View Full Version : Can capitalism exist without govt
tmoneynegro
10-13-2011, 01:45 AM
edit: Fuck, I messed up the poll title, it should read "Can Capitalism exist without govt"
There were a bunch of D- students in P99 chat like Abacab claiming capitalism can't exist without govt.
Capitalism Defintion: private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism
There are no government agencies listed as requirements for that. Furthermore, if only 2 people exist on the entire planet and they barter a boulder for a dead rat, that is capitalism.
Csihar
10-13-2011, 04:30 AM
Furthermore, if only 2 people exist on the entire planet and they barter a boulder for a dead rat, that is capitalism.
No.
tmoneynegro
10-13-2011, 05:13 AM
No.
Then what is it? Another D student claiming something isn't capitalism yet can't explain what it would be. Simple "barter" is in fact capitalism.
Estrang
10-13-2011, 07:48 AM
you are stupid if you think a thread like this will win over Secret's heart
Csihar
10-13-2011, 07:53 AM
No.
Doors
10-13-2011, 10:32 AM
I voted for Boo Berry because its my most favoritist cereal in the whole wide world.
Doors
10-13-2011, 11:02 AM
Aw someone deleted my second comment. Joke ruined.
This is a horrible phrased question, there are so many factors to consider.
First, most free-market proponent, and even most anarcho-capitalist will agree that there is a necessary function of the government in a capitalist economy. Even in a truly free market, there needs to be a general guideline for conduct (contract law notably), as well as a place to settle disputes in relation to those guidelines (judicial system), as well as a mixed bag of other albeit less "economic" functions (defense, etc).
Now, despite your definition, as we've seen through our current economy, the whole idea of capitalism is a slightly ambiguous term. You really need to look at the entire economy to question whether government is necessary. Are you going to have a purely barter economy? If not, what kind of banking system would the economy have? If there was fractional reserve banking, would those banks be supported by a centralized reserve bank? What would be used as a medium of exchange? Gold? Gold backed currency? Fiat currency? If fiat currency, who would regulate and control it? I mean, if we're talking about the US dollar, you really have to think about the implications there as well. Since 1971, the US dollar has essentially been akin to gold in that is a universally accepted store of wealth - which has further implications when you start to think about the fact that the US government could essentially print gold (not really, but you get my point). That isn't even considering aspects of monetary policy conducted by a central governing body, which is something I won't get into...
So to answer your question, no. A free market economy certainly can exist in a variety of forms, but unless we return to a barter economy (and even then not really) we need some sort of governing body (not necessarily a federal government) to provide those fundamental and very limited guidelines and services.
I happen to be a proponent of the Austrian and Chicago schools of economics (there are aspects of both I really like; and yes, I know they're not the same thing..) which both tend to favor free markets. However, despite what the MSM and people like Krugman would have you believe, even us wacky free-marketers understand the need for limited regulation. The disagreement has never been over "government" or "no government" - it has been about "how much government". History has shown time and time again that intervention in the markets leads to unnaturally large bubbles that eventually burst. This all stems for the Keynesian idea that we can promote constant economic growth through the use of monetary policy to avoid down turns in the economy. There is a lot of debate about this even among economist, but the thinking I tend to agree with is that intervention through monetary policy only exaggerates the natural highs and lows of the business cycle, something which I tend to think is undesirable.
Harrison
10-13-2011, 11:25 AM
Aw someone deleted my second comment. Joke ruined.
You mean blatant racism isn't allowed on the forums?! NOWAI
tmoneynegro
10-13-2011, 12:24 PM
First, most free-market proponent, and even most anarcho-capitalist will agree that there is a necessary function of the government in a capitalist economy.
The question has nothing to do with your opinions of how the world should operate. It's about textbook definitions.
If the US govt collapsed tomorrow, capitalism can exist with no "state" being around at all.
Well, I try not to be reckless with what I say when I'm talking about things that deal with economics. How people equate capitalism and government's role in it differs vastly from person to person, and considering the general lack of education out there, giving a simple yes or no to a question like that serves no real purpose. If you actually read what I said, I got to a point where I said "no, capitalism could not exist without government".. that was my opinion given my definition of the two words. Everything before that was just me qualifying why I thought it was a poorly phrased questioned. If you actually look up the dictionary definition of capitalism, you'll find that it isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be.
Murphy
10-13-2011, 01:33 PM
I'm surprised most people aren't realizing that unregulated capitalism and a market economy based on consumption is inherently unsustainable given limited resources.
The economy's purpose is to produce and for the population to consume ad infinitum, with those seeking a profit continually seeking further profit ad inifinitum -- this will reach a breaking point when there is nothing left to consume or the planet is rendered uninhabitable due to continued catastrophic pollutants and so on.
Marx pointed out that an economy based on endless production and consumption such as that is clearly not going to work out and anyone who understands that things on this planet are obviously limited in such a way as to make eternal growth an impossible ideal at best. The best capitalism can hope for is to continue to live on parasitically through some form or other of keynesian gov't intervention or the whole house of cards will come down on the heads of the financiers who created the money that clearly does not relate to anything such as material or labor.
Murphy
10-13-2011, 01:43 PM
Basically an outline of what he says is this:
" Marx assumed that the competitive processes of a capitalist market society would lead to a concentration of capital ownership in fewer and fewer hands. Marx built this claim on the assumption, which he holds in common with laissez faire economics, that a competitive economy must lead inevitably to the elimination of some producers by others, there must be winners and losers and the winners would grow increasingly large. Capitalism, Marx argued, contrary to the general assumption of laissez faire economics, had an inherent tendency towards concentration of capital in oligopolies and monopolies. The concentration of capital involved, first of all, the displacement of the handworker and the craftsworker and increasing domination of factory-based technology. An industrial proletariat of wage workers emerged, and grew larger, as independent producers were eliminated by factory-based competition. Capitalist corporations grew more concentrated and larger, the number of individuals owning the means of production became fewer. The class structure becomes polarized and the economic and social conditions of the two opposed main classes more strongly contrasted, leading to political activation of the working class and prolonged conflict with the dominant bourgeois class through political and industrial organization. It is this development of social polarization that provides the unsolveable social or relational contradiction of capitalist society. The social organization of a capitalist society also presented an inherent structural contradiction in the economic dynamics of capitalism. While capitalism revolutionized the means of production by promoting the greatest economic development in human history, its class structure focused the capacity to consume in a tiny minority of the population. The mass social scale of production could not remain compatible with the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. As a result, there must be inherent instability, or anarchy, in the whole capitalist system of production. The social effects of such instability in turn must intensify the political struggle of social classes hastening the event of socialist revolution"
Obviously the idea of socialist revolution is utopian in a way, as Marx held a positive hope in the working class coming together in unity, and it definitely is a possibility, however it's just one of many kinds of possible revolutions -- that there will be tumult is more than likely, but what kind of revolution and structure that comes out of it is up in the air for certain.
pickled_heretic
10-13-2011, 02:31 PM
yes, but a better question is to ask: can humans exist without a government?
