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.

 

Unregulated Capitalism does not give opportunity to all

page: 10
42
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 





I have all ready answered your demand that I name one time in history where capitalism didn't need a working class in an earlier post by stating that there never has been a time in history where capitalism has been able to operate under its own tenets. There is no time in history when there was a free and unregulated market place. Certainly not in the U.S. since from the beginning, and the value of gold was fixed by government edict from that start. Your complaints are against oligopolism or corporatism and have nothing to do with capitalism except for the bill of goods you were sold by Marx. Furthermore, the "working class" is not bound to indentured servitude and can at any time break free of this "class" and strike out on their own and do business.


And if true capitalism was ever to take place, how do you suppose it would operate without a working class under the owners of the means of production? While every individual worker could potentially be a business owner, not everyone could own their own business at the same time. The majority under capitalism will also be subjected to exploitative wage slavery. It's true that a worker could stop working at any point but if they have to support a family and don't have any state or inherited money to burn on returning to school or looking for another job, is that still really a choice? A choice between homelessnes and starvation and wage slavery is not freedom. Some may have the money to invest in a business thus opening up a third option but the vast majority won't.

All economies are built on the backs of the workers no matter how the cake is sliced and therefor we should look towards an socio-economic system that favors the workers and not one that favors private owners of the means of production.


It is interesting how you ask a question and then turn around and answer the question yourself. It is also interesting to note the awkward sentence structure of your question, not to castigate you for the sake of grammar but because your question does not make much sense. Are you hoping to declare with in this question that workers are the true owners of the means of production or are you simply asking that without workers how will a business owner handle the means of production? This is not made clear by your question as asked.

While you answer your own question by admitting that all workers have the opportunity to own and operate their own businesses you then argue that not all people can do so at the same time. You do not back this argument up with evidence or sound reason as to why not, you simply make it assuming the premise is true. Why can't everyone all own their own business at the same time? What would prevent such a thing from happening?

You then follow this capricious assumption with yet another. You claim that the majority of people would be subjected to exploitative wage slavery. You then follow with an admission that no one is required by any law to be exploited and work for what amounts to as wage slavery but then attempt to offer yet another fallacious argument as to why people can't walk away from a bad situation. You hope to argue that people have to accept wage slavery because they can't without an inheritance or government assistance. However, this country is filled with undocumented immigrants who have no inheritance to rely upon and are not receiving government assistance and earn a living as street vendors, and many other businesses, and through hard work and tenacity rise up through the system, many of them finally obtaining legal status and even citizenship as well as being respected and admired members of the community.

You claim that a choice between homelessness and starvation or wage slavery is not freedom. The first problem with this argument is that by acknowledging a choice you undermine your own argument that there is no freedom. But more importantly than this is the fallacious argument that it is either working for slave wages or homeless and starvation that are the options. This is what is known as an excluded middle argument. Presuming these are the only choices available in order to push forth your own agenda.

You do suggest that some may have a third option but claim, without any evidence or sound reason to back it up, that most won't have this third option. There are, of course, more than just three options. There is the reality that not all businesses will attempt to exploit low wage earners and that some if not most of these businesses will offer a better wage in exchange for their labor. There is the option of borrowing money to invest in a business. There is the option of fining business partners who have the capital to invest. There is the option of finding venture capitalists or angel investors to invest in the business. There are many options not the three you have presented, and poorly so.

Like all good Marxists, you as well rely upon the pie analogy to view economy, the only difference is that you call it cake. I call you a Marxist because you rely upon the assertion that all economies are built on the backs of the workers. This is a Marxist argument and there is a reason that Marx is primarily taught in government classes, social studies and not in business and economic classes. While Marx remains an footnote of interest in business schools and schools of economy, he has nothing valuable to offer for those schools. Thus, it is through other schools such as government, social studies and history that his nonsense is kept alive.




posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   
last time i checked, china was a communist country with one of largest and growing economies in the world, where the nike shoes they manufacture and sell for $200 in america are puchased for $20 at so call "wholesale outlet" stores, along with golf clubs and every other big brand name merchandise they make over there. the chinese definition for sucker loosely translates to "american consumer." the social injustices they suffer has nothing to do with communism but the actions and crimes, the evil and goodness and the morality of the people in power. it's all individual. the same thing is happening here, just disguised in truth, justice and the american way.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The problem with all if this is that you, in the end, still have government regulating aspects of the market.

So, in fact, you simply want LESS regulation, which is hardly earth shattering.

The part that "must remain public" will still need to be paid for, so more taxes, the wars will still continue, so more taxes, the uninsured will still need healthcare, more taxes, the elderly and disabled will still need assistance, more taxes... and on and on...

You have no solution to any of that... freer markets certainly isn't the solution.

Capitalism provides incentives, which are necessary, but it also creates monsters which are not self-taming.


Government must AND WILL ALWAYS regulate business. Thank god.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I have a very successful retail business I have sweated blood to build it up. I am a business man that has been threw it all.

What we have in America is a failure that is a direct effect because of deregulation. The small business owner is not the one to regulate, its the ultra powerful large monsters that need to be leashed. In the beginning of the industrial age it was fully free and deregulated. It took advantage of the working class to the point that regulations had to be placed to protect the underdog from the rabid beast.

Trickle down does not work except for these monstrosities we have created on the sweat and blood of the American people. We have been divided, and this division started in the 60's, gained traction in the 80's and is now is reaching critical mass.

This division was created as a smokescreen so your average person would go duh yup the only way is deregulation and free worldwide market.

Regulation is placed to protect the underdog from the rabid monster.

We are not animals and do not need to have this dog eat dog world anymore. People are waking up and understand at a basic level that we just cant live like that anymore.

We need to live closer to the heart.


