Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

Originally posted by Siberbat
Before you start wishing for the empty promises of socialism and communism, live in Venezuela, Mexico, or Zimbabwe for a year or two. Look at Argentina, and see how that socialist utopia became a nightmarish hell for it's people (economic collapse 2000). The realities may shock you.

Venezuela is the only country on that list that can be considered leftist. Argentina has been a constitutional republic since 1853, which allows for private business, although there are also nationalized industries.

Name a socialist country where citizens quality of life is better than the United States free market economy.

The US does not have a free market economy. Might be freer than others, but there is still a lot of regulation and manipulation of the market.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by petrus4
When you've got psychopaths running things on a global level, yes. They are the primary issue, as I've said.

No one-group collective is running the show. Many competing groups of varying fallibility run the show.

Yes, but assuming (which I think is a fairly safe assumption, although correct me if I'm wrong; especially considering what you've already said) that you subscribe to a largely conventional model of political theory, you probably aren't truly willing to acknowledge that the psychopaths (in terms of the people described by Lobaczewski) exist at all, or at least outside of the Charles Manson/Hannibal Lector archetype.

The psychopaths do not mind you being aware of their reality as far as relatively bush league serial murderers are concerned; in that case, they can't really help the mask slipping a bit, anyway. People like Manson can actually be useful, because they help reinforce the morally dualistic absolutist model, where we assume that people like him do what they do because they're just "evil," without any other explanation being needed. Psychopaths like non-psychopaths thinking that, because it means we don't bother trying to learn anything else about them, which might lead to us actually solving the problems they cause.

Where they do not want you acknowledging their existence, however, is in the areas of white collar crime, politics, or economics. In those areas, you not only will have been taught to believe that they don't exist there, but you will also have been taught to view yourself as a calm, rational adult for holding this belief, in comparison with wild-eyed, fringe-dwelling kooks like me, who suggest that perhaps serial murder isn't the only area of life in which psychopaths ply their trade.

The idea that virtually the entire economic/political model that all of us (myself included) have inside our heads, was completely designed and architected by psychopaths, on both sides of the political/economic spectrum, is one that is considered preposterous, assuming that most people are willing to even vaguely entertain it at all.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Why don't you tell advertisers that when they jam their BS down peoples' throats, telling people what they do and don't need??

What I demonstrated is not arrogance... nobody NEEDS an iphone... we're talking about sanity versus insanity. Insanity is when you say you need an iphone, sanity is when I say nobody needs these things, ESPECIALLY considering their holistic costs.

Again, you have just tried to jam your definition of what is right down someone else's throat. While I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment about iPhones, that is not a choice I will allow you to make for me.

Do I think the social cost of creating the iPhone is high? Most definitely. Do I think the situation in the Congo where the rare earth metals that go into making an iPhone are mined is sustainable? No. Do I think the child labor used to assemble the iPhone is ethical? No. Do I own an iPhone? No.

I chose to make an economic decision based on a moral conviction. However, it is my choice. And I will fight you at the point of a gun when you try to take that choice from me.

Advertising is propaganda pure and simple. Its intent is to cloud your mind and short circuit your critical thinking skills. Ideological propaganda is similar.

In many ways, the world stinks... Do your part by changing your actions. Convince others so that they willingly change their own actions. But don't try to tell me what I need or don't need.

Second... those countries don't need CAPITALISM, they already have it combined with authoritarianism. What they need is LIBERAL DEMOCRACY to free themselves. Capitalism is opportunistic, it does not chase after freedom, it chases after profits, low costs, and growth... wherever it finds that it goes, more often than not. This is a dangerous, unsustainable, and inhuman recipe, simple as that.

We can agree to disagree on what they NEED, because I believe they need and have a right to self determination. That is what is being denied to them under whatever totalitarian system they currently live under. Do I think the corporatism of today is really representative of what free markets are all about? No.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ANOK



costofwar.com...

As a passionate capitalist I can assure you that war is not in my interest. Building a prosperous and happy society is in my interest. Giving people the fruits of my monetary gain is in my interest.

