Yeah - Capitalism

a reply to: theantediluvian

Like a famous person once said....

The operation was a success, but the patient died

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Just love laizze faire capitalism, it's so good for everyone. Everyone is motivated to work hard, be honest and you'll get ahead. Yay!!

Well, it doesn't work so well if you make under $100/hour.

From:

www.nelp.org...

Which was reported upon here:

www.commondreams.org...

Robert Kuttner, writing for the American Prospect, notes that "one manifestation of job insecurity is extremes of inequality as corporations, banks, and hedge funds capture more than their share of the economy's productive output at the expense of workers."

"The shift in labor markets, from an economy where regular payroll employment is the norm, to one where more of us are performing odd jobs, or have regular jobs with indeterminate schedules, ought to be the top domestic political issue," Kuttner writes.

I blame capitalism for this - and it's bought and paid for lackeys in the Executive, Legislative and especially Judicial branches of government at all levels in the USA. It is not, however, just a US problem as this Austerity, Trickle Down, Reagan-nomics, Chicago-School Business Model is being spread through out the globe.

P.S. This covers the period 2009 - 2013. The so-called recovery period from the last crash. Blame whomever you want but deregulation of the financial system and financialization of all big business is the root cause.

How is the perversion and abuse done to capitalism the fault of capitalism?

I blame capitalism for this

What has capitalism, alone, specifically done?

- and it's bought and paid for lackeys in the Executive, Legislative and especially Judicial branches of government at all levels in the USA.

The government exists to be a handle on the meat grinder. Capitalism is abused by political con-men, who make nothing, take from producers and give to supporters whom know less about human potential every generation.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

What has capitalism, alone, specifically done?

What indeed.

The government exists to be a handle on the meat grinder. Capitalism is abused by political con-men, who make nothing, take from producers and give to supporters whom know less about human potential every generation.

Yes. Everything was going just swimmingly until those lazy poor people voted themselves a bunch of handouts.

Oh wait, that's not true.

I'm assuming you trace the downfall to 1914? I'm also assuming that you blame Benjamin Strong, the Morgan family, the Bank of England and their cohorts for the Great Depression and not poor people? The Great Depression being what necessitated the New Deal. If that's the case, who is actually responsible? The wealthy elite who ran a system they controlled into the ground or the poor people who voted for FDR?

I'm sure you're aware that even Hayek, protégé of Mises, was a proponent of a guaranteed basic income:

There is, however, yet another class of common risks with regard to which the need for government has until recently not been generally admitted and where as the result of the dissolution of the ties of the local community, and of the development of a highly mobile open society, an increasing number of people are no longer closely associated with particular groups whose help and support they can count upon in the case of misfortune. The problem here is chiefly the fate of those who for various reasons cannot make their living in the market, such as the sick, the old, the physically or mentally defective, the widows and orphans—that is all people suffering from adverse conditions which may affect anyone and against which most individuals cannot alone make adequate provision but in which a society that has reached a certain level of wealth can afford to provide for all. The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born.

--F. A Hayek Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 3: The Political Order of a Free People

a reply to: theantediluvian

Actually the current economy has more to do with the Tariff of the 1800's. Government decided that everyone should pay more for anything that the industrial complex produced.

The government snowballed after that. Government is the reason we need to work more than one day per week.

Capitalism made everything that allows you to complain about it.

When the Johnstown flood occurred, social power was immediately mobilized and applied with intelligence and vigour. Its abundance, measured by money alone, was so great that when everything was finally put in order, something like a million dollars remained. If such a catastrophe happened now, not only is social power perhaps too depleted for the like exercise, but the general instinct would be to let the State see to it. Not only has social power atrophied to that extent, but the disposition to exercise it in that particular direction has atrophied with it. If the State has made such matters its business, and has confiscated the social power necessary to deal with them, why, let it deal with them. We can get some kind of rough measure of this general atrophy by our own disposition when approached by a beggar. Two years ago we might have been moved to give him something; today we are moved to refer him to the State's relief-agency.

If we look beneath the surface of our public affairs, we can discern one fundamental fact, namely: a great redistribution of power between society and the State. This is the fact that interests the student of civilization. He has only a secondary or derived interest in matters like price-fixing, wage-fixing, inflation, political banking, "agricultural adjustment," and similar items of State policy that fill the pages of newspapers and the mouths of publicists and politicians.