Not only I, but there is another poster in this thread who have effectively shown that there is no "DEREGULATION" happening in the U.S. nor has there been any, certainly not in the past 20 years as the O.P. continually asserts. There are more than two dozen federal regulatory agencies in place as of this writing, and there are numerous state regulatory agencies in every state across the Union.

"Deregulation" is just a buzz word used by people like you to demonize capitalism, all the while advocating corporatism and enabling this beast to continue to grow through your own clamoring for more regulation.

The name of this thread is:

Unregulated Capitalism does not give opportunity to all.

I have consistently argued that there is no such thing as regulated capitalism. If it is capitalism then it is an economic system where a free and unregulated market place exists. There are other tenets to capitalism such as massive competition which don't exist in today's market place, largely due to regulation. The need for a currency that is backed by wealth does not exist in today's market place, due to regulation and it is the regulatory agency of the Federal Reserve that issues fiat money as if it were toilet paper and today it is increasingly becoming as valuable as toilet paper.

Trickle down is not an economic theory it is a phrase often quoted and used, but it is meaningless and has no bearing on capitalism. No person advocating capitalism in this thread has made any trickle down arguments, and certainly I haven't.

The division you speak of has existed since the creation of the United States, and was not started in the 1960's. All you have to do, to fully understand the long history of divisions in the U.S. is read both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. Indeed, even before this, and before there was a United States, there were the patriots of the colonies who craved a revolution and there were the loyalist to the Crown who opposed such a thing. Division is very much a part of American history.

This ridiculous claim that division was created as a smokescreen so that some mysterious powers that be could happily go about their business unnoticed ignores the obvious fact that there is a division right here in this thread. Clearly you choose to view yourself as the "enlightened one" who has risen above divisions and merely hopes to educate the ignorant masses, but that you so willingly take a clear side should be enough evidence to show you that you have not risen above any divisions.

I have taken the time to read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, (which is often pedantic and a boring read), as well as Karl Marx's lengthy tome, Das Kapital. I did not go to others and ask them to tell me what I should think about what I read, I made my own conclusions and it was Marx himself who convinced me that capitalism was the best route to go. It was Marx who argued that the only way to beat a capitalist system was to undermine its currency because a one on one situation can't be beat.

I thought to myself, why would anyone want to beat a one on one situation? Isn't that freedom? Under a one on one a situation, if I don't want to do business with you, I don't have to. Conversely, as a business man if you don't want to do business with me, you don't have to. What Marx was arguing is that you can't fix what ain't broke. So, in order to convince others that communism is better you have to break what's working and the best way to do so, is by undermining the currency.

This is exactly what has happened through the REGULATORY agency known as the Federal Reserve, who has devalued the currency and now issues fiat money.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Zodeaux et al... You are dogmatic and call anyone who has a different sensibility Marxist. There is nothing here that would make you accept a few concrete changes in your ideology, so why bother?
I grew up in a country that called itself Marxist (it was not) and I studied it in more detail, economically and philosophically. The OP is not Marxist, the OP only has a streak of human decency.
It is hopefully obvious to anyone that studied economics seriously that money today represents merely a system of agreements. That some members of the monkey tribes are privileged and throw around a lot of bananas while others starve is simply a character of this dismal tribe, not the fault of those individuals (the overwhelming majority of this planet) who create the goods.

Looking at the world in terms of groups or individuals is merely two aspects of the same thing. The world will be the same shared world - of which we each have different perceptions.
It is a philosophical error to take uncomfortable social data (such as the obvious unearned privileges of the ruling strata) and analyse them from the point of view of individual participants/members. That is like saying the King or Queen only individually matter in a chess game, it is stupid and collectivistic to look at the strategies of the whole game.

I mostly met two kinds of people who sang the praises of fundamentalist (unbridled) capitalism (which is really a revolutionary ideology, not real conservatism, as it has wanted to turn everything upside down since about 1978-80):
Type 1: those ruled by fear, who thought better at some dark recess of their minds, but are afraid to say so since they think this is somehow connected to their making money and survival strategies (in plain English, these people lie to themselves and others in order to stay alive by some twisted magical logic), and
Type 2: those who were in the not-so-slippery part of middle classes. As Marxist thinkers pointed out, this type often turns Nazi or Fascist when their livelihood is collectively threatened, bt usually turns on the weaker groups and the minorities instead of the real perpetrators (mutlinationals, investor groups etc. that own the modern world). For that would really be dangerous.

In contrast, I met some really neat people from the highest classes of the privileged - they did not want to hide or ideologise their participation. They were far more honest and humane than these middle-class ideologues.

Yes, this idea of Social Darwinist selection does require that a lot of people lose and be under, and the most modern type of this system requires countries like China where things are produced which are sold by middlemen for several times the price for they were originally produced, usually ten times or more.

The greatest problem is the corporation as an entity. Growing up in the East Bloc I am all for free enterprise as long as it means all the grocers can compete for more profit in the same street. B ut what happens in a country where Tesco buys all of them up, undersells their most important products for a year or two just to GET RID OF ALL COMPETITION, then hires the same people who were entrepreneurs before as cashiers who make one fourth or less than before, with harder work and more mechanistical conditions - while some faceless unknown capitalist group reaps the difference?

Do we want the same degree of freedom for rich investor groups that can even hire governments or armies as we want for a small businessman? That is a large large error. Wathc the movie The Corporation and you will understand.

To turn to a biological metaphor, I would not stand up for the rights of viruses and cancer cells the same way as individual human beings or anything similar. To say that a multibillion-dollar corporation (whose foundations as far as the capital goes usually go way back to the COLONIAL ERA of its mother country) has the same chances to succeed as the family businesses of a country like mine that was totally ripped off by major powers three times in the last century is a gross lie.