"Building a prosperous and happy society"... sounds like SOCIALISM TO ME!!!

Oh and eeeeeevil COLLECTIVISM!!!

And the word SOCIETY... its root is "social" which is too close to SOCIALISM!

You ignore that self choice is implied in his statements.

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer

Free Markets and Free Trade go hand in hand with Freedom.

Here's a question. What is your definition of the word freedom?

The reading I've done, has strongly implied that the Friedmanite (as one example) definition of the word, basically amounts to a single individual (or small group of individuals) at least being hypothetically free to acquire literally all property, of any form, on the planet...which leads to another question.

Assuming that individuals retain this freedom, according to this definition, how are the other six billion or so of us, supposed to survive?

Free Markets do not promote someone becoming richer at the expense of the poor. Those are untruths perpetuated by those who would see a socialist agenda. Rather, in the Free Market, both parties benefit from a transaction because both are trading for something they value more than what they are trading away, whether this be labor, goods, or services.

This is theory, not practice; and it is something which Capitalist advocates do that is exceptionally aggravating. People who disagree with said theory are assumed to be living with the fairies; and then said Capitalist advocates again quote theory which has exactly the same degree of relation to the actual reality.

Von Mises talked about people being rewarded for innovation and the creation of new markets. It's a nice dream, but it doesn't happen. Instead, we get things like telecommunications cartels creating artificial scarcity around Internet bandwidth, as one example, because they are too mentally lazy to accept that said market is established, and that they should rely on being economically rewarded from the creation of a new one, as the theory states.

Don't accuse other people of believing purely in hypotheticals and fantasy. I've never come across a supporter of Capitalism yet, who didn't do exactly the same thing themselves. In contemporary reality at least, it simply does not happen.

This has turned into a really thought provoking thread now that we aren't flaming one another. So, thanks and kudos.

reply to post by daskakik


Nationalization of industry is a socialist ideology. The state centraly aquires resources to produce the product at either a profit or a loss. Losses are allowed as this may be socially benefical to the citizenry. Over the long run, these industries are not allowed to fail and are supported by tax payers (sound familiar?). So, it is like taking a bit out of the healthly side of a rotten apple.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by Siberbat
Before you start wishing for the empty promises of socialism and communism, live in Venezuela, Mexico, or Zimbabwe for a year or two. Look at Argentina, and see how that socialist utopia became a nightmarish hell for it's people (economic collapse 2000). The realities may shock you.

Venezuela is the only country on that list that can be considered leftist. Argentina has been a constitutional republic since 1853, which allows for private business, although there are also nationalized industries.

Name a socialist country where citizens quality of life is better than the United States free market economy.

edit on 5-2-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

To be fair, many european nations with social democracies (which is a free-market, democratic society, but with strong principles of equality and justice) actually regularly rank higher than the US in terms of quality of life ... yes, in America you can have a big car and a cheap house and low tax, but is that all there is to life? I think not.

Originally posted by dadgad

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
reply to post by dadgad

 

I personally have always had the option find another job if I thought I was being paid an unfair wage, as well as the option of starting my own business if I was so inclined. That's where the Freedom part comes in. It extends to fact that if you do not like the "big business" someone will likely have a smaller local company that serves the same function to whom you are more than welcome to give your money. If that company doesn't exist, then it sounds like you got yourself an idea for a business venture there, friend.

Again this scenario only works for a minority group of people, and in fact, as we can all witness this is decreasing in rapid pace. The socio-economic situation attests to that. America is decline, only now, a large part of the world, the exploited part has been so for many many decades.

Capitalism creates illusions everywhere it goes. It does provide different options, different scenario's, alluding to freedom of choice, but in fact all these scenario's are controlled by the same modality.
Another illusion is the notion that it has national interest, which is absolutely not true. As someone mentioned before it only follows profit, wherever it goes, wherever it can be generated, it will go there. National interest is not profitable for capitalists. They only pretend so, because state power is very useful. They can use legislation, the military and the dumb masses to get what they want.

