Why capitalism works most practical in a monetary system.

[Theowl32]

The truth that the ignorant cannot accept is there is no such thing as a utopia. The politicians main job is to sell utopia to the gullible.

Having said that, we also need to realize that PURE CAPITALISM is as dangerous as PURE SOCIALISM (communism.) The believers in either of these two ideologies (the pure versions of both) believe in this mythical utopia that does not exist.

Pure capitalism does not (theoretically) guard against monopolies. Tyrants would eventually rise and they certainly did in this country until Teddy put an end to the 80/hr work week, deplorable working conditions etc etc etc etc.

On the other hand, the socialists buy into this notion that all of these companies are simply evil. Most of these companies that are profit driven are simply an enemy to the poor. Never mind that these profit incentives is the reason that many of us enjoy the amenities that we all have. The products that many of us take for granted were virtually all pursued with that evil profit incentive. The fairy tale of robinhood appeals to many, and most people certainly take joy in watching some trust fund skank like Paris Hilton have to spend a few nights in a jail cell.

My perspective is capitalism works MOST PRACTICAL in a monetary system. Although, I do not support monopolies and regulations are necessary. However, the level to which these regulations has caused strife in the middle class (the small business owner.) The government's enemy is the power that we the people have. The government is certainly motivated to gaining that power from the people and they are very skilled at using rhetoric to convince the masses the government knows best. They oppress minorities by convincing them they are perpetual victims.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Having said that, we also need to realize that PURE CAPITALISM is as dangerous as PURE SOCIALISM (communism.) The believers in either of these two ideologies (the pure versions of both) believe in this mythical utopia that does not exist.

Pure capitalism isn't utopia. What it is, is the maximum level of freedom for the individual economically.

Pure capitalism does not (theoretically) guard against monopolies. Tyrants would eventually rise and they certainly did in this country until Teddy put an end to the 80/hr work week, deplorable working conditions etc etc etc etc.

No, what capitalism offers is the best chances for competition which means decentralization of economic power. Tyrants require authority over others. That sort of authority comes with force and coercion. The hallmarks of government. Teddy created band aids over previous govt. involvement and meddling.

My perspective is capitalism works MOST PRACTICAL in a monetary system. Although, I do not support monopolies and regulations are necessary. However, the level to which these regulations has caused strife in the middle class (the small business owner.)

f by monetary system, you're referring to govt. control of the money supply and what can be used as money, then I disagree. Capitalism requires a free market. A free market means competitive currency and a people's chosen store of wealth outside of the controls of a few "I knew best" planners. Monopolies are the result of govt. favoritism. You'd be hard pressed to find an example of a monopoly formed through free market capitalism conditions.

 

[deltex1]

oh.

 

[The Rabbi]

Monopolies are the result of govt. favoritism. You'd be hard pressed to find an example of a monopoly formed through free market capitalism conditions.

This.
Back in the days of the robber barons the few businesses commonly called "monopolies" in fact *lowered* prices of goods for people below where they had been. Because the businesses were scared of competition rising up.
Libs are bad at math. Libs are bad at history. Libs are bad at logic.

 

[Theowl32]

Pure capitalism isn't utopia. What it is, is the maximum level of freedom for the individual economically.

Well, I would say it offers the best opportunity for the ambitious. Yes, the freedom to choose and PURSUIT of happiness.

No, what capitalism offers is the best chances for competition which means decentralization of economic power. Tyrants require authority over others. That sort of authority comes with force and coercion. The hallmarks of government. Teddy created band aids over previous govt. involvement and meddling.

The problem as I see it is we would be awfully naive if we DON"T think some regulations are needed. How is it that the government prior to Teddy meddled if they allowed such deplorable working conditions etc etc? There were real problems and these companies did not need to comply with any regulations, cause there were in fact NO regulations.

