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.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Southern Guardian
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.
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
One of the major arguments from conservatives for capitalism is that it gives everybody the opportunity to succeed and make something of themselves. I must say I disagree on that assumption.
The system of unregulated capitalism needs a lower class to survive. Completely disagree with this assumption. Its common sense to understand that we cant all be successful and influencial. Does everyone have to be influential or successful or can nobody be?We can't all start a successful business and there is only a limited amount of a market out there to tap into. The fallacy of the limited pie concept, I will not even go there.Now when we move away from the chanes of simply "becoming successful" there is the argument that we "have the opportunity" to become successful. How is that? Not all americans have the opportunity to become successful. Many are born into lives where their chances of even gaining an opportunity are nil.
When I started my business, I paid my workers a percentage of the job, guess what, they excelled. Several competitors complained to me that their workers had heard what I was paying and asked for the same set-up. I also stole their best workers by offering them positions. Sorry, but my family went bankrupt the same year I left high school and I fail to see the impossibility of getting ahead in America, if you do not have that gold spoon. Of course, I no longer run a business, there is no way in hell to even try to get one going now, with the vast regulations forced on upstart companies. I wonder why that is?
Do we all have the opportunity to go to university? What is your solution to this? No because to many it is simply to expensive or simply are unable to keep up with the education standards. Some of us even have families to look after whether it is our own or our relatives. Life is all about choices. Some have it easier than others, some have it harder.
Do we all have the opportunity to become interns? No as the jobs that usually lead to success are limited and on high demand. Jobs are quite scarce right now, is that due to the fact that corporatism in our government, has been making all the decisions for the last 30-40 years?
Do we all have the opportunity to start a business let alone grow it? No, because to many of us our circumstances in life prevent us from persuing such opportunities. Those on the right assume that we are all born under the same cirumstances, they assume we all have open doors to us and they assume that a 9/10 chance of success in life is "opportunity" when it is no such thing.Opportunity is what you make of it. I do believe we need to stop corporatism in all of its shapes and forms.
Are we all born equal under the same circumstances? No. I'd also like to rally against the assumption that those who work at the lower end of the system are all there by their own faults. That is simply not true as in society we are brought up under circumstances for the most part beyond our control.What is your solution to this?
The truth is that the foundations of the free market or Capitalism centers around this assumptive view that we are "all equal" and that we all had the same golden spoons when we were born. Those assumptions are flawed and biased. Neither is the assumption that we all have been given the same opportunity.We do not exist in a free market. It has been taken by over by the government and it's corporate/banker masters.
Does this mean a system like Capitalism is unworkable? No not really. There should however be recognition of the circumstances of many under such a system and this why it is important the unfortunate bunch be priority as the odds are already stacked against them in life. People always forget that the system of capitalism needs folks like this in such unfair cirumstances. This system needs working class folks like myself to keep the system alive. So, the assumption that we all had an opportunity needs to be corrected.
This is why I get sick to death of when people assume that "everybody had an opportunity, or are just lazy" when it comes to opposing any support for the lower classes from government. Its a generalization the corporations would just love to keep alive so they could earn every last penny.
A lot of what you wrote in the last two paragraphs I agree with whole heartedly. All of the blatant regulations that have been instituted to cause anti-competitiveness and to further monopolistic measures need to be repealed. Trusts, foundations and tax free entities are just 3 examples I bring to the table. The blatant income tax fraud on the the middle class is another problem that should be addressed. (When income gets to a certain level-the existing income tax becomes non existent. That is the real purpose behind the 5000 page tax code. Why is it this huge? It is purposefully done to allow the super rich to stay super rich and the rest of us chained to the tax system.
SG
Originally posted by AlreadyGone
I never fail to wonder at the cynicism displayed by some people about capitalism. I am not rich, but I am not poor. My parents grew up during the depression and WWII. My father never got past the 6th grade, but due to their hard work, I went to college. They are now retired and have a comfortable retirement. No one gave them anything, they worked hard-scrimped-saved-sacrificed and got ahead.
I got a degree in Commercial Design. Thanks to the advent of the computer, my talents were null and void. So, thanks to capitalism, I reinvented myself. Went to work in retail and management. Got married and had a daughter... then divorce. I was left with a small property with farmhouse and barn. I rented out the house and lived in the barn. I laso got 2 part-time jobs in addition to the fulltime job I had. In between, I converted the barn into a nice cabin. But for a while, I was cold and hungry and things looked bleak.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Indeed, one of the primary tenets of capitalism is that it requires massive competition precisely because there will be businesses that fail, and massive competition will ensure that the economy as a whole will not feel the loss of some businesses.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Failure is a fact of life and while some will fail they are not bound to a lifetime of failure. It is also revealing that you argue that is "common sense" that we can not all be successful and influential. It is a jaded view to argue that some people are not capable of knowing success, and will never succeed in life.