The only reason that the western world doesn't look like Africa is because of socialist influences, workers unions and all that. It's not socialism, but socialist influences.

I happen to live in a country (the Netherlands) that is considered by many, especially the US as socialist, which it's not. But it functions, or has functioned for the better part on the left side of the right wing spectrum. We are now moving towards fascism as well, but thats another story. Things are still, and have been considering the world scenario been rather well organized with a definite attempt at taking care of everyone in society. It is still a capitalist system though and we are still being exploited. We don't and never had free health care, like Britain, but the state makes sure that it is affordable and that nobody may be refused by health care providers (like in the US before Obama).

Your post was, I think, very clear and enlightening for many readers. As a European who now lives in America, I get so frustrated when people refer to Europe as communist or socialist. We have some social democratic principles (which I guess could be called 'socialism') but only insofar as we are talking about altruism. Europe has many extremely wealth people and hedge funds and the City of London probably has more lax regulation of banking and financial services than New York does. We believe in the freedom to pursue your goals and make money, but we also believe that we have a moral duty incumbent upon us to make sure that poorest and neediest are not left to suffer. In the UK at least (I don't know about other european nations) we do have a problem with the system being cheated, and that is at least due in part to a central authority which is inefficient in its ways. This is not to say that the system is inherently incapable of being efficient - simply that we do not have the right people calling the shots at the moment.

America and Europe are very similiar - biggest differences are that we don't argue about religion or abortion anywhere near as much, and that we have (for most average people) healthcare provided by the state, or health insurance which is kept affordable by the state (PS, it does work ... the problem with Obamacare is that it doesn't realize that in that sort of system, you cannot have the government provision simply making up for the deficiencies of the private system. A far better idea is to have a genuine system of national healthcare, and allow the private system to exist alongside it, as in many european nations).

Petrus, in response to the phone and ISP comment:
I don't know about that. When I am unpleased with my phone service or ISP, I can change to another company which may provide more value or a better service. Now if the state owned both entities and I receieved unsatisfactory service, then what? Kinda out of luck. Maybe I'd be asking too much for reliable service and acceptable customer relations. Thank goodness I am still able to make my own decision as to where I spend my money.

Wrong. You haven't been experiencing "capitalism" as you understand it. What we've been experiencing for decades has been "Corporatism" buttressed by corruption. It is truly shameful. We have enemies of liberty within our gates which must be routed out before individual liberties and sound money can be restored as created by our Founding Fathers.

Originally posted by Siberbat
reply to post by daskakik

 

Nationalization of industry is a socialist ideology. The state centraly aquires resources to produce the product at either a profit or a loss.

But if the market share of national industries is smaller than private industries does this not mean that the market is more capitalist than socialist?

Losses are allowed as this may be socially benefical to the citizenry. Over the long run, these industries are not allowed to fail and are supported by tax payers (sound familiar?).

Exactlly, so why doesn't anybody think twice about calling the US capitalist, as you did, but consider Argentina socialist?

reply to post by duality90

I think you wanted to respond to Siberbat instead of me.

I agree, quality of life is just another case of keeping up with the Joneses.

reply to post by daskakik

But if the market share of national industries is smaller than private industries does this not mean that the market is more capitalist than socialist?

I am not familiar with partial nationalization of industry. For example, lets take a natural resource like oil. A national oil company has three major drawbacks as posed to a private oil company. First, these companies tend to not be as efficient. Workers may not perform to their full potential as they know they are secure in their job, regardless of performance. This may lead to costly mistakes to people and company in the long term. Second, nationalized companies tend to be against foreign investors. This also tends to hurt the overall profitability of the company. Mexico is a prime example. Mexico states in it's constitution that foreign investment in nationalized oil are forbidden. Finally, when an industry gets nationalized, it becomes much more costly as it tends to become politicized rather than helping the economy grow. I can't say this for Europe, as I am unknowledgeable on business practices there.

Exactly, so why doesn't anybody think twice about calling the US capitalist, as you did, but consider Argentina socialist?