Samoht
10-13-2011, 02:50 PM
The economy's purpose is to produce and for the population to consume ad infinitum, with those seeking a profit continually seeking further profit ad inifinitum -- this will reach a breaking point when there is nothing left to consume or the planet is rendered uninhabitable due to continued catastrophic pollutants and so on.
Or, as in the case of the current US economic problems, those seeking profit have all of the currency available in their possession and those seeking goods have no currency remaining. From here, the currency shifts and the process of fleecing consumers starts over again.
" Marx assumed that the competitive processes of a capitalist market society would lead to a concentration of capital ownership in fewer and fewer hands.
Exactly.
Or, as in the case of the current US economic problems, those seeking profit have all of the currency available in their possession and those seeking goods have no currency remaining. From here, the currency shifts and the process of fleecing consumers starts over again.
Not possible. Firms do not keep and hold money. People may hold money, and they may hold a lot compared to other people; but if we're talking about all capital being diverted to the firms so that the consumers have no funds to purchase goods and services, that can't happen. The amount being "held" by the "1%" is for the most part, invested in firms, and the amount that isn't is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. This financial crisis might mean a lot of things, and may surprise a lot of us looking back on it when we realize how there were certain things we just didn't understand - but the idea that massive wealth accumulation could essentially starve the consumption side of the economy thus crippling the production side is not among those things.
Edit: I typed all that out without getting to my final point, which was that many people who cite Marx and make similar arguments to this are acting upon the notion that wealth is finite. There is a set amount of wealth, and it is simply distributed. The simple fact is wealth is created. Things that are worthless by themselves can be combined to be worth something. The fact that you can take materials that are worth a small value, rearrange them, and magically they have increased in value proves that wealth is an infinite concept - there is no limit to wealth, and thus the idea of it being distributed in set amounts is simply wrong.
Samoht
10-13-2011, 04:12 PM
Not possible. Firms do not keep and hold money.
Nobody ever said they did. I don't see how that is pertinent, anyway. What firms do with their profits is grant it to investors and corporate officers (see also: the rich) as dividends and bonus checks and then they pass down losses to their employees (see also: the poor) by way off wage/benefit cuts or plain old lay-offs.
Privitising profit while socializing debt will eventually remove all capital from the market.
Oh, and capital is definitely finite, otherwise inflation would be out of control.
bonehand
10-13-2011, 04:45 PM
Pure capitalism is only relevant within the domain of economics, thus has no influence of governmental rule.
The problem with society today is that those who are in positions of power in the governments of the world, not just the US, are being greatly influenced by the needs of the corporations and funded by corporations. Thus, in todays society, it is an essential part of governance that the needs of the corporations be met first before the needs of the people. This then implies that there could be no governemnt in many nations without capitalism...however, if one pays attention to the US political system, the realization that this is a broken form of governance.
iamoenaj
10-14-2011, 04:31 AM
Pure capitalism is only relevant within the domain of economics, thus has no influence of governmental rule.
The problem with society today is that those who are in positions of power in the governments of the world, not just the US, are being greatly influenced by the needs of the corporations and funded by corporations. Thus, in todays society, it is an essential part of governance that the needs of the corporations be met first before the needs of the people. This then implies that there could be no governemnt in many nations without capitalism...however, if one pays attention to the US political system, the realization that this is a broken form of governance.
You're really missing the point. Your implication falls a tad short. A reason, along with others, for why big corporations are kept afloat or assisted by the government (you and I, if you pay your taxes), is because people are no longer self-reliant. Money systems/bartering is no longer localized (unless you live in Berkshire, Mass). Food you consume in one day can come from all the continents of the world..well maybe not one of them. Your life is supported by water you didn't have to retrieve, food you didn't have to grow, and electricity that runs your entire life, clothes you didn't have to make..and the list goes on and on. Corporations do most of the work, in which there is TONS, to produce the products you consume.
Capitalism exists at its best when not controlled by strict regulatory policies. It heavily depends on the fluctuating supply and demand cycle and competition to produce a better and cheaper product. This though, can create some ethical issues, and has, which is why there is an existing bureaucratic burden imposed on e v e r y t h i n g.
*edit* I just realized I argued my point on capitalism existing without governance with the current US system in mind. You have to have some sort of authority/regulatory body. Take Jabba the Hutt for example...yeah, I went there.
tmoneynegro
10-14-2011, 06:26 AM
Well the poll is fucked up because I accidentally labeled it
"Can capitalism exist with govt"
instead of
"Can capitalism exist without govt"
So god knows what people are actually voting for
Corrodith
10-14-2011, 07:46 AM
As soon as you have taxation, you no longer have pure capitalism. Capitalism and government are really mutually exclusive.
As far as these questions of currency, banking (fractional vs. full reserve), contract law etc., these things CAN be handled in the free market.
Dispute resolution organizations would be third parties signed on to any contract where each party in the contract wanted insurance of enforcement of the contract. There could be many competing organizations of this sort, ensuring that the most reputable, fair standards for contract dispute resolution.
Fractional reserve vs. full reserve, etc - Why does there have to be just one answer? You can have multiple banks and currencies competing against each other.
Samoht
10-14-2011, 08:14 AM
Capitalism exists at its best when not controlled by strict regulatory policies. It heavily depends on the fluctuating supply and demand cycle and competition to produce a better and cheaper product.
Spoken like a true republican! Unfortunately, since either A) the wool is over your eyes or B) you have a rather large investment in sheep, you fail to see that without regulation, a "supply" and "demand" economy quickly turns into a "withhold" and "speculate" economy. Still using modern US as an example, let's look at oil: we have plenty of crude, but the price of gasoline stays high? Why?
A) Manufacturers limit refinement so that they can create false-shortages and drive the prices up.
B) Investors create an OPEC scare saying there's going to be conflict tomorrow/next week/next year, and they drive prices up.
And after all of that, they yell, "Don't tax me, bro!"
Conglomerates need to be outlawed. Futures need to be outlawed. Without regulation at every level, the 1% will control every part of your economy and government as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Businesses do NOT pass savings on to consumers. They do NOT create more jobs with their wealth. They privitise their profits and pass the cost along to everybody else.
Hoggen
10-14-2011, 10:13 AM
Using the simplest definition of government, i.e. a monopoly on force, there has been no sustained period in human history where government has not existed, so your question is irrelevant.
Samoht, you can't take one sector of the economy (oil), which happens to be largely run by cartels (like opec) and then argue that it is representative of an economy as a whole. That is like me taking the natural monopoly provided to utility companies and using their actions to forecast the actions of a restaurant - one faces competition while the other does not. Oil is a very particular sector of the economy and not at all representative of economic actions under competition.