Our Enemy the State (1935) by Albert Jay Nock
Our Enemy the State Audiobook (FREE)

The type of government will dictate the form of economic structure a country has.

A totalitarian government will have an economic system that is best suited to the type of government that it encapsulates.

The US (ideally) has a representative form of government.

What style of economic structure would be best suited for that type of government?

a reply to: beezzer

Most of the problem is not with our form of government per se, the problem is; what ideas get put into the voters heads?

Eventually, everyone can understand the truth and how they themselves can best use it. Philosophy is as much about understanding as much as possible, in a personally useful way, as it is about finding new stuff. I think enlightenment means-- organizing big tables of data into much more manageable rules of thumb. Maybe enlightenment specifically means understanding dichotomies and unexplainables. (time must be spent)

Also, we should be voting for people we know of from before they were running for office.

I'm all for the benign dictatorship of sheepslayer lol Let's do it!

But in all seriousness I live in one of those northern-european socialist democracies that Fyrebird mentioned and it's wonderful. I couldn't be happier with the quality of life here. And for all this "debt" that these countries are supposed to have the capitalistic cesspool of America has a hell of a lot more of it.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

It's easy to imagine that the establishment is constantly suppressing maverick dissenters but the archetype is not quite as useful as it would have been in say the late 16th century or even the early-mid 20th. Right now, in the US alone, there are tens of thousands of economists and a greater number of lay persons with a more advanced understanding of economics than the average economist living 100 years ago. There are exponentially more minds working on every problem then ever before and they're able to collaborate in ways unimaginable to most only a few decades ago.

I don't disagree with you but sheer numbers of 'minds working on the problems' is not synonomous with getting a hearing. I would say there are both more theories today and - and more suppression of novel ideas. In the current system of public discourse only the theories that are supportive of the 'status quo' get serious and open minded consideration.

A hundred years ago - dissenting voices were heard with an open mind by serious people. Of course academics have had their own agendas but it was considered 'good form' to hear out dissenting voices, understand their points and discuss their merits not their ideologies.

Yes their are more minds working the problems but within a 'box' that is more constrained by forces outside and inside the field then ever before (I speak to the US here).

originally posted by: Semicollegiate


How is the perversion and abuse done to capitalism the fault of capitalism?

Well - you could just as easily say that capitalism is the cause of the perverision and abuse to society.

Neither statement can be proven true or false. Or disproven.

What has capitalism, alone, specifically done?

Historially, boom and bust cycles that destroy millions of lives and the resources of the world. I'd call that pretty powerful evidence.

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: sheepslayer247

I think we can completely eliminate money and still guarantee a lot more than just basic needs. I've heard it said many times now "socialism looks great on paper", yet I've still never seen this "paper" as it pertains to the US with today's technology.

I'd like to start a massive research project right here on ATS to create this "paper" if any of you are interested.

Money is an aid to trade, and measure of scarcity.

Money itself is simply a cultural artifact, like clothes or language.

Right now there is an exploitative monopoly of money, power, and information.

Its not money's fault, any more than it is language's fault.

originally posted by: beezzer
The type of government will dictate the form of economic structure a country has.

A totalitarian government will have an economic system that is best suited to the type of government that it encapsulates.

The US (ideally) has a representative form of government.

What style of economic structure would be best suited for that type of government?

I've had sugar, no caffiene (am I even spelling it right?)

Sounds like a form of circlular logic to me.

Chicken and egg sort of thing that makes the brain hurt.

Well, ideally, I would think a represetative social democracy.

As to form of government equating to a specifc economic form. You can have a totalitarian Left goverment (Stalin's USSR) or a totalitaian Right government (National Socialism). Then their are more respresentative governments left and right.

Economies can be centrally run and controled as the Chinese used to do and still do to a large degree or free market variants.

I believe most of the wars over the last 100 years (WWI centary this month I believe) are really about forcing the world into one economic structure and shutting down all other possibilities. it's one big reason Islamic counries are so anti-west, our economic system (that their elite use to their advantage) is completely against their beliefs. Then there is the BRIC movement.

So it's not as simple as this economic system goes with this governmental form.

I think and hope what we are seeing is the widening of possible furtures and the western economic/banking model is fighting deparately to survive in a world that clearly sees that it no longer works for our survival.

To quote Frank Herbert "The sleeper is awake".

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Semicollegiate


How is the perversion and abuse done to capitalism the fault of capitalism?

Well - you could just as easily say that capitalism is the cause of the perverision and abuse to society.