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Corporatism is not capitalism
Corporatism is a successor to unregulated capitalism and history has shown us time and time again. As of yet we have been deregulating our markets over the decades and only until just recently did the markets go under regulation again.
and the corporate mentality has revealed time and time again their profound disgust for capitalism and free market principles.
They show their disgust my continously lobbying for more free unrestrained laws on them. They did it with healthcare reform, they did it through taxes, they lobbied through their right to speculate as they want, to lobby freerly through washington. They even lobbied to get their corporations the same rights as humans. It is that mentality.
It is not clear why you think that the only definition of success means being one who is in the top 1% of the wealth index, but this sort of envy is not doing you any justice.
I'd guarantee that if you were to put 100 people on a field full of $1 bills and told them they were free to take as many as they want, you wouldnt find one of them with more that 50% of the share. If that was the case obviously something is wrong here.
[edit on 9-1-2010 by Southern Guardian]
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Southern Guardian
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.
Which is a weak excuse. If the system has never been able to be implemented without a working class, maybe that means it simply is impossible?
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
As I have stated, there has never been a time when there was a free and unregulated marketplace.
Corporations do not lobby for less regulation but for more. Banks have lobbied for all sorts of regulations that would force people to do business with them.
Corporations do not lobby for less regulation but for more. Banks have lobbied for all sorts of regulations that would force people to do business with them.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It is not an excuse it is a fact.
Capitalism is an economic theory just as is communism, Marxism and socialism are.
Again, you can attack capitalism all you want, but you're not, you are attacking corporatism.
Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You are right in that there was never such thing as pure, unregulated capitalism. This is largely due to the fear that pure, unregulated capitalism could lead to all sorts of mischief like fraud on the markets.
A "market failure" as I describe it is not a crash or steep rise in market prices, like the current financial crisis. A "market failure" occurs when the free market is unable to efficiently allocate resources. This inefficiency can sometimes lead to catastrophic results.
A textbook example of a "market failure" is one that occurred in Colonial America. At this time, there was a free market for fire companies. People would regularly pay private fire companies a fee. In exchange for the fee, the fire companies would come out to the people's homes or businesses if a fire ever broke out.
Many people opted not to pay fees to private fire companies. When fires broke out in these people's homes, not only did their homes burn to the ground, but the fires often spread to other people's homes.
The American colonial governments found the free market system inefficient. It would be more efficient for society as a whole if all homes were protected by a fire company. That way if a fire ever broke out in anybody's home, the fire company would come out and save not on the home that was on fire, but all the neighboring homes as well. The colonial governments created socialized fire companies to serve the purpose of protecting all homes.
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Thats because the system of capitalism without the working class without any such restrictions is impossible. If it was possible, we would have seen the system.
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
As I have stated, there has never been a time when there was a free and unregulated marketplace.
Thats because the system of capitalism without the working class without any such restrictions is impossible. If it was possible, we would have seen the system. It is a moot of an argument for you make when you make excuses for why there has never been any account of one. If it was possible, that system would have been in place decades ago. You had Reagan, Bush snr, Ford, Nixon to implement this system and on all accounts it didnt work.
Capitalism needs a lower working class. Unregulated capitalism survives on having the odds against the majority. You may claim this is not necessarily true, but at the end of the day it is you that is unable to provide reference to a real working system of this nature.
Corporations do not lobby for less regulation but for more. Banks have lobbied for all sorts of regulations that would force people to do business with them.
References would be appreciated.
Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The fire company example holds water as a market failure because it is an example of where the private market was not the most efficient way to allocate resources. Here the private market allocated a resource, namely fire fighting services. More buildings burned down under the private system than the public system.
The private system was also not giving the paying customers their money's worth. Private companies did not respond to fires that were not at paying customers' homes, even if these fires could potentially threaten paying customers' homes. The fire fighting companies only acted when the flames reached paying customers homes, which was often too late.
Under the public system, the public fire company responds to all fires. This mean more small fires were put out before they turned into big fires which wiped out several homes or businesses.
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Thats because the system of capitalism without the working class without any such restrictions is impossible. If it was possible, we would have seen the system.
I think part of the problem here is that apples and oranges are being argued under the same name "capitalism."
Capitalism is not dependent upon a working class