It would show an inability to think. Almost as if a biologist could not make the difference between a tribe of viruses and a tribe of Native Amazonian Indians.

A flu virus cannot live without being parasitical on its host. The same is true of investor companies etc.

The truth is, you do not need to be a Marxist to look for some amount of social justice. Many religious people refuse to accept the fundamentalist free-market brainwashing that comes from the neo-conservative wing these days.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The problem with all if this is that you, in the end, still have government regulating aspects of the market.

So, in fact, you simply want LESS regulation, which is hardly earth shattering.

The part that "must remain public" will still need to be paid for, so more taxes, the wars will still continue, so more taxes, the uninsured will still need healthcare, more taxes, the elderly and disabled will still need assistance, more taxes... and on and on...

You have no solution to any of that... freer markets certainly isn't the solution.

Capitalism provides incentives, which are necessary, but it also creates monsters which are not self-taming.


Government must AND WILL ALWAYS regulate business. Thank god.


You almost got me to agree with you until you argue that uninsured need health care and that elderly and disabled need government assistance. No doubt, during times of war will taxes rise. This is why Congress has been tasked with declaring war and it is the President who is the Commander in Chief. This was created this way to discourage acts of war becoming a constant act in government.

Of course, Congress hasn't declared war since World War II and yet, the U.S. has been involved in the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Conflict, the Gulf War, now involved in two wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention all the smaller adventures the U.S. has engaged in since WWII.

It is not a given that people need health insurance in order to obtain health care. It is not a given that people need the government stepping in and regulating health insurance and to be sure there are plenty of people extremely upset at that blatant power grab by Congress with this current healthcare legislation.

It is true that all of this requires more taxation and this is exactly why free market advocates want a unregulated market place as opposed to de-regulation.

The monsters created through regulation are infinitely scarier than the monsters you claim capitalism creates. Since capitalism has never existed, we do not know what forms of monsters it creates and can only rely upon imagination. However, we can all know the monsters government intrusion and regulations create and need not rely upon imagination to see the damage it has done.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Haha, this is a joke right? I'm sorry that your not a ron paul supporter.
You are the death of america. The crap needs to end now and so does spending, and bailouts which only prevent the crashing markets while increasing tax rates up into a swirly mass of over debt.

NO, we need to stop and think and face our problems head on, so we can deal with them properly. So we can make the move to actually start governing ourselves again.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by DarkCyrus]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Kokatsi
 


Wow! Talk about a dogmatist. Not only are you a dogmatist you are one who engages in Leninist type strategies in order to promulgate your own dogma. You deny being a Marxist and further declare the O.P. is not one but all anyone need do is read Marx himself to know that both of you are undeniably influenced by Marx. You both use the language of Marxism all throughout your posts, or in your case, post.

You declare the O.P. has a streak of human decency but offer no sound reason or viable argument as to why. What evidence is there of this human decency? The O.P. has steadfastly ignored the arguments made that disagree with his or her own view, and will continue, quite dogmatically, to assert certain suppositions as being true without making one ounce of effort to prove them true or at the very least, provide sound reasoning to suggest they might be true.

The O.P. has callously and cavalierly ignored all the damage that regulation has done, and in brutal mendacity declares deregulation to be unregulated. Where is the decency in this?

It should be clear to anyone, whether they studied economics or not, that money has always been a system of agreement. So duh!

Your own monkey tribe analogy only reveals your world view, which is hardly one that should ever be equated with human decency. You further, showing your undeniable Marxist influence, declare that the majority (presumably you mean the working class) as those who have created the goods. It is just more fallacious arguments yet made by another Marxist.

While labor no doubt has a part in the creation of goods they can not function as labor without someone to provide them a factory or office building to labor in. They can not create goods without the necessary tools and raw materials needed to create those goods. Labor has not built their own factories, they have not gone out and invested in their own raw materials and tools to create those goods they have relied upon an investor to do so, but you, and the O.P. like you, in all your human decency would declare this undeniable effort made by the investor to be nothing at all.

You further reveal your Marxist leanings and collectivist ideology by declaring that individuals and groups are really just two aspects of the same thing. You hope to offer an argument as to why it would be this way by stating that the world will be the same shared world. This simplistic and not very well thought out assertion, misses the very real point that groups can not exist with out individuals but individuals most certainly can exist without groups. This is just one fundamental difference between an individual and collectives and enough to show that they are not at all just two sides of the same thing.

You rely upon pointless language such as "unearned privileges" and "ruling strata" and you are using this language to dismiss capitalism that advocates the exact opposite. Capitalism argues that those who succeed will only do so based upon what they earned and there is no ruling strata just massive competition, where all are competing for the most customers.

You then hope to dismiss capitalism by offering up anecdotal evidence based upon people you have met. Anecdotal evidence is what it is, but it does not offer any sound reason or logic as to why capitalism would be a bad economic system. Particularly when all you are doing is offering up your opinion of people you have met. You offer up people you have met who advocate capitalism as always falling within one of two groups of psychology, allowing for no possibility of anything in between.

You also declare all these capitalist to be "middle class" which is yet another Marxist term, as no true capitalist accepts class distinction as valid, and you contrast those "middle class" capitalists with "high class privileged" souls, of whom you praise for being more honest and humane than the middle class capitalist you clear revile.

You then declare the corporation to be the greatest problem, apparently not noticing that those who you declared to be dogmatists at the beginning of your post have the same declaration. You then claim to be all for free enterprise but admit to your own helplessness and lack of imagination by using the tired Wal-Mart or Tesco analogy. You use the example of grocers, seemingly unaware of the fact that there exists grocers associations. Is it so hard to imagine that small independent grocers could form or use an all ready existing association to purchase goods in bulk just as Wal-Mart and Tesco do, in order to have the same purchasing power these giants do, in order to compete with them? It really doesn't take rocket science to figure this out.