Neither statement can be proven true or false. Or disproven.

You could say that, you would be begging the question.

Capitalism makes products and services, perversion and abuse happen after that.

Are cars responsible for distracted driving?

Historially, boom and bust cycles that destroy millions of lives and the resources of the world. I'd call that pretty powerful evidence.

Begging the question again.

How does capitalism cause booms and busts? Because they happen in the same millennium?

The boom and bust cycle is caused by artificial credit distorting the price system. When the value of scarce resources can't be ascertained or perceived, the economy assigns production in the wrong places. Artificial credit leads to bad decisions which leads to booms and busts.

Capitalism is production to satisfy wants and needs through voluntary transactions.

Capitalism in the 21st century = "Making tons of money out of nothing and putting nothing back into the economy"


- Hedge funds (aka: tax havens)

- Derivatives (aka: cooking the books)

- Unregulated investment banking (aka: spending other people's money)

- Digital shares and stock trading (aka: non-existent commodities)

- International marketing (aka: more tax havens)

- Central banking (aka: all your cash are belong to us)

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Actually the current economy has more to do with the Tariff of the 1800's. Government decided that everyone should pay more for anything that the industrial complex produced.

The government snowballed after that. Government is the reason we need to work more than one day per week.

Let's recap. Your rhetorical question:

How is the perversion and abuse done to capitalism the fault of capitalism?

I believe this was your answer for who was at fault for the perversion of capitalism:

The government exists to be a handle on the meat grinder. Capitalism is abused by political con-men, who make nothing, take from producers and give to supporters whom know less about human potential every generation.

It's an ambiguous statement but the gist of it seemed to be that politicians pander to the poor to get themselves elected and then steal from the haves to pay off the have-nots that keep electing them. Which reminded me of something like the Tytler Cycle, which became popular in conservative circles after the 2000 elections.

In the next post, you make another ambiguous and unqualified statement about 19th century tariffs before going back to blaming the "general atrophy" of society for transferring power to the state because people had become too ermm.. atrophied.. to do things without the government. If I'm not mistaken, this could all be summarized as:

In the 1800's, the government grew by generating operating revenue through tariffs and then in the 1930's, following the great Depression, this burgeoning state became massive when political con-men seized on public lethargy to get elected and funding these programs to do what the lethargic would not, led to further perversion of capitalism.

Then something about working one day a week. Is that about right? Again, this does have a Tytler Cycle feel (liberty->abundance->selfishness->complacency->apathy->dependence->bondage).

What do we actually know about the wealth gap and income inequality in the 19th century? We know that *some* people were making a lot of money, cities were growing and toward the end there was a shift from a largely agrarian society (dependent on slave labor prior to the Civil War, after which sharecropping) to a modern industrialized one (dependent on cheap labor). How about the rise of the robber barons — men who accumulated great fortunes through exploitation?

"The old robber barons of the Middle Ages who plundered sword in hand and lance in rest were more honest than this new aristocracy of swindling millionaires"

-- The Atlantic Monthy, August 1870

These men were certainly rich, but a lot of their workers didn't feel the prosperity was trickling-down (strangely enough) and they fought to organize labor unions to get better, safer working conditions and decent pay for the laborers — the real producers. Things were so wonderful that there were dozens of violent struggles between laborers and the corporate strikebreakers, state militias and even federal troops — from The Great Railroad Strike of 1877 to the Harlan County War in the 1930's. Hell, Mary "Mother" Jones was fighting to end child labor into the 20th century. It wasn't a less corrupt laissez-faire capitalism or the benevolence of the wealthy captains of industry that brought about child labor laws or the 8-hour work day — it was organized labor.

Maybe those labor laws, strong unions, social programs and "perversions of capitalism" have something to do with the golden age of the American middle class between the end of WWII and the early 70's?

How exactly do you arrive at the conclusion that we'd have an 8-hour work WEEK by now when it took decades of sometimes violent struggle to get to the 8-hour work DAY by the early 20th century?

Capitalism made everything that allows you to complain about it.

That's a nice line but it's meaningless. You can't prove that it wouldn't have happened under a different economic system nor can you prove that it would have happened without the transition to a modern mixed economy. In fact, one extremely important advance that enables my "complaining" was the creation of the Internet. The Internet originated with a series of government programs including ARPANET (the first PSN to use TCP/IP suite) and NSFNET.