Are you saying that companies ought to be able to have any working conditions what so ever? I am confused by the notion that the government prior to Teddy was meddlesome. How so? Can you be specific? Ever see the beef industry and what the conditions were like?

f by monetary system, you're referring to govt. control of the money supply and what can be used as money, then I disagree. Capitalism requires a free market. A free market means competitive currency and a people's chosen store of wealth outside of the controls of a few "I knew best" planners. Monopolies are the result of govt. favoritism. You'd be hard pressed to find an example of a monopoly formed through free market capitalism conditions.

I am pretty sure you can have a free market with some regulations. The list of over regulations is the concern. That is socialism, and that is problem today. Like I said, there is no such thing as a utopia. What the left is doing today (I try not to call them liberals cause they in fact are not really liberals) is trying to APPEAR as though they truly care about the poor or down trodden. They are not, and hardly any of them care. Especially those limousine "liberals." What the left is most concerned about acceptance from their peers. They hardly ever actually stand for a thing. They are driven into a type of frenzy over various subjects, and often it is because the praetorian media who has an obvious agenda.

 

[Theowl32]

Bump bumpity bump

 

[Vox]

The truth that the ignorant cannot accept is there is no such thing as a utopia. The politicians main job is to sell utopia to the gullible.

Having said that, we also need to realize that PURE CAPITALISM is as dangerous as PURE SOCIALISM (communism.) The believers in either of these two ideologies (the pure versions of both) believe in this mythical utopia that does not exist.

Pure capitalism does not (theoretically) guard against monopolies. Tyrants would eventually rise and they certainly did in this country until Teddy put an end to the 80/hr work week, deplorable working conditions etc etc etc etc.

On the other hand, the socialists buy into this notion that all of these companies are simply evil. Most of these companies that are profit driven are simply an enemy to the poor. Never mind that these profit incentives is the reason that many of us enjoy the amenities that we all have. The products that many of us take for granted were virtually all pursued with that evil profit incentive. The fairy tale of robinhood appeals to many, and most people certainly take joy in watching some trust fund skank like Paris Hilton have to spend a few nights in a jail cell.

My perspective is capitalism works MOST PRACTICAL in a monetary system. Although, I do not support monopolies and regulations are necessary. However, the level to which these regulations has caused strife in the middle class (the small business owner.) The government's enemy is the power that we the people have. The government is certainly motivated to gaining that power from the people and they are very skilled at using rhetoric to convince the masses the government knows best. They oppress minorities by convincing them they are perpetual victims.

we practically speaking lost any benefits of the capitalism, especially during the last 5 years.
It is turning to fascist society - which is a state monopoly over private enterprise with selected few big businesses protected - and corruption flourishing.

It is not socialism yet but it is on the way to it. And I mean socialism, not social-democratism.
The government takeover is everywhere.

 

[bripat9643]

The truth that the ignorant cannot accept is there is no such thing as a utopia. The politicians main job is to sell utopia to the gullible.

Having said that, we also need to realize that PURE CAPITALISM is as dangerous as PURE SOCIALISM (communism.) The believers in either of these two ideologies (the pure versions of both) believe in this mythical utopia that does not exist.

That's just plain bullshit.

Pure capitalism does not (theoretically) guard against monopolies. Tyrants would eventually rise and they certainly did in this country until Teddy put an end to the 80/hr work week, deplorable working conditions etc etc etc etc.

Monopolies simply can't exist under laizzes faire capitalism, so your claim is once again, pure leftist bullshit. Henry Ford brought in the 40 hour week, not that goose-stepping idiot Teddy Roosevelt.

On the other hand, the socialists buy into this notion that all of these companies are simply evil. Most of these companies that are profit driven are simply an enemy to the poor. Never mind that these profit incentives is the reason that many of us enjoy the amenities that we all have. The products that many of us take for granted were virtually all pursued with that evil profit incentive. The fairy tale of robinhood appeals to many, and most people certainly take joy in watching some trust fund skank like Paris Hilton have to spend a few nights in a jail cell.