You then ask if we really want the same degree of freedom for rich as we do for poor or small businesses. If we are all free then we are all free and freedom does not come in degrees, it is a right of all people to live free, to enjoy their lives and pursue property.

Your next statement I am going to quote exactly because I have no idea what you are talking about or who you are claiming made this assertion of which you call a gross lie. Here is the quote:

"To turn to a biological metaphor, I would not stand up for the rights of viruses and cancer cells the same way as individual human beings or anything similar. To say that a multibillion-dollar corporation (whose foundations as far as the capital goes usually go way back to the COLONIAL ERA of its mother country) has the same chances to succeed as the family businesses of a country like mine that was totally ripped off by major powers three times in the last century is a gross lie."

Who has said that a multi-billion dollar corporation has the same chances to succeed as the family of business of a country like yours that was totally ripped off by major powers three times? Who is making this argument, other than you?

Your pathetic comparison between viruses and investors shows your own inability to think and no thinking person will accept the comparison as valid.

The only truth you have hit upon is in your last paragraph, and has been a truth all ready hit upon in this thread by the ones you declared to be dogmatists. It is most certainly true that you don't need to be a Marxist to look for social justice. What follows is nothing but more Marxist propaganda.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Its very convenient that you say this to me:


You can point to all the figures and percentages you want to illustrate the wealth gap and it won't make the "working class" any wealthier.


And then you turn around and use all these figures and percentages to make your point with basically the same data source that i am using.


In 2008 the U.S. Census Bureau reported that the annual income of people doubled from that of 1968 from $13,374 to $26,804, and non wage compensation in the form of benefits had increased greatly as well. These figures are adjusted to account for inflation to accurately show how people two years ago were doing fabulously better than people were doing 40 years ago. Between 2005 and 2006 the millionaire population had increased by 8.3%, (See 2008 U.S. Census report and Wall Street Journal The Wealth Report June 27, 2007).


Interesting that in 1968 most families only had one bread winner and were able experience wealth and success. And today, most families need two wage earners in order to accomplish the same thing. And I promise you that benefits have not increased. Many companies are dropping benefits especially in the last 2 years. And your point that the number of millionaires increased is exactly the problem. How has the middle class fared in this same time frame? Why dont you include the numbers that show how the middle class has shrunk and the number of people below the poverty line has increased.

Showing numbers that display how the upper 5% has increased does not help to show that capitalism is a good system for the majority of the people.


Yep. I expected to hear from you on this. There is no contradiction in what I did. Your pointless listing of figures to show there is a top and bottom doesn't illuminate anyone nor does it do anything to make the "working class" any wealthier.

I posted those figures to another poster in direct response to her claim that the American dream is a hoax. That is the difference between the figures I posted and those that you posted. I did not, as you claim, post those figures to show that capitalism is working. I have consistently maintained that capitalism doesn't exist in today's market place. What I did hope to show is that the so called "American Dream" is not at all a hoax.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


What I said wasn't insurance (at least I didn't mean to) but healthcare.

Corporations are the ones that set up the insurance scams, not governments.

I live in a country without insurance... and it's fantastic.

So it all still stands.

The public can't exist w/o taxes.

And the private will always fight taxes...

I still don't think you have answered the core question:

Without regulation how is competition enforced?

Without regulation who protects us from the Business tyrants?

Without regulation how can disabled people be cared for?

What happens to orphans?

All of these answers are basically: without government, business will destroy itself and us with it.

If you wanna change government practices, vote or better yet, run for office.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


What I said wasn't insurance (at least I didn't mean to) but healthcare.

Corporations are the ones that set up the insurance scams, not governments.

I live in a country without insurance... and it's fantastic.

So it all still stands.

The public can't exist w/o taxes.

And the private will always fight taxes...

I still don't think you have answered the core question:

Without regulation how is competition enforced?

Without regulation who protects us from the Business tyrants?

Without regulation how can disabled people be cared for?

What happens to orphans?

All of these answers are basically: without government, business will destroy itself and us with it.

If you wanna change government practices, vote or better yet, run for office.



I appreciate your qualification of "at least I didn't mean to", and we can agree that health insurance and the insurance companies who sell them seem to be scammer's and scandalous.

You say you live in country without insurance and it is fantastic. I imagine it would be, although I am not entirely sure what you mean by without insurance. Do you mean without health insurance or without all forms of insurance?

I also don't know what you mean by it is fantastic, nor do I know which country you live in. Do you live in a country that provides "free" healthcare to the people? Is this what you mean by fantastic, or do you live in a country where people pay their own medical costs to the doctors directly without relying upon health insurance companies? You have not made this clear by your post so it is difficult to speak to.

It is not true to say that the the public, which is the people, can't exist without taxes. People do not exist because of taxation, what does exist because of taxation is government and what can't exist without taxation, is government. In the U.S. it is the people who are the government, but they do not need government in order to exist, and indeed, pre-exist the government. The government can not exist, however, without the people.

I am not sure what you mean by "the private will always fight taxes", but I will say this, just because government needs taxation in order to survive doesn't mean that they should get away with over taxation, and when they are over taxing the public, then the people should fight this.

As to you question that without regulation, how is competition enforced? I answer this; first, competition can not be enforced, as such an action is up to the individuals who decide to compete. I have all ready stated, and in fact to you, that there need be anti-trust laws in place to prevent monopolies, and I went as far as to concede that this can be viewed as a form of regulation. However, I have also argued that is not regulation of the market place but is a regulation of the rules. If it is capitalism that we are to rely upon as an economic system, then there need be massive competition as part of the rules. Thus, monopolies are against the rules and not allowed.

