It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Capitalists - you really don't see a problem?

page: 15
32
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795

True capitalism is a myth, though. This thread is more about the course that capitalism can take. Just as people day socialism turns to communism, it seems capitalism turns to corporatism.

I'd be all for a truly free market, capitalistic economy.

Few patents, no over bearing regulations, consumer driven




posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

I agree. We haven't had true capitalism in this modern society. Not at all.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795

I don't think it matters. Without adjustment from time to time the outcome is the same.

Wealth will consolidate and efficiency will be maximized. Maximizing efficiency means either automation or outsourcing to lower consumer prices for competition. Both lead to job eradication. Without conscious steps labour markets can deteriorate causing stock market issue during lower consumption periods. Sime free market economists are OK with natural booms and busta but it's truly unknown what the social impact would lead to. We certainly have a couple world wars to consider.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Semicollegiate
That is not necessarily true at all.

I can aquire assets which increase my wealth with no production value.


I can aquire land. I can trade currency. I can accumulate interest.


True, but that is not reinvestment. That is simple saving. The saving rate for everyone should be about the same ( a little lower) as the rate of profit. The rate of profit is determined by competition.

A high rate of profit draws more competitors into the industry, and a low rate of profit encourages moving to other products.





Also even though raw material being aquired is production it can also be used to control market value of resources by limiting supply.


Control always means politics, i.e. a hindrance to competition. If a hoarder holds out he is losing sales in real time.

There is always more or a substitute somewhere on the planet or in the future of technology.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

No.

You are making this up as you go.

Reinvestmate is taking your aquired money and putting into assets.

I can buy diamond mines as many as possible then I can either flood or limit the output to manipulate a market or extinguish competition. Same with land. Same with goods really say pharmaceuticals.

None of that is savings. However all include common capitalist aproaches to market manipulation or competition.

Without anti trust legislation which is market intervention I can also buy and take entire sections of the market. This is still somewhat available to do though limited more than 100 years ago.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

While I'm late to the party and this has probably already been said, you're mistaking Crony Capitalism with Capitalism. Yes, on the larger scale, we have a Crony-Capitalist problem--quite a big one--but on the smaller scale where the average American is concerned, Capitalism works quite well.

The two are not the same, nor should they be mistaken for the same, yet here you are doing it.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
The two are not the same, nor should they be mistaken for the same, yet here you are doing it.

Not really, he is saying that capitalism inevitably becomes crony capitalism.

That implies an acknowledged difference.
edit on 8-4-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

In the same way that socialism is mistaken as communism. I'm implying that this is the results of capitalism unchecked.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: SlapMonkey

In the same way that socialism is mistaken as communism. I'm implying that this is the results of capitalism unchecked.


Yes, well, I disagree to a point. I think that what we have now is a result of the "checks" that the government puts in place on capitalism. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be oversight and regulations (I'm a big fan of laws against a monopoly, even though that isn't used enough and the government actually promotes monopolies [too big to fail]), but what I am saying is when you get such a confusing system as our, with a confusing tax code, and bribed politicians and the like, you get what we have. It doesn't happen overnight, for sure, but it does happen, I'll admit.

The thing isn't to berate the system as it stands now, but to reset it and start again, and maybe next time not let it get so far out of control before hitting reset yet again.

There is an ebb and flow to all economic and political systems as to their efficiency, corruptness, size, etc...but that doesn't mean that the system is necessarily bad, just as life isn't bad just because there have been multiple mass extinctions on our planet.

(yes, I know that analogy is a bit overblown, but I'm tired, and it's what popped into my head)

My point being that many of the things that you point out as being bad about capitalism are because of government "checking" the system, not in spite of it. I think you're pointing your finger at the wrong problem.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
As if having a dictator control ALL the money would be better.
Why don't you come up with a better system and pitch it to everyone here, instead of cherry picking problems with how things are run now.
Capitalism is not perfect, but just may be the best way to run things. Free market baby.


One response in and I find that someone else shares my ideals

Cheers



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Semicollegiate

No.

You are making this up as you go.

Reinvestmate is taking your aquired money and putting into assets.