Generally speaking, savings are passed on to the consumer so as to attain a higher share of the market, thus increasing profits. This has been shown time and time again - there are even instances in which savings beyond actual cost of production were passed to the consumer due to competition (Utah Pie Company v. Continental) - given there were monopolistic factors there - but still. You don't see me sitting here claiming that all companies will sell their products at below cost because I have one example of that having happened.
Again, wealth is not finite - capital may be finite, but capital and wealth are two different things. The rich are getting richer, but every statistic says that the poor are getting richer too (rich relative to past rich, poor relative to past poor). I'm not sure where (aside from marx) you got these ideas from, but even modern economics that I think are generally wrong tend to disagree with the majority of what you're saying - there is simply too much evidence to the contrary.
rikustrength
10-14-2011, 10:36 AM
We have capitalism on p99 with no government so...
We have capitalism on p99 with no government so...
If you rip someone off in a trade what happens? If someone is farming an item (think production) and you steal their camp, what happens? The GMs are our government on P99. They make and enforce rules about general conduct - that can definitely be described as governing.
Samoht
10-14-2011, 10:51 AM
Samoht, you can't take one sector of the economy (oil), which happens to be largely run by cartels (like opec) and then argue that it is representative of an economy as a whole. That is like me taking the natural monopoly provided to utility companies and using their actions to forecast the actions of a restaurant - one faces competition while the other does not. Oil is a very particular sector of the economy and not at all representative of economic actions under competition.
You're ignorant if you believe that oil is the only part of this economy where this occurs. Ever heard of banks? Housing? Cell phones?
They're all out of control, and any cost-effective competition is immediately bought out to improve profits or sued so that they're tied up in litigation long enough to make them irrelevant.
There was a thread somewhere asking why the price of FBSS was so high on P99. It's because the people with all of the plat sit around in EC and buy them all creating a false shortage as they resale them at a fixed price.
Capitalism is always corrupt. Capitalism is never the answer.
I'm not saying that - but I'm saying no one sector is representative of an economy, and you actually have to look at each sector before making any conclusions.
Cell phones have 4 national players, as well as numerous regional (alltel, us cellular are examples) - comparing that to the oil industry is ridiculous. I think you fail to understand the costs associated with cell phones - especially given the recent influx in internet capable phones. Basic I/O tells us that for firms, profit maximization occurs when their marginal revenue is equal to their marginal cost. There is not a single cell phone company out there making profits any where near that point.
As for banking and housing - I'm not sure what you're talking about, nor how you can compare those things to cell phones or oil with a straight face. There is a great peter schiff lecture that discusses the housing crisis - which had a number of contributing factors. You really need to be more specific.. you can't just say "LOOK AT HOUSES AND BANKS!" and expect that to prove any point. What exactly about housing and banking are you talking about? Issues in both industries have specific and often interlinked causes.
Hoggen
10-14-2011, 11:08 AM
You're ignorant if you believe that oil is the only part of this economy where this occurs. Ever heard of banks? Housing? Cell phones?
You can buy large multi-bedroom houses in Detroit MI for under 50 k. Why? Because regulation and the National Labor Board drove all industry out of the city, and the supply of homes available is staggering. Was that the result of Capitalism? No, it was the result of government intervention.
You say Capitalism is always corrupt, and never the answer. What is the answer then? What works better?
pickled_heretic
10-14-2011, 11:13 AM
Why? Because regulation and the National Labor Board drove all industry out of the city
this statement is extremely facetious. there are a lot of forces at work in the world that have closed down factories and mills, not the least of which is the rapid industrialization of china and their subsequent entry into the international sphere of trading...
Samoht
10-14-2011, 11:20 AM
You can buy large multi-bedroom houses in Detroit MI for under 50 k. Why?
You're looking at this from the buyer standpoint, but what if you were the home owner? What if you paid 300k+ for that home and are forced to take a 250k loss because of lack of government regulation? Or worse, what if the bank foreclosed on you and stole that home right from under you and your family, and you lost all of that investment?
And why are builders still building in cities with so many vacant homes already on the market? Why would a new buyer pay $150k for a 10 year old home that the owner already took a huge loss on by lowering the price down from 200+ when they can buy a brand new one across the street for less than 125? Do home builders really make that much money that they can drop the cost of making a house by 50% after 10 years and still turn profit? Or are they teamed up with the banks to help drive existing prices down and get more walkout/foreclosures on existing houses while they continue to capitalize on new home mortgages?
Either way, it's crooked.
Hoggen
10-14-2011, 11:31 AM
You're looking at this from the buyer standpoint, but what if you were the home owner? What if you paid 300k+ for that home and are forced to take a 250k loss because of lack of government regulation? Or worse, what if the bank foreclosed on you and stole that home right from under you and your family, and you lost all of that investment?
Again, what is your solution Sam? Give houses away for free? Who decides what kind of house you live in? Do they all have to be exactly the same? If so, who will build them? You decry Capitalism but still refuse to offer an alternative.
Hoggen
10-14-2011, 11:35 AM
this statement is extremely facetious. there are a lot of forces at work in the world that have closed down factories and mills, not the least of which is the rapid industrialization of china and their subsequent entry into the international sphere of trading...
You ignore the fact that the US government has the power to impose tariffs and has failed to do so in the face of virtual slave labor and currency manipulation on the part of China. Again the onus is on government, not Capitalism. When government fails to protect the people it supposedly represents, it's hard to blame Capitalism. Transferring wealth to the third world to equalize the misery everywhere does not lead to prosperity, but it seems to be the goal of the US government, and has been for decades. That's not Capitalism.
pickled_heretic
10-14-2011, 11:37 AM
impose tariffs.
That's not Capitalism.
you said it better than I ever could have.
Samoht
10-14-2011, 11:43 AM
the onus is on government, not Capitalism.
But since Capitalists run the government, your just shifting blame so that they're allowed to skirt the responsibility. Any time such a tariff is proposed, republicans, lobbyists, and corporations cry fowl and pump enough money into the pockets of elected officials to get it overturned.
When government fails to protect the people it supposedly represents
Wait, are you supporting or against me? This thread is about government regulation and intervention in economics, not defending the capitalists agenda.
iamoenaj
10-14-2011, 11:49 AM
Spoken like a true republican! Unfortunately, since either A) the wool is over your eyes or B) you have a rather large investment in sheep, you fail to see that without regulation, a "supply" and "demand" economy quickly turns into a "withhold" and "speculate" economy. Still using modern US as an example, let's look at oil: we have plenty of crude, but the price of gasoline stays high? Why?
A) Manufacturers limit refinement so that they can create false-shortages and drive the prices up.
B) Investors create an OPEC scare saying there's going to be conflict tomorrow/next week/next year, and they drive prices up.