I guess maybe you should be thanking socialism for the ability to say random s# on the Internet?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Communism falls into the same trap as other ideologies that are intrinsically linked to heterodox economic theory that does not accurately model human behavior. The people who fought for communism in the early part of the 20th century didn't do so because they wanted to live in a society oppressed by a totalitarian state. Their intentions were good and unfortunately they were wrong.

Probably true.

Communists are either genetically predisposed to hive social tastes or are ignorant of economic theory.

The same sort of trap is evidenced in the love affair some ideologies have with pure laissez-faire capitalism. I expect if this thread stays up long enough, there will be some well meaning libertarians who may even post something about how great economic growth was in 19th century America — perhaps the closest to this ideal any society has come.

Growth in the 19th Century despite the nascent totalitarianism. Hitler thought that Lincoln was a good precedent. Lincoln closed down 300 news papers, arrested tens of thousands political prisoners without trial, and enacted the first conscription.

What they won't tell you is that while the economy was booming, the average person wasn't enjoying a similar increase in their standard of living. They'll probably also completely ignore macroeconomic factors contributing to economic growth and the changing world (and society) we live in.

The average person did not get cars, bus rides, TV, refrigerators, etc...

?????

Sure we could put children in factories and do away with environmental regulation and the GDP would go up faster but...

Without capitalism, it would have been worse. Many of those workers left their homes in the country to live in the city. If capitalistic jobs were so bad, why didn't they go back to their villages?

How is child labor specifically due to capitalism?

Its not, child labor is due to pre-capitalistic poverty.

We need to accept that while capitalism has advanced society, it's modern mixed economies that have kept it going and it's just as likely that pure laissez-faire capitalism would result in disaster.

Actually we have been coasting on the gains from the Industrial Revolution. The "mixed economies" are organized political theft that haven't killed the cash cow yet.

In purely pragmatic terms, I see a need for some sort of wealth redistribution from the top to the bottom.

How about making more wealth all around?

We could have everything that the wealthiest people have. No king or emperor had a DVD player or central heating and air conditioning before the laissezz-faire industrial revolution.

Think it through. The richest people are amassing fortunes that they likely won't spend in their lifetimes — sucking the wealth out of the rest of society and locking it up in banks and vastly expensive assets. A lot of people get stuck on what's fair because obviously, nobody should take from somebody to give to somebody else, right? This is dogmatic horses# that will get us nowhere. We live in the real world and we need to do what works the best for everyone, PERIOD.

I agree.

But they use the centralized socialistic government to keep out new small businesses and non-inflationary money.

The solution is sound money, low to zero taxes, and freedom to do anything that hurts no one else.

I also would like to quote Thomas Paine from Agrarian Justice:

Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.

The debt to society is paid by respecting the rights of others and the responsibility of keeping one's affairs in order so as not to need unnecessary charity.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Show me an actual system where government has taken care of food, shelter, healthcare and has succeeded.

Show me a system that will work for the large and varied population of the US.

Show me a system that can provide all of that and still maintain within the framework of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Show me a world where there is no central banking system and I will. There are millions of models that could work better than this one. If your stuck on the current like it is tthe ONLY way to survive then I seriously feel for you bruv.

I don't know whether TPTB deliberately confuse our language or whether language ambiguity is a bonus.

We want a central banking system in the sense that money from one location can buy goods from anywhere or invest in any enterprise.

We don't want a banking system that monopolizes the creation and valuation of the sole currency.

All banking should be like P2P lending
en.wikipedia.org...
and the Liberty Dollar
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Capitalism in the 21st century = "Making tons of money out of nothing and putting nothing back into the economy"


- Hedge funds (aka: tax havens)

- Derivatives (aka: cooking the books)

- Unregulated investment banking (aka: spending other people's money)

- Digital shares and stock trading (aka: non-existent commodities)

- International marketing (aka: more tax havens)

- Central banking (aka: all your cash are belong to us)

No, that is congressionally assisted financial activity. All of those activities are derived from laws and Keynesian (socialistic) economic policy.

Capitalism is production, not money games.

whoops

a reply to: FyreByrd

Good info, but imo anything ending with "ism" never worked, never will work, and end up being a glorified pyramid scheme.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: sheepslayer247

How much is it going to cost me? (beezzer pulls out his check book)

This glorious people's republic of. . . what?

How will you pay for all this "free" stuff?

Beezzer, don't go disturbing that wallet of your's, you'll mess up all those cobwebs get that dust up in the air and get people all choked up.