Investment is loaning wealth in order to get a return. The return is the economy wide rate of interest, which is nearly equal to the economy wide rate of profit. That rate is determined and enforced by competition.

The only way to make more profit than market rate is to do something new and successful in your own business.

Reinvestment is when a business puts its profits back into its own business as improved or increased capital.

Either way, the invested wealth is increased in value because more production (wealth) is enabled by it. In other words, more stuff is made while the quantity of money remains the same.

Capitalism, qua capitalism, has no fractional reserve inflation.




I can buy diamond mines, as many as possible, then I can either flood or limit the output to manipulate a market or extinguish competition. Same with land. Same with goods really say pharmaceuticals.


All of those industries rely on gov enabled cartels. New competition destroys all of those situations.




None of that is savings.


Savings is indirect investment through a third party. Mostly savings is not reinvestment.



However all include common capitalist aproaches to market manipulation or competition.


No, Market manipulation is impossible in capitalism. Over fair price chargers get new competition trying to take a piece their excessive profits.




Without anti trust legislation which is market intervention I can also buy and take entire sections of the market. This is still somewhat available to do though limited more than 100 years ago.


Capitalism would allow that if you could run all of that better than any competitor.

In reality, without phony money, no one would have enough money to do that, and remember, that person would have to run all of that better than any one else, lest new competition take away his business and thereby his money.

And the new competition always has the advantage of new technology.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
In the most general terms, all political power is socialist. All political power has to claim to serve the common good.

Crony capitalism is always capitalism with gov, AKA socialism.

The rulers of the ages will always use the power of socialism to their own ends.

Capitalism offers no necessity for rulers.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Semicollegiate

No.

You are making this up as you go.

Reinvestmate is taking your aquired money and putting into assets.


Investment is loaning wealth in order to get a return. The return is the economy wide rate of interest, which is nearly equal to the economy wide rate of profit. That rate is determined and enforced by competition.

The only way to make more profit than market rate is to do something new and successful in your own business.

Reinvestment is when a business puts its profits back into its own business as improved or increased capital.

Either way, the invested wealth is increased in value because more production (wealth) is enabled by it. In other words, more stuff is made while the quantity of money remains the same.

Capitalism, qua capitalism, has no fractional reserve inflation.




I can buy diamond mines, as many as possible, then I can either flood or limit the output to manipulate a market or extinguish competition. Same with land. Same with goods really say pharmaceuticals.


All of those industries rely on gov enabled cartels. New competition destroys all of those situations.




None of that is savings.


Savings is indirect investment through a third party. Mostly savings is not reinvestment.



However all include common capitalist aproaches to market manipulation or competition.


No, Market manipulation is impossible in capitalism. Over fair price chargers get new competition trying to take a piece their excessive profits.




Without anti trust legislation which is market intervention I can also buy and take entire sections of the market. This is still somewhat available to do though limited more than 100 years ago.


Capitalism would allow that if you could run all of that better than any competitor.

In reality, without phony money, no one would have enough money to do that, and remember, that person would have to run all of that better than any one else, lest new competition take away his business and thereby his money.

And the new competition always has the advantage of new technology.



This is classic idealism.

Your model does not work. It does not take in account human nature and corruption. It's an idealistic philosophy.

The De Beers for instance.


The Rockefellors.


If I happen to own land where there is oil and decide to INVEST all the profit into buying more land and can control a majority of the market I can manipulate prices by increasing or decreasing production. By the time your hypothetical competition comes into power I will have cornered a significant portion of the market. If there is no regulation me and my friends can decide to do it together to eliminate competition. I can then flood the market and withstand a temporary loss to destroy my competition newly started business. I can decrease production and make the oil more expensive. All it takes is a significant portion of the market.

If I control a drug that only my company produces I can control the price of the drug by the production limit. By the time another has come out I will have significantly consolidated wealth. Then i do it again. And again. Taking money from one locality and possibly distributing it in another entirely.

This has nothing to do with politics.

The rate of return for owned capital (r) exceeds the overall rate of economic growth (g). Thus, families and individuals who control wealth will accumulate it at a faster rate than the economy can produce it and so will control a much larger portion of the economic pie. The rich get proportionally richer, and the poor get proportionally poorer. And unless something happens to alter the status quo, this trend will continue.