And after all of that, they yell, "Don't tax me, bro!"
Conglomerates need to be outlawed. Futures need to be outlawed. Without regulation at every level, the 1% will control every part of your economy and government as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Businesses do NOT pass savings on to consumers. They do NOT create more jobs with their wealth. They privitise their profits and pass the cost along to everybody else.
It's kind of funny how you didn't include that last few sentences of mine so that you could make this argument.
I did say there needs to be some sort of governing body. Not one that gives handouts to make people dependent on your 1%, but one that regulates unfair practices and disputes. That's it.
And once again your arguments that corporations pass their profits to the shareholders and give all the costs to the consumers..lol. Really? Stop buying their product or service if you believe that...boom.
If you're weak, you won't survive. Your way of thinking makes a good humanitarian case, but I think it's obvious to see where that has led us. The US has grown weak with less critical thinkers and ambitious people. Nobody is held accountable for their actions now. That is the problem that results from your argument of heavy regulation and policy. There is no risk but a safe little bed for you to live your life of mediocrity on.
Oh, and I'm not Republican. Like that is a put down to be affiliated with one of the two major parties? Start thinking for yourself.
Kika Maslyaka
10-14-2011, 11:55 AM
Capitalism indeed CAN exist without a government
However, at in what form will it exist is a whole different issue.
For example, luck of government involvement, and strong believe that government should not control free market system, is what lead to economical crisis of 30s and great depression in US
On other hand, total government control over economy (socialist planned economy) is what lead to bankruptcy and fall of Soviet Union.
Pick your choice :D
Samoht
10-14-2011, 12:02 PM
Stop buying their product or service if you believe that...boom.
What a sham. You HAVE to have gasoline to work. You HAVE to have a house for shelter. You HAVE to use a phone for the most basic communication over any amount of distance longer than right in front of you.
You are FORCED to use these services or live in the stone age. There's no choice. It's a monopoly and a farce. They use price fixing to keep profits high and don't ever pass savings on to the consumer. This is capitalism.
On other hand, total government control over economy (socialist planned economy) is what lead to bankruptcy and fall of Soviet Union.
Misconception. It was greedy leaders keeping profit for themselves (with assistance from CIA agents aimed at toppling "communism") that led to the fall of the USSR. Someone needs to remind the Republicans in America that you have to actually feed the poor or they will revolt.
Hoggen
10-14-2011, 12:08 PM
But since Capitalists run the government, your just shifting blame so that they're allowed to skirt the responsibility. Any time such a tariff is proposed, republicans, lobbyists, and corporations cry fowl and pump enough money into the pockets of elected officials to get it overturned.
Since when do "Capitalists" run the government? When has the US ever made a profit from any of its wars, charity giveaways, or foreign aid? The US government takes the product of Capitalism, i.e. Capital, and spends it. It produces nothing. Many in government steal, take bribes, or create policy that leads to them profiting, but to say the government is run by Capitalists is like saying dogs are run by fleas. Just because the government takes from the producer doesn't mean it is a producer or has any meaningful connection to the producer other than the act of taking. The current US government does little to provide for the future of the country or the current prosperity and opposes any change that threatens its hegemony on power.
You mention Republicans, lobbyists, and corporations as if Democrats don't own and run and profit from corporations and you exclude Democrats from those that block any viable legislation that will decrease the flow of wealth out of the country. Apparently you know noting of the legislation that's been approved overwhelmingly by Democrats in the past four years, let alone the laws and policies of the past ten decades. They give money to competitors and enemies to replace US interests. Specifics would be one billion given to Mexico to do deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico at the same time that such drilling was banned in US waters: as if our water isn't touched by the water Mexico drills in. Another billion given to Brazil for the same purpose. Those were "stimulus" bill components.
If you go back to TARP, which was overwhelmingly passed by a Democratic congress and strongly backed by then nominee Barack Obama, you have money being given to multinational and foreign banks.
All of this in just the past three years: none of it benefiting the US in a Capitalist sense, all of it with overwhelming Democratic backing. It would seem you are a football team fan, routing for your Democrat home team that loses over and over again, while railing against the Republican football team that you perceive as the enemy. Try dealing with facts instead of emotion and propaganda.
Samoht
10-14-2011, 12:11 PM
When has the US ever made a profit from any of its wars
Are you serious? Do you know who Prescott Bush or Dick Cheney are? Or how they might have benefited from demolishing 7 WTC or invading Iraq, respectively?
Do you realise that most congressmen and senators after they retire often sit on boards or are consultants for the corporations that influenced their decisions while in office?
Apparently you know noting of the legislation that's been approved overwhelmingly by Democrats in the past four years
Lol, nothing has been passed in the last four years as the Republican controlled congress is trying to turn Obama into a lame duck.
iamoenaj
10-14-2011, 12:12 PM
What a sham. You HAVE to have gasoline to work. You HAVE to have a house for shelter. You HAVE to use a phone for the most basic communication over any amount of distance longer than right in front of you.
You are FORCED to use these services or live in the stone age. There's no choice. It's a monopoly and a farce. They use price fixing to keep profits high and don't ever pass savings on to the consumer. This is capitalism.
Misconception. It was greedy leaders keeping profit for themselves (with assistance from CIA agents aimed at toppling "communism") that led to the fall of the USSR. Someone needs to remind the Republicans in America that you have to actually feed the poor or they will revolt.
Nobody is forcing you. You assume the costs by accepting a greater increase to your way of life. You think a majority of the world has access to these services on a daily basis? You expect everything and whine when you can't get it for as cheap as you want.
Ride a bike to work, buy a moped, walk, take city transport. I'm so sorry you can't arrive to work or live without gasoline. You NEED a house? Im going to assume you meant a shelter. Livable and safe is subjective, do what it takes. You HAVE to have a phone? Write a letter. Do I need to say anymore on this?
iamoenaj
10-14-2011, 12:15 PM
Are you serious? Do you know who Prescott Bush or Dick Cheney are? Or how they might have benefited from demolishing 7 WTC or invading Iraq, respectively?
Do you realise that most congressmen and senators after they retire often sit on boards or are consultants for the corporations that influenced their decisions while in office?
Lol, nothing has been passed in the last four years as the Republican controlled congress is trying to turn Obama into a lame duck.
Trying? He already is. Both parties are to be blamed though. Each side wants its own agenda furthered and neither likes backing down.
Samoht
10-14-2011, 12:18 PM
take city transport. I'm so sorry you can't arrive to work or live without gasoline.
America isn't exactly known for it's mass-transit system and any attempts to set one up has been railroaded (lol puns) by anybody who profits from the existing gasoline based system.
You NEED a house? Im going to assume you meant a shelter. Livable and safe is subjective, do what it takes.
You HAVE to have a house for shelter.
Isn't that what I just said? You can argue semantics are you please, but the word house does not imply a 7-story, gold-trimmed mansion to the common American.