As to your question, without regulation who protects us from the business tyrants, I would first ask you a question; who protects you from the business tyrants now, in this over regulated marketplace? In this thread the capitalism I have referred to has often been called "pure" capitalism. A more correct phrase would be laissez faire capitalism which means allowing industry to be free of government. There is a Latin phrase that states: Caveat Emptor, which means let the buyer beware. That the phrase is Latin, a dead language, should give you an idea of how ancient such a notion is, and even in today's heavily regulated market place, it remains no less true, and it would be prudent of all buyers to beware.

Do you truly need some one else to protect you? Are you so meek and helpless that you can not protect yourself?

As to your question of the disabled. Are you telling me that if your brother or sister were disabled, or if you had children that were disabled, that you wouldn't care for them? Are you so heartless that you would demand the government step in and care for your family members you are too heartless to care for yourself?

Or, possibly you mean, without the government, who would have forced all those businesses to build ramps for the disabled. Is that what you are getting at? That without government regulation, there wouldn't be ramps built for the disabled? I can not truly speak to it, until you clarify what it is you mean by your seeming heartless remark.

To answer your question as to what happens to orphans, are you ignorant to what is happening to them now? Indeed, because the government has stepped in, at least in the U.S., and all but eliminated the private practice of orphanages, they have created an administrative agency in the form of Child Protective Services, that not only "cares" for the orphans, but has expanded their scope of jurisdiction to seize the children away from parents who love their kids, and made orphans of those children without regard for the children's wishes and certainly without regard for the parents wishes.

Have you not read about how prevalent rape and other abuses are for children under the "care" of Child Protective Services? Have you not read of all the children Child Protective Services have lost, or how many of died under strange circumstances? Please don't waste your time trying to convince me, that government is the best solution for orphans.

You hope to declare that business will destroy itself and us along with them without government, but you don't offer any sound reasons as to why and seem to think your silly questions are all that are needed to show how correct you are with this erroneous assumption.

Your last sentence is nothing more than a silly assumption as well. What makes you think that I don't vote? And as to running for office, no thank you, I will do my best to effect change for the better in a more noble and less corrupt way.


[edit on 11-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
There is no perfect system in the world, and there never will be. However, Capitalism does provide the most opportunities to the most people, of all of the economic systems.

In a communist system jobs are mandated by the upper class, and in a pure socialist system people are told whether or not they can do a job depending on the number of people that need the service or the product.

Capitalism on the other hand lets people make choices that effect their life. They can choose what type of work they want to do(whether they are qualified or not is dependent on the individual.) People that believe in capitalism do not assume all start out at an equal place, but even the lower class can overcome extreme adversity if they are smart, inventive, are talented enough. In a communist or socialialist system none of these qualities matter.

Yes, people that are born into poverty in a capitalist system have a lot to overcome, but it is not insumountable as in other systems.

CAPITALISM IS THE ONLY ECONOMIC SYSTEM THAT AT LEAST GIVES PEOPLE A CHANCE TO IMPROVE THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by russ212]

[edit on 11-1-2010 by russ212]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


.....



...

As to you question that without regulation, how is competition enforced? I answer this; first, competition can not be enforced, as such an action is up to the individuals who decide to compete. I have all ready stated, and in fact to you, that there need be anti-trust laws in place to prevent monopolies, and I went as far as to concede that this can be viewed as a form of regulation. However, I have also argued that is not regulation of the market place but is a regulation of the rules. If it is capitalism that we are to rely upon as an economic system, then there need be massive competition as part of the rules. Thus, monopolies are against the rules and not allowed.

As to your question, without regulation who protects us from the business tyrants, I would first ask you a question; who protects you from the business tyrants now, in this over regulated marketplace? In this thread the capitalism I have referred to has often been called "pure" capitalism. A more correct phrase would be laissez faire capitalism which means allowing industry to be free of government. There is a Latin phrase that states: Caveat Emptor, which means let the buyer beware. That the phrase is Latin, a dead language, should give you an idea of how ancient such a notion is, and even in today's heavily regulated market place, it remains no less true, and it would be prudent of all buyers to beware.

Do you truly need some one else to protect you? Are you so meek and helpless that you can not protect yourself?

As to your question of the disabled. Are you telling me that if your brother or sister were disabled, or if you had children that were disabled, that you wouldn't care for them? Are you so heartless that you would demand the government step in and care for your family members you are too heartless to care for yourself?

Or, possibly you mean, without the government, who would have forced all those businesses to build ramps for the disabled. Is that what you are getting at? That without government regulation, there wouldn't be ramps built for the disabled? I can not truly speak to it, until you clarify what it is you mean by your seeming heartless remark.

To answer your question as to what happens to orphans, are you ignorant to what is happening to them now? Indeed, because the government has stepped in, at least in the U.S., and all but eliminated the private practice of orphanages, they have created an administrative agency in the form of Child Protective Services, that not only "cares" for the orphans, but has expanded their scope of jurisdiction to seize the children away from parents who love their kids, and made orphans of those children without regard for the children's wishes and certainly without regard for the parents wishes.

You hope to declare that business will destroy itself and us along with them without government, but you don't offer any sound reasons as to why and seem to think your silly questions are all that are needed to show how correct you are with this erroneous assumption.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]


I mean without health insurance.

I live in Ireland which has universal subsidised (through taxes) healthcare.

That means the most I EVER pay is about $50.

I pay less than a tenner for ANY prescription and all healthcare (including dentistry) is free for kids.

Our son was born here and had to have a very minor operation after birth (which included a week in the hospital) and we literally didn't spend a cent out of pocket.

So, that's nurses visiting us at home, birth, a stay in the hospital, surgery and another stay in the hospital... total cost - Nothing.

Our daughter was born in the UK and if anything the NHS was better.

In the states we paid hundreds a month for the privilege of insurance... what a scam.