Prior to the federal reserve the level of immoral business practices on a large scale within the US was enormous. It takes regulation to stop it. Even then without tariff balancing it just gets moved. The assumption and theory that the market will stop this from happening is as big a myth as santaclause.
edit on 8-4-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Semicollegiate

No.

You are making this up as you go.

Reinvestmate is taking your aquired money and putting into assets.


Investment is loaning wealth in order to get a return. The return is the economy wide rate of interest, which is nearly equal to the economy wide rate of profit. That rate is determined and enforced by competition.

The only way to make more profit than market rate is to do something new and successful in your own business.

Reinvestment is when a business puts its profits back into its own business as improved or increased capital.

Either way, the invested wealth is increased in value because more production (wealth) is enabled by it. In other words, more stuff is made while the quantity of money remains the same.

Capitalism, qua capitalism, has no fractional reserve inflation.




I can buy diamond mines, as many as possible, then I can either flood or limit the output to manipulate a market or extinguish competition. Same with land. Same with goods really say pharmaceuticals.


All of those industries rely on gov enabled cartels. New competition destroys all of those situations.




None of that is savings.


Savings is indirect investment through a third party. Mostly savings is not reinvestment.



However all include common capitalist aproaches to market manipulation or competition.


No, Market manipulation is impossible in capitalism. Over fair price chargers get new competition trying to take a piece their excessive profits.




Without anti trust legislation which is market intervention I can also buy and take entire sections of the market. This is still somewhat available to do though limited more than 100 years ago.


Capitalism would allow that if you could run all of that better than any competitor.

In reality, without phony money, no one would have enough money to do that, and remember, that person would have to run all of that better than any one else, lest new competition take away his business and thereby his money.

And the new competition always has the advantage of new technology.



This is classic idealism.

Your model does not work.


Capitalism is not a model. It is a description of what actually happened during the unprecedented rise in per capita wealth in the modern West.



It does not take in account human nature and corruption. It's an idealistic philosophy.


Capitalism is the only economic system that realistically addresses human motivation. Each human works for himself and thereby contributes to a highest standard of living for every one.

The sophism of "let us run it all for you" is the poisonous idealism.




The De Beers for instance.


The Rockefellors.



De Beers used the gov. That was not the free market.

Rockefeller reduced the price of kerosine from 50 cents to 5 cents. Everything else was using the not unwilling gov.





If I happen to own land where there is oil and decide to INVEST all the profit into buying more land and can control a majority of the market


Psychobabble. The only way to "control" a majority of the market in capitalism is to run your business better than anyone else, i.e. provide a better deal to the consumer.



I can manipulate prices by increasing or decreasing profit.


Any body you put out of business will sell his capital for pennies on the dollar to the new competition. The new competition will be able to sell cheaper than you because their start up costs were less than yours.



By the time your hypothetical competition comes into power I will have cornered a significant portion of the market.


How?



If there is no regulation me and my friends can decide to do it together to eliminate competition. I can then flood the market and withstand a temporary loss to destroy my competition newly started business.


The new competition gets a nearly free startup then, and you and your friends are running at a loss with new competition selling cheaper than you.




If I control a drug that only my company produces I can control the price of the drug by the production limit.


Patents are gov., not capitalism.



By the time another has come out I will have significantly consolidated wealth. Then i do it again. And again. Taking money from one locality and possibly distributing it in another entirely.


All based of gov regulation. Unless you are so smart that nobody else will ever figure out how you make your drug.




This has nothing to do with politics.



Politics is the sine qua non of monopoly.



The rate of return for owned capital (r) exceeds the overall rate of economic growth (g).


In a fractional reserve monetary inflation and general political derangement of natural economics it does.



Thus, families and individuals who control wealth will accumulate it at a faster rate than the economy can produce it and so will control a much larger portion of the economic pie. The rich get proportionally richer, and the poor get proportionally poorer. And unless something happens to alter the status quo, this trend will continue.