Write a letter.
Who is going to deliver it? Are you supporting that government involvement is needed, too?
Kika Maslyaka
10-14-2011, 12:32 PM
Misconception. It was greedy leaders keeping profit for themselves (with assistance from CIA agents aimed at toppling "communism") that led to the fall of the USSR. Someone needs to remind the Republicans in America that you have to actually feed the poor or they will revolt.
oh trust me, its not a misconception. No matter how much the leader kept for themselves, USSR, as a state would not have fallen if its economy wasn't a gigantic black hole. Modern Russian "patriots" just LOVE to scream how CIA destroyed the glorious USSR, while in fact USSR destroyed itself.
iamoenaj
10-14-2011, 12:40 PM
America isn't exactly known for it's mass-transit system and any attempts to set one up has been railroaded (lol puns) by anybody who profits from the existing gasoline based system.
Isn't that what I just said? You can argue semantics are you please, but the word house does not imply a 7-story, gold-trimmed mansion to the common American.
Who is going to deliver it? Are you supporting that government involvement is needed, too?
1. You're clearly missing the point. You're right that mass transit does suck for a lot of cities. Do what it takes to get to work. Traveling for 2 hours a day to get to work on foot sucks, but it can be done.
2. You're going to quote yourself then say you said it?
3. USPS, and yes I am. My argument for less government in regards to economics does not mean government shouldn't exist in any other facet.
I know that I said I'm finished replying to your posts before, but you actually came up with a few things that can be discussed since then. This post, however, just solidifies my argument of your lack of work ethic and general need to be taken care of. Really, go read a book on history and factual information. Not commentary that can be easily digested to control your emotions and thereby actions.
And saying that "be held accountable for your life decisions" is propaganda? rofl man..just rofl. You're a child needing to be taken care of.
*edit* Last sentence said "Do what it takes" instead of "be held accountable for your life decisions"... same thing. Lack of good decisions can be reflected on by your willingness to do what it takes.
Samoht
10-14-2011, 12:52 PM
And saying that "be held accountable for your life decisions" is propaganda? rofl man..just rofl. You're a child needing to be taken care of.
This is a line championed by the American "Republican" political party to demean and belittle the common worker. The people that parrot this line have no regard for the rights of others. The government's first responsibility is to take care of its people, whether they're poor, sick, old, or incapable of taking care of themselves. That doesn't mean they're lazy or needy.
Go read a book on philanthropy and stop trying to bleed profit out of a stone.
your lack of work ethic and general need to be taken care of
In the 2000's, I worked for five years for one of the wealthiest companies in the world - a true conglomerate. When I started, they were listed as one of the top companies in the world to work for. I got good ratings on my reviews, several raises and promotions as I watched them slowly cut benefits and raise costs of insurance. Stock options? Gone. Employee stock purchase program? Gone. 401k matching? Cut in half. Hiring was frozen. Morale was shot. They were no longer a top company to work for.
Yet they continued to flaunt record profits.
When the economy tanked, given their already tarnished reputation, they separated themselves from their workers as fast as possible. They moved many positions overseas (including mine) and bought their CEO's contract out for 12 million dollars. They immediately turned around and signed him on as a consultant with a 7 million dollars a year contract. How did that make any sense? This guy tanked the company and the value of its work ethic and he was getting rewarded while the common worker was left high and dry.
After that, I worked as a contractor at another conglomerate for 18 months before they were willing to offer me any kind of benefits.
Yet they continued to flaunt record profits.
How does any of that portray me as lazy or uneducated? This is how they treat their employees. There's no denying it. You're just spreading your own lies to try to make you feel better about your own agenda.
All these arguments showing places where you perceive capitalism as having failed just go to show that a reasonable capitalist society cannot exist without government - as I said in my original post.
This is way off topic, but these differing in views is exactly why I think America is too big for decisions like this. Why can socialism not exist in a capitalist society? There is nothing saying it can't - it would just have to be voluntary socialism. Trying to get 300 million people, most of which don't have the first clue when it comes to economy theory or models, to all agree upon what the best system is is ridiculous. This is the whole argument for libertarianism - create a free society in which people can enter into voluntary agreements and whatever results will be dictated by what each individual feels is in their best interest, so long as their best interest doesn't involve stripping the freedom they enjoy from others by use of force.
Aadill
10-14-2011, 02:18 PM
Loke's post can be applied to Samoht's workplace just as it can be applied to a country - even a business is sometimes too large. The problem is not everyone has the same interests.
iamoenaj
10-14-2011, 03:30 PM
This is a line championed by the American "Republican" political party to demean and belittle the common worker. The people that parrot this line have no regard for the rights of others. The government's first responsibility is to take care of its people, whether they're poor, sick, old, or incapable of taking care of themselves. That doesn't mean they're lazy or needy.
Go read a book on philanthropy and stop trying to bleed profit out of a stone.
In the 2000's, I worked for five years for one of the wealthiest companies in the world - a true conglomerate. When I started, they were listed as one of the top companies in the world to work for. I got good ratings on my reviews, several raises and promotions as I watched them slowly cut benefits and raise costs of insurance. Stock options? Gone. Employee stock purchase program? Gone. 401k matching? Cut in half. Hiring was frozen. Morale was shot. They were no longer a top company to work for.
Yet they continued to flaunt record profits.
When the economy tanked, given their already tarnished reputation, they separated themselves from their workers as fast as possible. They moved many positions overseas (including mine) and bought their CEO's contract out for 12 million dollars. They immediately turned around and signed him on as a consultant with a 7 million dollars a year contract. How did that make any sense? This guy tanked the company and the value of its work ethic and he was getting rewarded while the common worker was left high and dry.
After that, I worked as a contractor at another conglomerate for 18 months before they were willing to offer me any kind of benefits.
Yet they continued to flaunt record profits.
How does any of that portray me as lazy or uneducated? This is how they treat their employees. There's no denying it. You're just spreading your own lies to try to make you feel better about your own agenda.
Anyone can polish a turd. Is your profession expendable or unskilled? If so, live with your choice to work in that field. They outsourced? It's no surprise that a business is seeking higher profits no matter the location. It's a business. You work for it and not vice versa.
They are called benefits and not rights for a reason.
My overall argument to you, for this subject, is that you have choices. You can work where you want for what they offer. You are the only person that can decide how you want your value added to be compensated with for what is available to you at the time given your skills or lack thereof. Be thankful for that. It's not preferable to have to do away with things in your life that you have grown accustom to and have been lead to believe that it is your constitutional right to have. Yes, there are people who are corrupt and screw over the "common folk", but they do so right under your nose. You can stop it or mitigate its effects on you before it gets bad. Until peoples' quality of life is severely decreased, the "common folk" do nothing about it. This is what separates your line of thinking from mine. While you complain/whine/half-assed protest that you're getting screwed over in every way possible, I do whatever it takes to keep myself and my family fed, sheltered, and happy. Did I have to protest to demand what you call your basic rights? No, I spent my time wisely doing things I didn't want to do, living without things I wanted to have. Tough shit.