This is a major assumption on your part sir, at least about US not being capitalist. General Motor Corporation was about to go bankrupt in 2009 due to poor management of the company. GM requested a 6.7B loan from the US Treasury to help prop it up until the company could be restructured. As of now the company is finally turning a profit, sadly not enough to repay the taxpayer loan. Bailouts can occur in both models, and are very unhealthy for the company and the economy. Ford Motor Company was in the same situation, but refused the bailout. They are now out-performing GM and very stable. Government intervention is not the best thing and this is a good example.
It is obvious we will not agree on this philosophy Daskakik. I appreciate your contribution as I hope you did mine. Thank you.

Capitalism worked up until the last 10 or 15 years, just needs to be regulated properly. The Obama bank regs he put in place don't do that because he is paid off by wall street and they might crash if he put glass-stegal back in. Socialism sucks. MIllions of people in this country expect free everything from the government as they have 3 kids when they have zero income. As for Africa, are you kidding me? What are we going to do, hold a gun to their heads and make them become normal? There are problems with capitalism in the last 20 years, but that doesn't change the fact that people are mostly responsible for their own predicaments.

Originally posted by Siberbat
reply to post by daskakik

 

But if the market share of national industries is smaller than private industries does this not mean that the market is more capitalist than socialist?

I am not familiar with partial nationalization of industry.

I wan't talking about an industry, but all the commercial activity of a nation. If a country has nationalized 10% of it's commercial activities and 90% is private can you really say that it is a socialist country based only on that?

This is a major assumption on your part sir, at least about US not being capitalist.

You say that the US is capitalist, but why doesn't the fact that Amtrack is owned by the government or that TSA has taken over the airport security industry make you include it with the other countries that you listed. I mean those countries may have parts of their whole market under national control but they probably have over 80% of their industries in private hands.

It is obvious we will not agree on this philosophy Daskakik. I appreciate your contribution as I hope you did mine. Thank you.

It isn't a matter of me thinking that the philosophy is right or wrong. I actually agree with you, but probably for different reasons. No, it's about the "socialist" label placed on countries which are no more socialist than the US.

Like I said, with the exception of Venezuela, the countries you mentioned are just as capitalist as the US.

reply to post by petrus4

I don't want to start an argument with you, so I'll just state my opinions.

People hunger for the illusion of control in all its forms. Control leads to predictability and comfort. Who would want to live in chaos? We like to be able to settle down for a while and reflect. We like to mingle with our friends. But it seems we always wake up the next day facing a new challenge. The world is always throwing something at us. Every day we trail behind the control we're after. This is probably a good thing. True comfort would be too destructive. It leads to complacency and non-adaption and, ultimately, extinction. It's irony that we fight this battle called life for something we can never really have.

We like to be self-made. We engender in ourselves a spirit of individualism. We have pride in our accomplishments. Our society is built to encourage this. Privacy and rights and freedom center on these things. Without all this, there would be little to motivate us because we're driven by these things.

Capitalism is just an ideal, like all of the other words we have - socialism, communism, etc.

But our lives are very private. Millions of faceless people on the streets. Countless retail stores spring up from the ground. The city tries in vain to feel like home. We do our best to find meaning in each other.

Always we struggle to meet the divide between the individual and the common good. There comes a point where the individual pushes against the world outside and their choices become strained. None of this would be a concern if we lived on an infinite planet where we could always move to a new area.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by petrus4

 

I don't want to start an argument with you, so I'll just state my opinions.

This was one of the most intelligent and balanced responses that I have had to this thread. So thank you.

Economic Left/Right: -6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44



This was my Political Compass score, in case anyone is interested. I've been taking the test intermittently for probably a decade, and this has consistently been my score. The test considers me further Left than either the Dalai Lama or Nelson Mandela. Some of you probably will not be surprised.

reply to post by petrus4

www.politicalcompass.org ...

I am reading The Red Queen's Race by Isaac Asimov. In fact, just read some paragraphs about the rise and fall of the Pax Romana. I thought it was interesting how there were parallels with what I just wrote here.

We all have so much in common. Always will be parallels.