripat9643]

We pretty much had unchecked capitalism in the early 1900s. It nearly destroyed the country.

Hardly. the economy grew at an astounding rate in those days.

 

[Timmy]

We pretty much had unchecked capitalism in the early 1900s. It nearly destroyed the country.

Hardly. the economy grew at an astounding rate in those days.

Oh yeah good times! Until the monopolies developed . Workers treated like garbage, police beating striking union workers, pollution like you couldn't believe , politicians bought n paid for, dangerous workplaces , price fixing , zero middle class .

The great irony is that unchecked capitalism actually destroys itself .

 

[Tehon]

Have you ever given much thought to what it is that capitalists do? what function they perform in an economy?

Seriously, Tehon - capitalists allocate labor and resources in a free market. That job still needs to get done in a state-run economy. Do you really think government officials can do a better job that private investors?

It is not going to be a state run economy.

Huh? What's not going to be? How do you see capital getting distributed under socialism?

The same as it is done now.

Capitalists do it now. Who would do it in your system?

Start ups could go to the bank. Existing cooperatives could go to the bank or the members could invest in themselves. The money is still there, it's just not all going to the top of a hierarchy.

 

[dblack]

Seriously, Tehon - capitalists allocate labor and resources in a free market. That job still needs to get done in a state-run economy. Do you really think government officials can do a better job that private investors?

It is not going to be a state run economy.

Huh? What's not going to be? How do you see capital getting distributed under socialism?

The same as it is done now.

Capitalists do it now. Who would do it in your system?

Start ups could go to the bank. Existing cooperatives could go to the bank or the members could invest in themselves. The money is still there, it's just not all going to the top of a hierarchy.

So it sounds like the state banks would take over the role of today's capitalists. What criteria should bank officials use when deciding where to allocate labor and resources? I've really never understood how a command economy could work. What is the current theory?

 

[Tehon]

It is not going to be a state run economy.

Huh? What's not going to be? How do you see capital getting distributed under socialism?

The same as it is done now.

Capitalists do it now. Who would do it in your system?

Start ups could go to the bank. Existing cooperatives could go to the bank or the members could invest in themselves. The money is still there, it's just not all going to the top of a hierarchy.

So it sounds like the state banks would take over the role of today's capitalists. What criteria should bank officials use when deciding where to allocate labor and resources? I've really never understood how a command economy could work. What is the current theory?

It is not a goddamned command economy. The state doesn't take on any role more than a private bank does now.