You are not entitled to anything. You are not special. You are the only one that can guarantee your own standard-of-living. I am 100% certain there are a range of things you can be doing to better your situation, but they require hard choices, and that is the problem.
Samoht
10-14-2011, 03:45 PM
Right, spoken like a true Republican who's only goal is to protect his profits and trample all over the rights of the common worker. You're the poster child for why regulation on every level is necessary.
purest
10-14-2011, 03:49 PM
I do whatever it takes to keep myself and my family fed, sheltered, and happy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRwK_XVfm0I&t=2m10s
Feachie
10-14-2011, 03:50 PM
All these arguments showing places where you perceive capitalism as having failed just go to show that a reasonable capitalist society cannot exist without government
this. bolded for emphasis, and underlined what most people miss. capitalism is not the few at the top preying on the ones lower on the food chain. capitalism in it's purest form is fine, but not this incarnation we've been forced upon. only government can keep the little guy from being fucked.
imho capitalism and it's core ideals are generally about "me me me," but there's 7 billion of us on this planet and rising, we need to stop thinking that way or else we're all in deep shit.
Samoht
10-14-2011, 03:55 PM
only government can keep the little guy from being fucked.
Unfortunately, they stand to lose their free ride and all of their power if they do. It's funny that they leech so much off of the common worker and then have the audacity to call us lazy and helpless without any insight into our lives (looking at you, Herman Cain).
I am 100% certain there are a range of things you can be doing to better your situation, but they require hard choices, and that is the problem.
I'm sorry, it's not clever insight or hard decisions that make businesses successful. It's the common worker. And they're tricked into labouring selflessly, often in slave-like conditions, with the promise of sharing some of the success.
But that's not capitalism. Capitalism would take all of the profit earned on their backs and pay it off to investors and corporate officers and then cut the common worker when the job is done or when the profits show the smallest sign of sliding.
We need protection from this.
Since the transfer of ideas and services is also considered importing, and imports have tariffs, outsourced hours need to be taxed. The lowest acceptable amount would be to tax companies enough to make salary paid to overseas workers equal to at least minimum wage. That would offer them incentive to pay them more appropriately or to bring the jobs back state side.
Feachie
10-14-2011, 04:03 PM
Unfortunately, they stand to lose their free ride and all of their power if they do. It's funny that they leech so much off of the common worker and then have the audacity to call us lazy and helpless without any insight into our lives (looking at you, Herman Cain).
our forefathers were prophets in their own right. unfortunately, the majority of americans lack the will, ambition, and are unwilling to accept the possibility of self sacrifice to fight for what is just.
"and i sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
"the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." thomas jefferson
Samoht
10-14-2011, 04:05 PM
They also wanted a separation of church and state. Look what we have now :(
Feachie
10-14-2011, 04:06 PM
who's fault is it? ours.
Cujoy
10-14-2011, 04:34 PM
Simple fact is, if there was no government, the capitalistic system would create some sort of government in order to protect its assets, trades, markets and so on. Also as you all have probably seen in the past, here in the USA, capitalism would use the government to stay on top. A free market isn't exactly the same thing as capitalism.
Also a pure capitalist may incorporate some very socialistic ideas, like healthcare and childcare for all workers. Because if you plan on being as productive as possible you would want all your workers as healthy and distraction free as possible while maintaining the ability to raise the next generation of producers.
Just my 2 cents.
Samoht
10-14-2011, 04:43 PM
healthcare and childcare for all workers.
iamoenaj's response: No way. Poor people aren't allowed to use doctors. They get nurse-practitioners and midwives at best. Health care is not a right.
Cujoy
10-14-2011, 04:51 PM
agreed, but if I were a pure capitalist it'd be a necessary expense to make my workers as productive as possible.
Samoht's main problem is that (s)he is taking the worst parts of capitalism and attempting to use them to represent the entire system. What you are talking about mostly arises from monopolistic practices in a free(ish) capitalistic economy. However, even in those worst case scenarios (monopolies), the idea of capitalism does not always cause sole benefit to the producer at a detriment to the consumer.
Take for example the ALCOA case. They controlled 90% of the virgin ingot market for aluminum production - which was argued to be a monopoly based solely on the fact that there was a perceived possibility that they could use their considerable market control to ends which negatively affect competition, and thus the consumer. However, even with that 90% control, ALCOA maintained competitive prices and production quantities WITHOUT regulation, and they attained their monopoly status through essentially legal and ethically sound business practices. As even the Supreme Court acknowledged, ALCOA in many regards was guilty of simply being too successful at their business, and that success eventually reached a point where it could be considered anti-competitive - despite no definitive wrong doing (both legally and ethically).
Every situation has the possibility to cause unnecessary harm - in regard to the original question, that is why there is a need for guidelines (and thus a governing body to provide those guidelines).
Now, as far as this anti-capitalist sentiment goes, how would a socialized system be better? What is the motivation in a non-capitalist society? A for profit economy is one in which success is rewarded with wealth, thus motivation to be successful. Again, what motivation is there in a non-capitalist society? If you do not benefit from the rewards of your labor more so than an individual who labors less, what motivation is there to not decrease your production to the lowest common level? You talk about a production based society amassing capital and wealth at the top, but by definition, that would be counter productive to their profits, thus not profitable, thus not sustainable, thus no capitalist would consider driving an economy to that point. When everyone is concerned with their own self interest, that they will for some reason act contrary to that self interest is essentially what you are arguing. It just doesn't add up.
This is a horrible phrased question, there are so many factors to consider.
First, most free-market proponent, and even most anarcho-capitalist will agree that there is a necessary function of the government in a capitalist economy. Even in a truly free market, there needs to be a general guideline for conduct (contract law notably), as well as a place to settle disputes in relation to those guidelines (judicial system), as well as a mixed bag of other albeit less "economic" functions (defense, etc).
Now, despite your definition, as we've seen through our current economy, the whole idea of capitalism is a slightly ambiguous term. You really need to look at the entire economy to question whether government is necessary. Are you going to have a purely barter economy? If not, what kind of banking system would the economy have? If there was fractional reserve banking, would those banks be supported by a centralized reserve bank? What would be used as a medium of exchange? Gold? Gold backed currency? Fiat currency? If fiat currency, who would regulate and control it? I mean, if we're talking about the US dollar, you really have to think about the implications there as well. Since 1971, the US dollar has essentially been akin to gold in that is a universally accepted store of wealth - which has further implications when you start to think about the fact that the US government could essentially print gold (not really, but you get my point). That isn't even considering aspects of monetary policy conducted by a central governing body, which is something I won't get into...