As for you assuming that I meant you didn't vote - that's not the case - I meant if you wanna change politics you must vote (with the implied: if you don't already).

As for the sound reasoning behind the self-destructive nature of business, you must be kidding:

The housing bubble
The Tech bubble
Enron/WorldCom/etc.
The US Auto Industry
Farm subsidies
The first stock market crash/Great Depression

All of those are businesses that wouldn't survive in America without government bailouts and all of those collapsed due to greed and malfeasance on the part of the owners, not the consumers.

I think if anything you need to prove that businesses can be responsible... I have never seen it... some are for a while, but in the end, American capitalism is too extreme and leads to either fiddling the laws/screwing their employees or following extreme economic polices which lead to their own demise.

And who gets screwed... why it's the people that work for the companies (though frequently not the owners) and the tax payers who bail them out.

If you can show me enough examples to counter ALL the ones I've given, where greed leads to collapse and then catastrophe is averted by tax payer bail outs I will consider your point, but I doubt you can. I doubt this because a HUGE percentage of your kids taxes will go to the military and economic bailouts.

Two things your theories do not address.

As for CPS being dangerous... is it more dangerous than living on the street? Or living with abusive parents... I think that's a red herring in other words.

As for the disabled. If I was working class and had a disabled child I would NOT be able to afford the necessary healthcare.... it's common in the states that working class families go bankrupt because of medical expenses you know... another case of profits over people.

Doesn't happen here in Ireland btw.

Or anywhere in Europe.

For the last five years the US has finished behind Europeans countries when measuring the standard of living... why?

Because # is nicer and easier here. And guess what. Europeans find it easier to move up economically and have for years (google it).

Finally, you concede that anti-monopoly rules should exist, but your Rand-ian heroes, DO NOT.

Welcome (at least a bit) to reality



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
Quite true.

The least intrusive way to regulate capitalism is to cap wealth at a billion dollars. That way you get the bennies without the worst excesses. It's also about the only way "trickle down" could ever work.

Nobody needs that much money or wealth anyway.


Cap wealth? I could live with a billion $, hell I'd settle for a LOT less. But to restrict the ability to make wealth, even at a billion, is not the productive way to go. Look what Bill Gates and numerous others have done with their money. Many billions given to critical charitable causes. In many cases far more then government has done.

I have a moral problem with saying " no matter how smart, or just lucky you are, you can only make X amount of money". To me that goes against the reason why capitalism has always produced wealth, not sucked it dry as does total socialism. And who are you to say no one needs that much wealth anyway? You can give any money you don't need just to survive to charity, or set up a non-profit as I have. You don't need to buy a BMW, but you should have the right to do so.

There is no question capatalism should be regulated. I have no problem with a flat tax based on how much you make. I would also reduce the complexity of the tax code. This would also reduce the number of reductions, allowing you to deduct medical costs, charitable contrabutions, among several others. Provide incentive to regulate capitalism in a rational way. Make the tax code much less complex, protect the environment, etc. But don't, (even when talking a billion $) do anything that will stifle inovation, or give some people the excuse (to them) to cheat on their taxes.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
And socialism doesn't help everyone either.

The problem is that capitalism(As we know it today) is ANYTHING but free-market, and the meaning of the term "regulation" has also been truncated to fit into the corrupt fascist culture that prevails in Washington today.

You are absolutely correct to say that capitalism isn't going to work for everyone. But such is life, there will always be those who are, regardless of the system in place, too inept, too lazy, or in a particular circumstance beyond their control to make it in life. But Capitalism DOES work if there is a level playing field and REAL regulation(Enforcement of the Law).

It is one thing to prevent fraud, to maintain high standards of business practices, and safe products(or at least publicized hazard warnings), it is an entirely different thing to say that the government should take over and standardize every sector of the economy. We KNOW centralized government doesn't work, we KNOW centralized economics don't work-and they don't work because we have a bunch of bought and paid for fascist scum bags creating these centralized institutions and practices.

We cannot hope to prevent fraud if the system meant to police it is participating in the fraud. This did not change with the previous party, it won't with this party, and likely won't with any future ones until we pull our heads out of our collective asses and scream to the top of our lungs to take back what was taken from us, the Constitution, and our economy.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by projectvxn]

[edit on 11-1-2010 by projectvxn]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Well, this is turning into Mr. Z's thread.
He has proven my points about market fundamentalists with his very flaming about my contribution. Market fundamentalists see the world in black-and-white, the same way as Islamic fundamentalists.

Sou you think I am a Marxist simply because I think social justice should be perhaps considered?

How odd. Even Jesus of NAzareth chamioned similar ideas, as did John Maynard Keynes.
So you think they were all Communists?

This IS seeing the world in black and white. Anyone who does not agree with Mr. Z. is a Marxist...

Marx BTW was a brilliant economist, but he certainly missed certain points. He was a utopian. Like many scientists of his genre, he should be studied, and some can be learned from him, Engels and other 19th century minds.
I am by no means a materialist in his definition though. I actually think his critique of the history of his own era is the best part of his work, and his ontological speculations and historical projections is the weakest.

But how did you arrive at Lenin?
I think you only meant this as a baseless insult.
(Why not Mao then?)
Look here, my family has been quite victimized by fanatical Communists in the 1950's. On the other hand, I grew up in a family of economists - my grandfather was the minister of finances prior to the Communist takeover. Adam Smith was on the table when I was 12...

I personally have always thought that the capitalism I saw in Western Europe and the US until about 1980 was the lesser of the two evils.
Leninism was pure depression, and you only had to see living Soviets who escaped from it. However, the system of neoconservatives is just not the same. In fact, it has a similar quality of a love for the primitive as Bolshevik theory - and many of its original proponents used to be actually Western Trotskyites. (Surprised?)