My perspective is capitalism works MOST PRACTICAL in a monetary system. Although, I do not support monopolies and regulations are necessary. However, the level to which these regulations has caused strife in the middle class (the small business owner.) The government's enemy is the power that we the people have. The government is certainly motivated to gaining that power from the people and they are very skilled at using rhetoric to convince the masses the government knows best. They oppress minorities by convincing them they are perpetual victims.

Did this post have a point of some kind?

 

[bripat9643]

Monopolies are the result of govt. favoritism. You'd be hard pressed to find an example of a monopoly formed through free market capitalism conditions.

This.
Back in the days of the robber barons the few businesses commonly called "monopolies" in fact *lowered* prices of goods for people below where they had been. Because the businesses were scared of competition rising up.
Libs are bad at math. Libs are bad at history. Libs are bad at logic.

The classic example of a monopoly resulting from unregulated capitalism is Standard Oil. The biggest share of the market Standard Oil ever attained was 80%, and that was only for a very short period. Furthermore, the whole Standard Oil's existence it lowered the price of kerosene every year. The reason Standard Oil's competitors hated it so much is the fact that they couldn't compete with it on the basis of price.

This so-called "monopoly" sure was bad for consumers, wasn't it?

 

[regent]

Can anyone name a nation or nations that practice a pure economic system, i.e. capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, mercantilism, feudalism or other? Seems most economic systems are mixtures, as is the United States. I know no nation has ever practiced pure communism, but I threw it in anyway.

 

[bripat9643]

Pure capitalism isn't utopia. What it is, is the maximum level of freedom for the individual economically.

Well, I would say it offers the best opportunity for the ambitious. Yes, the freedom to choose and PURSUIT of happiness.

No, what capitalism offers is the best chances for competition which means decentralization of economic power. Tyrants require authority over others. That sort of authority comes with force and coercion. The hallmarks of government. Teddy created band aids over previous govt. involvement and meddling.

The problem as I see it is we would be awfully naive if we DON"T think some regulations are needed. How is it that the government prior to Teddy meddled if they allowed such deplorable working conditions etc etc? There were real problems and these companies did not need to comply with any regulations, cause there were in fact NO regulations. .

It's actually more naïve to believe that regulations serve any purpose other than to benefit large corporations at the expense of their smaller competitors. There were no work-place regulations until the Roosevelt Administration, so all your talk of Teddy Roosevelt is a non sequitur. Furthermore, what to work place conditions have to do with anti-trust regulations?

Are you saying that companies ought to be able to have any working conditions what so ever? I am confused by the notion that the government prior to Teddy was meddlesome. How so? Can you be specific? Ever see the beef industry and what the conditions were like? .

No, but it's naïve to believe the corporations want to provide workers with a horrible working environment. Competition for the best labor motivates employers to provide the best working conditions they can afford. Massive lawsuits motivate corporations to make their work places as safe as possible. It's naïve to believe the regulations are what made the work place safer.

f by monetary system, you're referring to govt. control of the money supply and what can be used as money, then I disagree. Capitalism requires a free market. A free market means competitive currency and a people's chosen store of wealth outside of the controls of a few "I knew best" planners. Monopolies are the result of govt. favoritism. You'd be hard pressed to find an example of a monopoly formed through free market capitalism conditions.

I am pretty sure you can have a free market with some regulations. .

Uh . . . no, you can't. The term "regulated free market" is an oxymoron.

The list of over regulations is the concern. That is socialism, and that is problem today. Like I said, there is no such thing as a utopia. What the left is doing today (I try not to call them liberals cause they in fact are not really liberals) is trying to APPEAR as though they truly care about the poor or down trodden. They are not, and hardly any of them care. Especially those limousine "liberals." What the left is most concerned about acceptance from their peers. They hardly ever actually stand for a thing. They are driven into a type of frenzy over various subjects, and often it is because the praetorian media who has an obvious agenda.

No one ever claimed capitalism produces Utopia. However, it's the closest thing to it you will ever find on this earth.