So to answer your question, no. A free market economy certainly can exist in a variety of forms, but unless we return to a barter economy (and even then not really) we need some sort of governing body (not necessarily a federal government) to provide those fundamental and very limited guidelines and services.
I happen to be a proponent of the Austrian and Chicago schools of economics (there are aspects of both I really like; and yes, I know they're not the same thing..) which both tend to favor free markets. However, despite what the MSM and people like Krugman would have you believe, even us wacky free-marketers understand the need for limited regulation. The disagreement has never been over "government" or "no government" - it has been about "how much government". History has shown time and time again that intervention in the markets leads to unnaturally large bubbles that eventually burst. This all stems for the Keynesian idea that we can promote constant economic growth through the use of monetary policy to avoid down turns in the economy. There is a lot of debate about this even among economist, but the thinking I tend to agree with is that intervention through monetary policy only exaggerates the natural highs and lows of the business cycle, something which I tend to think is undesirable.
good post
Samoht
10-14-2011, 05:06 PM
If you do not benefit from the rewards of your labor more so than an individual who labors less
Are you comparing against capitalism or utopia here? Capitalism DOES NOT pay for performance, if it did, common workers would be making 200 times than CEOs instead of the other way around. The executive board would be expendable instead of the employees. Unfortunately, we don't live in utopia and we're forced to work for crooks, because let's face it, we'd have to leave the country to find jobs working for honest employers who actually care about their workers.
that worker doesnt put billons of dollars on the line either So why should he be paid 200 times that of a CEO or owner who does?
Should we all start geting paid in stocks?hrmm
In the 2000's, I worked for five years for one of the wealthiest companies in the world - a true conglomerate. When I started, they were listed as one of the top companies in the world to work for. I got good ratings on my reviews, several raises and promotions as I watched them slowly cut benefits and raise costs of insurance. Stock options? Gone. Employee stock purchase program? Gone. 401k matching? Cut in half. Hiring was frozen. Morale was shot. They were no longer a top company to work for.
Yet they continued to flaunt record profits.
This idea that your job should pay for your insurance or offer you stock options is just laughable. Why in god's name should your employer be responsible for YOUR health? Their job is to compensate you for the work you do for them. You agree to work for them at a wage (or you don't) and then they pay you that wage assuming you continue doing the work to an acceptable standard. This is a free agreement you enter into with a company.
This notion of benefits comes directly from the existence of payroll tax. By offering you compensation in the form of healthcare and other benefits, the company is not forced to pay as great a penalty on using those funds. So the entire existence of employer based healthcare is a DIRECT RESULT of capitalistic desires to reduce cost and increase profit. Now, you must look at healthcare and other benefits as a portion of your entire compensation. Cutting benefits is no different than cutting pay - cutting payroll would actually benefit the company more than cutting benefits, but could you imagine the outrage if your salary was cut by $1,500 instead of your benefits increasing in price/being cut?
Finally, companies do not answer to their employees. Employees are free to quit and find other employment (they don't because employment has been made hard due to other economic factors) - but all a company owe an employee is the compensation for the work that employee provides. Profits however, are how a company must answer to it's owners (share holders). If you hold stock in a company, it is that companies job to maximize your profits. So a company does own something to someone - it is just the share holders, and not the employee as you seem to think.
Samoht
10-14-2011, 05:20 PM
that worker doesnt put billons of dollars on the line either So why should he be paid 200 times that of a CEO or owner who does?
Neither does the CEO or owner? It's stupid to invest in your own ideas; you find other people to do it for you. Quit pretending they're so entitled.
Also, are you implying that only old money has the right to success? Are you only entitled to have a job if you have billions of dollars to begin with?
Should we all start geting paid in stocks?hrmm
If it was originally part of your compensation package, yes.
This idea that your job should pay for your insurance or offer you stock options is just laughable. Why in god's name should your employer be responsible for YOUR health?
Because they promised it in compensation and then got away with cutting it out? Your statement is a contradiction (or a lesson that you lack reading comprehension) because I said they offered these programs that they cut back or took away. That makes them crooks. People like you are why corporations have gone out of control in the last 10 years.
Because they promised it in compensation and then got away with cutting it out? Your statement is a contradiction (or a lesson that you lack reading comprehension) because I said they offered these programs that they cut back or took away. That makes them crooks. People like you are why corporations have gone out of control in the last 10 years.
Were you unable to quit that job and seek other employment? If what they did was so unreasonable, it is reasonable to assume you could find employment else where with benefits equal to that which you were originally offered. Maybe, however, economic times were tough, and to maintain their profits, and thus existence as companies, companies throughout the industry were making these cuts not by choice, but out of necessity.
The fact that at any time you were free to seek other employment is why it is not theft or immoral. It is in the companies best interest to keep and attract the best employees by offering the greatest compensation. Thus, employees themselves are a market in which companies compete. Your company must balance their output to maximize profits given the resources (including employees) available to them. It is in their best interest to have as many employees as possible to a point where further employment reduces efficiency. The simple fact was that in your industry, there was not enough business to support the number of employees and thus those greater numbers of employees being less profitable, the companies were able to offer lower compensation and stay competitive because their over all demand in the employee market was lower than it was when they hired you.
There are actual economics behind a lot of this stuff - not everything in business is that "they're thieves and hate their employees.. and kittens".
edit: minor grammar/spelling
Cujoy
10-14-2011, 05:37 PM
The question here should have been "can there be Democracy/Republic where there is true Capitalism?" And a side poll of "Do you know what Capitalism is or do you assume that American Capitalism is really Capitalism?"
Samoht
10-14-2011, 05:51 PM
Were you unable to quit that job and seek other employment? blah blah blah blah same stuff over and over durrrr
Unfortunately, employers demand unwavering loyalty (it's too bad that doesn't go both ways any more). The first thought that you might jump ship, suddenly you're "overqualified" and unhireable. There are so few jobs in America that at least 10% of the population would be willing to do yours for you at a fraction of the cost, but that brings up another issue: too many Americans are under-employed. People with doctorates, masters, BS, etc., are forced every day to settle and to swear that they're not overqualified as a direct result of companies requiring new hires to swear allegiance to their corporate flag. People with too many jobs over a certain time-frame are looked down on just as much as people who are unemployed for a large gap on their resume.
You know it's wrong to think that people can just walk out whenever they please.
You don't honestly believe any of this drivel your spouting, do you? Are you playing devil's advocate or do you truly believe that workers aren't entitled to fair compensation and secure jobs? Do you think that just because you can pay your Guatemalan gardener $2 an hour and get away with it since no one will enforce wage laws for illegals that you can treat any worker the same way?