Those families and individuals get new Fed money before inflation adulterates it. They also get protection from competition because the tax rate prohibits the reinvestment rate that the pre tax rich had. Additional gov protection comes from the regulations in place that complicate and inhibit new economic growth. Lastly, the very fact that the gov can make a law about anything crams uncertainly into every long term calculation.

Capitalism has risen the standard of living everywhere. Who do you know that needs a horse and buggy?

Socialism has ruined one century and is working on ruining another.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I think You fail to see the difference between capitalism and fascism. A man mowing lawns for money is capitalism while big arse corporations that bribe politicians for political favors is called fascism. One of these things is healthy and betters society while the other thing is harmful and eventually leads to slavery



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: jkm1864

The definition of fascism has nothing to do with corporations bribing the government.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Capitalism is not a model. It is a description of what actually happened during the unprecedented rise in per capita wealth in the modern West.

Only if you look at history through rose colored glasses.


No, Market manipulation is impossible in capitalism. Over fair price chargers get new competition trying to take a piece their excessive profits.

Again with the wishful thinking. That has never been shown to work out like that in the real world.


The sophism of "let us run it all for you" is the poisonous idealism.

Why the strawman?



edit on 8-4-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Again capitalism is a philosophical idea. It was developed shortly after the French Revolution.

I never once made an arguement for socialism.

Your being an idealistic Austrian economist. There is zero evidence a free market has existed or can exist with a human social structure.

Most drug research is in fact so complicated and expensive that yes one company can in fact without a patent control the market.

The Rockefellors nor the De Beers required the Gov to do what they did. The human factor allowed them to maximize what they could do through government bribes. Not required.


So in this theoretical model I own land which oil is first discovered. I then develop the equipt to do extraction. I buy more land and create the devices to find oil. I buy more land. Continually all the while building relationships which you can call political or not. It's part of business to do so either way. If I control a substantial portion of the market I can control the commodity prices substantially. If a new business springs up I can make conditions unfavorable for the amount of investment in equiptment vs the production value of the commodity. Particularly with credited equiptment.

You also don't adress how human rights or polution issues are resolved without market intervention. The suggestion by Austrian economics is the market will correct the problem. Even though this never happened.

Furthermore this form of economics is so idealistic it can only exist in a vacuum.
edit on 8-4-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Capitalists are the ones with enough money (Capital) to exploit disadvantage, to capitalize on others misfortune.

Capitalization is a big word, so the average person doesn't understand how bad they're being f****ed. Like Quantitative Easing (printing notes) and Austerity (making the people pay the debt).

You want to find the seat of the festering sore of capitalism look to the Capital city and the Capital building.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope




I love the idea of a free market. I don't see the reality of it, unfortunately.


Yes, you don't see the reality of a free-market economy, because it does not exit. These are the conditions under which a free-market economy can exist:

1.) Nobody can own or claim any kind property in a country where the market-participant is not a citizen of. In other words, you can only own and run a business in your own country, but not in other countrys. You can do buisness with other owners of businesses on other countrys, but not own property there.

2.) Only citizens of a certain country can become owners of property and realestate who have a passport of that country. Under those conditions only is it secured that the business owner has the best interest of that society, he or she belongs to, in mind. Because usually you don't sh!t where you eat. That's basically the only way to avoid intruders, forgainers, who have huge amounts of capital they like to invest, from taking over your economy.

3.) Only under these conditions would it be possible to not, or very little, regulate the market in a particular country by its government.

4.) Basically what I'm talking about is de-centralization. Small markets who actually benefit the society, the country the buisness owerns are operating in. And their Gewinn, their profit, will be re-invested in the society they are a member of. Because they simply can't go somewhere else to build a business with their profits.

It is as simple as that.




Ethics in business?


Sure! Resources are limited and the environment needs to be kept clean. The employees need to be healthy and motivated for innovations to be possible. Sick, overworked and unhappy people are not creative and overly motivated, obviously.




Compassion before profit?


Has nothing to do with compassion. Only efficiency and self-interest are limited to a certain area, a particular market-place. That will automatically solve a lot of problems we currently have all over the world. And not only on an economical level.




I don't even have dreams that are so amazing as these concepts.


Then...enhence your dreams and fight for what is right....peacefully and with good arguments.




top topics



 
32
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join