 

[bripat9643]

Can anyone name a nation or nations that practice a pure economic system, i.e. capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, mercantilism, feudalism or other? Seems most economic systems are mixtures, as is the United States. I know no nation has ever practiced pure communism, but I threw it in anyway.

The classic liberal idiocy:

Pure capitalism doesn't exist, so it can't be a good thing.​

Simply to state it is to understand how moronic it is.

 

[Whereisup]

The truth that the ignorant cannot accept is there is no such thing as a utopia. The politicians main job is to sell utopia to the gullible.

Having said that, we also need to realize that PURE CAPITALISM is as dangerous as PURE SOCIALISM (communism.) The believers in either of these two ideologies (the pure versions of both) believe in this mythical utopia that does not exist. .

we practically speaking lost any benefits of the capitalism, especially during the last 5 years.
It is turning to fascist society - which is a state monopoly over private enterprise with selected few big businesses protected - and corruption flourishing.

It is not socialism yet but it is on the way to it. And I mean socialism, not social-democratism.
The government takeover is everywhere.

Actually, you are quoting corporation propaganda which they are using to keep people from noticing that the corporations are forming a non-democratic corporate oligarchy. Since the corporations own most of the media, it is easy for them to decide what the American public will and won't be told.

The government often passes laws to help large corporations because the corporations bribe many members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats. They bribe them with arranging campaign donations from various sources they have control of way higher than any other group can. For example, top executives and major shareholders of corporations often coordinate their campaign contributions. In addition, corporations give highly paid jobs to members of Congress after they leave office.

They bribe other officials too. Notice that when he left office, President Clinton was in debt. After he left office, a number of wealthy people arranged for him to make vast amounts of money for lectures, often hundreds of thousands of dollars per lecture, and other things, so even after paying taxes and living quite well, President Clinton is worth more than 100 million dollars. President Carter didn't do that, and the Clintons cut the Carters at President Obama's first inauguration by walking past the Carters without a word and without shaking their hands, but saying a word and shaking the hands of everyone else.

So lobbyists of corporations write large chunks of all the important bills in Congress.

So it's not the government which controls the corporations.

It is the corporations that control the government.

However, the media owned by the corporations don't investigate that and bring it to the attention of the public. Corporations cover up what they are doing by keeping the attention of the public focused on sex scandals, on complaints that government is doing things all wrong, etc.

If you really look at important problems, you will notice that it is the corporations, not the government, which has caused them.

For example, it is Walmart, not the government, which has driven at least a million small businesses out of business, not the government. It is Walmart and chains which refuse to stock the products that new small American manufacturing companies produce, not the government. It is the large corporations which have exported jobs, not the government.

One reason people don't see through this is that they still think corporations are like corporations were 50 or 60 years ago. Corporations are vastly larger and more powerful now. Numbers have been changing, but about 50 corporations are larger than all but 50 of the world's nations, with the largest corporations being larger than more nations than just all but 50. Compare gross receipts with Gross Domestic Products.

Fundamentally, the largest corporations are the equivalent of foreign nations and they put their own interests above the welfare of the United States.

In ancient Athens, an attempt was made to prevent corruption of government by appointing the highest government officials by random selection from among all the citizens. That wouldn't work here if the citizens continue to be misled about what is really going on, however.

I suppose that since corporations are acting like nations, it is possible that the problem might be solved by letting citizens vote for half the members of the Boards of Directors of the Corporations, although that might not work either.

Another possibility would be to require any corporation which becomes too large to split into daughter corporations. That would reduce their power, and the shareholders would merely own several different stocks instead of one. But I'm not sure that would be the best idea either.

I would very much like to see message board people come up with some additional outside the box ideas for solutions.

Jim

 

[editec]

I would very much like to see message board people come up with some additional outside the box ideas for solutions.

Jim

Its really not all that complex.

CHANGE THE CHARTERS REGARDING WHAT CORPORATIONS CAN AND CANNOT DO.