Have you READ any Lenin?
I recommend his "article" on the history of European philosophy. I had to read his stuff as a philosophy student. The man was a clear schizophrenic, or a borderline one at that, and not a philosopher, bent of violating ideas in a manner that paid no respect to logic of any kind (even Hegelian), and none (except token) to the Western tradition that Marx came from. It is the work of a barbarian.

The two men cannot be mentioned under the same heading, based on their intellectual output. Marx is still considered in sociology as an influential thinker, and some of his observations were adequately proven by research (such as the attitudes towards money separated by income strata.) Some have been disproven, and some points are obviously better argued in philosophy class - his weakest contribution. The basic idea is that capitalism had been founded on colonies (what he calls the original accumulation of capital). Simply put, capitalism historically arose in countries that ripped off other cultures by collective violence. However, by our days it has been tamed and accepted as a social system in the cultured West, refined by struggles and complex regulations.

Lenin in contrast was a state terrorist, a dictator, and a misguided mystic of Russia, probably off his rocker anyway, judging by his texts.

Isaac Newton was not proven right in every single thing he maintained. Came Maxwell and Einstein...

Adam Smith, however, is far simpler and earlier than Marx.

Now about market fundamentalists that anoint this mediocre 19th century thinker as a saint: having seen BBC's famous commentary film, it is odd how Islamic fundamentalism and market fundametalism (by Strauss and Friedman) arose around the same time.

Both came from people who were deeply dissatisfied with the actual freedom and liberalism of the "bridled" capitalism of the early postwar era. Both movements had a material start from 1979-80. And both are deeply paranoid. Today's neoconservatives want to transform society radically. But market fundamentalism is failing in all the countries of the former Soviet Bloc, big time, in various styles.

Exceptions: the Tigers, who have been quite regulated themselves.

I translated studies on how Korea and Japan in their time exercised firm control over foreign investment - regulation - that was the secret of the Asian Tigers. Without regulation, they would have remained dirt poor - especially South Korea. When globalists moved in, their markets pretty much collapsed (98-99).

When comparing the transnational corporation to a tribe of viruses - as opposed to a tribe of people, I was pointing out (obviously you did not watch the movie "Corporation") that corporations have been usurping the rights originally intended by lawmakers for natural persons. They are "legal entities." A corporation cannot die, like you or me, but it can sue you for a hundred years. And, it has no conscience, like most human beings do.
I worked with enough founding documents to see that their logic, if translated to a living person, would equal to that of a psychopath hell-bent on grasping everything in its path, lying, rationalising etc. Unlimited growth itself is a sick idea, that no sane human being or community would espouse. But every one of our corporations does. And if the CEO has an inch of conscience, he is kicked out quickly. Investors have practically no control over this.

In fact, the transnational corporations resemble the Soviet system in many of their problematic parts. For example, the rigid top-down hierarchies, the ideology that should be repeated blindly at the work place (while a lot of people hate it privately who work there), and the paranoid struggles among leaders. Their methods are more refined - except when it comes to the third world where they frequently rule by intimidation and goon squads.

Did you know that the very amendment that was brought for the benefit of the freedom of speech of Black people in the USA has been used mostly by corporate lawyers?

Another point in question: when capitalism was real, most of the Western stock markets traded in goods or gold-based currencies. Only a few per cents of all stocks were speculative.

Now this is over 90 per cent in all Western stock exchanges.

Do you see no problem with that?

The problem is not capitalism, it is UNBRIDLED capitalism, as the OP has named it appropriately.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Ummm, to those of you unfamiliar with U.S. healthcare, ANYONE DEVOID OF INCOME(OR assets) IS AUTOMATICALLY ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID!
Every U.S. child with a parent who makes less than $500 dollars a week is eligible for medicaid! If you are disabled (and I work with mostly poor, disabled folk) you are automatically eligible for medicaid and possibly medicare!

U.S. capitalism ALREADY HAS safety nets in place against monopolies, lobbying and other corporate abuses, BUT, they are not being enforced well! ON PURPOSE? Haliburton? etc...



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Kokatsi
 

You mention John Maynard Keynes and Jesus (Christ, I presume).
Have you read Zygmund Dobbs?
www.keynesatharvard.org...
I am curious if you disagree. And why.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
And socialism doesn't help everyone either.


Socialism is an inevitability. There has never been a modernized government without socialist elements within it. Even alternative tax systems like fair tax is still socialist as public funds are still distributed into public structures, its just through the form of goods and services. Same could be said for flat tax. Any type of tax is a form of public distribution in capital. Whether it be the trickle down or trickle up system, these are merely different ways of distributing capital from the public and it is still socialism at the end of the day.

The conservatives will rally against socialism as a whole, but will forget their staunch support for the billions of public funds being sent into the military. They will forget that the existence of our police and fireman are as the result of socialism. Sure, you may argue this is all in the constitution but then again it proves the fact further, that socialism is a legit system as it is even written in the constitution as a necessary system.

Its what socialist elements that exists that is often argued, not the concept, and those on the rightwing forget that.


The problem is that capitalism(As we know it today) is ANYTHING but free-market,


My OP was directed at unregulated capitalism. In other words the "free market". We may have different views over it but that was the system I was addressing at. In my view the free market system is a form of capitalism... just an unregulation version of it.


You are absolutely correct to say that capitalism isn't going to work for everyone. But such is life,


I never stated that there was a perfect system out there that will work for anybody. There will always be some lower class, some people who go through unfortunate circumstances and thus is life and nature. Its inevitable and I never made any reference to any system solving such an inevitability.