I'm not going to actually respond intelligibly here if you are going to reduce everything I said to "blahblahblah" when replying. I made some fairly distinct points, and while I may have repeated the use of words, the arrangement of those words was deliberate, as were the meanings. Unless you actually have some reasoning behind what you're saying, and not just making unsupported claims like "employers demand unwavering loyalty", there is really not point in arguing them.
My last post was reasoning to explain why what you said was wrong. You made statements and then force me to provide reasoning as to why you're wrong - that is not something I really feel like doing. Unless you actually explain why the things are the way you claim they are, this is just pointless.
Samoht
10-14-2011, 06:15 PM
One thing: I'm not wrong. The people supporting inequality and injustices between social classes in America and around the world (you) are wrong.
Hasbinbad
10-14-2011, 09:56 PM
I voted no because while capitalism can exist without government, it would be a finite venture. Eventually resource concentration will always cause a redistribution revolution. Ergo, regulation is required to curb the built-in greed associated with capitalism. Then there is a delicate balance between socialism or fascism and regulated capitalism; too much regulation and you slip into the former, too little and you face a revolution.
One thing: I'm not wrong. The people supporting inequality and injustices between social classes in America and around the world (you) are wrong.
Does inequality trump total welfare? If we were all equal and as a whole considerably worse off, would that be better than if we were all better off but less equal? I would argue total welfare is more important than equality, and I think capitalism supports that argument; socialism most certainly promotes greater equality, but the same cannot be said in regard to welfare.
So, what is more important to you? I thought we were talking about what was best for society - now you're talking equality. Equality does not always mean that society as a whole is better off as you seem to think.
Hasbinbad
10-14-2011, 10:03 PM
Loke we're talking about how my point was the perfect thing to say to the OP, and how everyone is amazed at how concisely I wrapped up the crux of this very complicated issue in layman's terms, and how everyone wishes they could be clever like me.
Hasbinbad
10-14-2011, 10:03 PM
Please stay on topic.
Kika Maslyaka
10-15-2011, 01:16 AM
I'm sorry, it's not clever insight or hard decisions that make businesses successful. It's the common worker. And they're tricked into labouring selflessly, often in slave-like conditions, with the promise of sharing some of the success.
.
You obviously never run a business. A great idea that particular business was initially build on, works only for so long. No matter how much you slave drive your workers, if you do not adapt to real time changes in the market, your company will go down in a matter of months. And that need brains, not a whip.
I am not saying, that every corporation doesn't try to turn its workers into slaves (they do), but those corps do not run on slave labor alone
Creator of Facebook (whats his name?) - how many slave-workers he employes and how many millions he made so far? Yet there thousands of companies who employ and slave-drive hundreds of thousands of workers, and yet make only a fraction of his profits.
How about Google? Ebay? Amazon?
All these companies are tiny companies are tiny (worker force wise), compare to say industrial giants, yet they easily match their profits.
So no, squeezing labor force is not everything you need to be successful.
Kika Maslyaka
10-15-2011, 01:17 AM
Loke we're talking about how my point was the perfect thing to say to the OP, and how everyone is amazed at how concisely I wrapped up the crux of this very complicated issue in layman's terms, and how everyone wishes they could be clever like me.
I said same thing 3 pages ago. You owe me a cookie.
Loke we're talking about how my point was the perfect thing to say to the OP, and how everyone is amazed at how concisely I wrapped up the crux of this very complicated issue in layman's terms, and how everyone wishes they could be clever like me.
HASBINBAD! happy belated birthday.
Also, I miss you. I miss being around you. I miss your musk. When this all blows over, we should get an apartment together. <3. No homo.
Unless that RnF thread about your birthday was made up and it actually isn't your birthday, in which case... <3 anyway.
Hasbinbad
10-15-2011, 01:47 PM
No homo.
http://i.imgur.com/8sQiD.png
tmoneynegro
10-15-2011, 03:05 PM
only government can keep the little guy from being fucked.
Govt is the one responsible for all the wealth being vacuumed to the top 1%. They're the ones that enact laws to allow people to enter the commodities market and trade metals at 14:1 margin for example. When you leverage up like that, your net worth becomes exponential to people who aren't leveraging.
imho capitalism and it's core ideals are generally about "me me me," but there's 7 billion of us on this planet and rising, we need to stop thinking that way or else we're all in deep shit.
"Road to hell is paved with good intentions". Ask any woman a question on economics, 99% of the time the answer will be something marxist/socialist because they think it's more "ethical".
Feachie
10-15-2011, 09:00 PM
i'd like to change the question slightly;
can democracy exist without capitalism?
discuss.
Kika Maslyaka
10-15-2011, 10:51 PM
i'd like to change the question slightly;
can democracy exist without capitalism?
discuss.
base communism principles are based on democracy - rule of the people and all...
Of course in reality it never happened (yet), but theoretically, sure.
tmoneynegro
10-15-2011, 11:06 PM
can democracy exist without capitalism?
No, non-capitalistic economies requires authoritarian/totalitarian governments with centralized power over everything to operate. If power is centralized and the government is telling you how to live, your votes are obviously meaningless and democracy is impossible since you can't change anything with your vote. Obviously a republic has a similar downfall, the elected representative has to actually operate on the platform he runs on for your vote to matter.
Kika Maslyaka
10-15-2011, 11:21 PM
No, non-capitalistic economies requires authoritarian/totalitarian governments with centralized power over everything to operate. If power is centralized and the government is telling you how to live, your votes are obviously meaningless and democracy is impossible since you can't change anything with your vote. Obviously a republic has a similar downfall, the elected representative has to actually operate on the platform he runs on for your vote to matter.
no this incorrect.
The market system is not in anyway connected to a specific system of government.
Yes, under communism, the state/government controls the economy, industry, market etc. However, this government can still be democratically elected.
Just because the state owns everything, doesn't make the system automatically authoritarian.
Even under capitalist democracy, not every individual gets to do what he likes, but only what is acceptable by MAJORITY. And if you go against that majority, you are perceived as a criminal.
Communism democracy runs on the same principle.
Cujoy
10-16-2011, 11:50 AM
This argument goes back to my main point, it was If there was no government, capitalist would create a government to protect it's assets and investments.
Think back to your history lessons. Remember our forefathers? The writers of the Constitution? The Creators of our current government? What were they fighting against? Taxation without proper representation right? Now here are a bunch of RICH guys who no one elected trying to piece together a government after they've defeated the British. Every single one of them knew their history from other democratic societies. All of them had been well educated, Had read Locke and other famous political theorists. So now they're creating a Confederation because each guy was from a different state where they had set up their own wealth and they had gotten together and decided what was best for the nation in absence of government, but all they came up with was a system to protect their and their fellow business mans wealth. And they built this up on the backs of the laborers. Also like those dirty hippies on Wall Street, this was easy to do, because the dumb fuckers (the common man) didn't pay attention to what was happening until it was too late and they had already been fucked (Sounds like the protesters in the Occupy group)
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.