Basically return corporations to what they were back in 1789...specific legal fictions chartered by the government for the sole purpose of one undertaking AND NO OTHER.

Corporations are now NOTHING like they were when the Flounder Fathers wrote the constitution.

Has they KNOWN what the SCOTUS was going to do to corporations, I have NO DOUBT they'd have incorporated safeguards to prevent corporation from becoming what they have become...legal FRANKENSTIENS

 

[regent]

Can anyone name a nation or nations that practice a pure economic system, i.e. capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, mercantilism, feudalism or other? Seems most economic systems are mixtures, as is the United States. I know no nation has ever practiced pure communism, but I threw it in anyway.

The classic liberal idiocy:

Pure capitalism doesn't exist, so it can't be a good thing.​

Simply to state it is to understand how moronic it is.

So far the mixture of capitalism and socialism seems seems to be the best economic system. The problem with pure capitalism is keeping it pure, and to do that requires constant laws and regulations. Any system based on greed has to be supervised, but with the laws and regulations capitalism brings us more for less than any other economic system.
If you could name a country that practices pure capitalism, then we could make a better judgement as to how it works, but so far those countries are rare, if at all. Why?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Can anyone name a nation or nations that practice a pure economic system, i.e. capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, mercantilism, feudalism or other? Seems most economic systems are mixtures, as is the United States. I know no nation has ever practiced pure communism, but I threw it in anyway.

The classic liberal idiocy:

Pure capitalism doesn't exist, so it can't be a good thing.​

Simply to state it is to understand how moronic it is.

You can't answer the question.

"Can anyone name a nation or nations that practice a pure economic system ...?"

 

[JimmieD]

The truth that the ignorant cannot accept is there is no such thing as a utopia. The politicians main job is to sell utopia to the gullible.

Having said that, we also need to realize that PURE CAPITALISM is as dangerous as PURE SOCIALISM (communism.) The believers in either of these two ideologies (the pure versions of both) believe in this mythical utopia that does not exist.

Pure capitalism does not (theoretically) guard against monopolies. Tyrants would eventually rise and they certainly did in this country until Teddy put an end to the 80/hr work week, deplorable working conditions etc etc etc etc.

What do you mean when you say "pure capitalism?"

 

[whitehall]

In a "monetary system"? Is there any other system around except a monetary system? Does anybody in the greatest Country in the world still doubt capitalism? With capitalism comes graft, greed corruption and the freaking freedom to become rich and successful. Would you have it any other way? Why do we have this discussion every time a left wing democrat gets elected? Capitalism might have it's faults but surely even the self centered generation understands that socialism makes everyone equally miserable and poor and dependent on despots who live in luxury.

 

[JimmieD]

I assume by "pure capitalism" we're talking about a model with the following assumptions:

-Utility maximization by households/individuals
-Profit maximization by firms
-perfect competition
-frictionless prices and wages
-unlimited buyers and sellers
-perfect capital mobility
-no entry or exit barriers
-perfect information
-rational preferences
-no transaction costs
-no search costs
-capital, labor, goods and services are homogeneous
-no externalities
-economic agents are price takers

One can relax any of those assumptions and still be capitalist though. It only takes a glance to figure out that some of those don't always (or ever) hold in the real world and only serve to simplify how to think about economic ideas.

 

[The Rabbi]

Can anyone name a nation or nations that practice a pure economic system, i.e. capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, mercantilism, feudalism or other? Seems most economic systems are mixtures, as is the United States. I know no nation has ever practiced pure communism, but I threw it in anyway.

The classic liberal idiocy:

Pure capitalism doesn't exist, so it can't be a good thing.​

Simply to state it is to understand how moronic it is.

You can't answer the question.

"Can anyone name a nation or nations that practice a pure economic system ...?"

All of them are a pure economic system.
But what you're probably asking is whether any of them are ideologically purely communism, capitalism or whatever.
No.
What was your point again?