My argument was that unregulated capitalism, or the free market in your definition, is no more better than that of communism. This system leads to a state of nature in the economy where the existence of the competitor eventually dissappears and only a few survivors reserve the top spot outlasting the rest. By doing this the remaining victorious corporations create barriers and control prices where any new competitors (small businesses) that come in meet increasingly impossible odds. Unregulated capitalism dimishes opportunity over time for anybody wanting to start a business or climb up and there is nothing stopping these corporations in this system from eventually dictating the economt and from there the people and the nation.

Another argument I made just to be clear here is that unregulated capitalism needs a large working class. Likewise the percentage of the elite wealthy will be merely 1% or so because in an economic state of nature, there will only be afew overgrown corporations controlling the bulk of the wealth without the existence of the competitor.

So who will be below the few surviving minority elites? The lower classes. What sort of opportunity will these lowers classes now have to enter into a minority group of elite? The odds will be well against them as barriers and price controls would already have been well placed by the few dominating corporations as they have little to no competitors. Because there was no regulation to protect the opportunities of new comers and real competition, there will be nothing stopping these minority elite corporations from continuing to bar any new competition from coming in.

I really don't consider it an opportunity when the odds are stacked 99-1 against you.


too lazy,


Thats always the excuse from free marketers in reply to those working hard to reach their dreams. In a system where a minority dictate and control prices, where no new comer can have an opportunity to compete, your simple excuse to their situation is that they are "lazy".


We KNOW centralized government doesn't work,


So essentially your saying this Union the founding fathers established, the reason for the existence of the constitution, doesnt work? So instead of having these United states you'd have independent nations? Because thats what your essentially advocating here, that "the United states doesnt work". Because if we dont have some form of central government or federal governing body, what are we? 50 seperate governing states thats suppose to cooperate without any central middle body? Bit extreme dont you think?

The United states has gone through many trials and tests and has come out in each instance unified. This country is all about unity and whether you like the central government or not, the concept is essential to a cooperating Union. I am sorry that you have no faith in Union that generations had worked so hard and fought to build. Fortunately you are a but a minority.

SG



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
Take the shop owner who sells a good product to the local town. He is happy and the people are happy. But, one day Wal-Mart builds a big super store a mile away, and guess what... no more shop owner. Capitalism is "Economic Evolution," which is really "Economic Anarchy" and in both evolution and anarchy you have "winners" and "losers"... you have survival of the fittest.

...

In like manner, unbridled capitalism does not favor the general population, but rather it favors those who are smartest, more cunning, and best connected with money and people. These then convince the masses to earn as much as they can, spend as much as they can, save as little as they can, and be happy all along the way... all for the purpose of "capitalizing" on the life, labor, and time of those weaker masses.

...

You are assuming that capitalism is played by benevolent people that know how to say "enough is enough", but that is just not the case by actual experience. I really don't care about your idealistic capitalism, because such a thing cannot exist as long as mankind has the heart he now has. Competition is good... for the winner... and the loser just has to suffer, which in reality makes the entire world suffer.


Your Wal-Mart example shows how "holes in market regulation allowing Wal-Marts" is an amazingly great thing for humanity. Despite the fact that even though Wal-Mart executives may have blackened greedy hearts with an eye only on the almighty dollar, they help out more poor people than extra market regulations ever will. Specifically, they help millions upon millions of people save money on essential needs like food and clothing. So you have a scenario where Wal-Mart, despite its possibly greedy core, is out there providing a very important service for poor people. Its out there doing good for the poor. Not exactly a heart-warming tale, but certainly a tale that shows us how blackened hearts will end up working for the forces of good under capitalism.

One of the nice things about purely non-violent regulations of the marketplace (pure capitalism) is that it seems to help the poor more than anyone else. It helps out those who are disadvantaged and unconnected more than anyone else. I believe this is that because under market regulation, every piece of regulation is a mysterious piece of legalese that only a lawyer understands. Who can afford a lawyer? A mega-corporation like Walmart. Who can't? Joe down the street, who dreams of one day opening a small shop but dreads having to figure out all that legal stuff getting in his way. Market regulations help out the big box stores, not the small shops.

One sad thing that happens regardless of what types of market regulations there are is that one business can lose business to another one. The bigger, smarter fish, sometimes eat the smaller ones in the marketplace. A small shopkeeper may lose out to a bigger one. It has nothing to do wit harm and everything to do with help. It is a matter of people chosing who to help and when to help them.

Prior to that big Wal-Mart opening you hate but I like, the consumers were not being helped out by the small shopkeepers as much as they could have been helped. Despite being poor, they had to pay higher prices for their goods than needed. However, after the big Wal-mart opening, the shopkeeper is not being helped out as much as they could be by former customers. So now we've changed up who is getting help. The good news is that a few of those Wal-Mart shoppers are no longer so poor they cannot help their fellow man. And statistics show that the middle class are the one's who help out the poor the most. So that growing middle class resulting from Wal-Mart is in prime position to help the shopkeeper who just lost his job not due to harm, but rather lack of help.

Lets say I'm in the community and I'm angry that Wal-Mart has resulted in a local small shop being closed despite that I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart. If I owned a gun and thought like a socialist government worker, I would think to myself, hmmmm... I should go around with my gun and force people to donate just enough money for the shopkeeper to remain open... I'll call it "taxes". Notice that even using this insulting solution, poor people would still be allowed to save money by shopping at Wal-Mart while the shopkeeper would still have a job. And the rich people being taxed (as if that would actually happen in real life) wouldn't be all that hurting either. Even with heavy market regulation, there is no reason you've got to screw over poor people by taking away their Wal-Mart. Therefore, you're insulting idea of forcing Wal-Mart to close shop or to not open in the first place isn't even close to the best option even from a pro-violence point of view (and by pre-violence I mean you pointing a gun at the Wal-mart exec and then telling him he won't be allowed to set up a shop in your town). You've made other good points as well, and I may address them later on but wish to limit the size of my response.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by truthquest]



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join