Capitalists - you really don't see a problem?

a reply to: Willingly

I don't think this is a possibility. Without a bloody revolution. Or cataclysmic event. It's beyound the scope of a Glorious Revolution IMO

But yes.

However some understanding of human nature written as amendments can also work.

I think fixing the current issues is a good solution.

It's just most capitalists will not admit problems within the structure and human social behaviour. So instead they say well it's better than socialism. Sure. I would rather drown than burn to death but I die both ways.

our system is closer to socialism than capitalism. if we had capitalism we could actualy bankrupt the kock brothers and the government wouldnt be able to protect them. dont blame capitalism. its an amazing system and people need to learn what it actually is meant to be.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

The problem though is you can't seperate human social problems from economics. Which is why some guidelines based on historical evidence are always needed. Personally I also believe limited intervention but intervention is necessary. For instance creating trade tariffs to Ballance the import and export of the labour market and commodities in slave labour cultures. Ethics are important to liberty and social structure.

a reply to: Willingly

All those conditions seem to go against what others say free-markets are.

a reply to: luthier

I don't think this is a possibility. Without a bloody revolution. Or cataclysmic event. It's beyound the scope of a Glorious Revolution IMO

No, I don't think a bloody revolution is neccessary. The so called capitalistic property and money horders have no choise in the long run but submitting to what is true. And what is the case, economically, is that they know by now that you can't eat your money and that even they depend on breathing clear air and drinking fresh and un-polluted water.

And that resources are limited, they know already. Now they only have to give up to interfere with other countrys economys and limit their businesses to their own country. They have to give up ALL claims of ownership of any kind of property in other countrys. That's all.

Globalism under the capitalistic premise, which actually does not have a proper premise other than maximising profit for the share-holders, does not work. And as we also can see by now, they are at the end of their rope.

They are sh!tting their pants already. We can feel it, smell it and it simply is running through the air.

I think fixing the current issues is a good solution.

And what are the currant issues, in your eyes?

It's just most capitalists will not admit problems within the structure and human social behaviour. So instead they say well it's better than socialism. Sure. I would rather deown than burn to death but I die both ways.

You should seperate political concepts, like for example socialism, from economical concepts. And there are only two economical concepts anyway: Capitalism, which already failed on so many levels, and a free-market economy. But political concepts there are a few more: Communism, socialism, social democrasy, totalitarianism, monarchie...etc.

I, personally am for a social democrasy as some sort of Übergangslösung untill the markets have settled and less governmental influence than a social democrasy implies, is possible.

But there is only ONE way to run a peacefull world, in which also the environment is kept clean, and that is a free-market economy. Under a monarchie that would also be possible, although I don't see any kind of person who would be a candidate for a monarch in germany. So...I go with what we have, our currant constitution, and say: Give free-market a chance.

(I think monarchie is out-dated anyway. Even on a so called constitutional level. It's a superstitious beliefe that a certain "bloodline" has certain rights and is noble. BS!

a reply to: daskakik

All those conditions seem to go against what others say free-markets are.

And the pope claims to be the representation of god on earth. What do you think about that?

Read Owell, in case you don't know that a claim is just a claim. It has to be proven to be the case for a claim to be a reality.

The german nazi-party in the 20th century called itself nsdap. That means: national democratic german workers party. And as we all know by now, they didn't deal in anything merely national, haven'd been democratic, didn't care for the workers at all and they haven'd even been a proper political party, but a bunch of lunatics who got funded by.....by....whom or what?.....do your research and you will know.

Left-right paradigm, ey?


Welp, see ya later!




But seriously I'm baffled at people fighting over which corrupt party is the best. Power corrupts. It doesn't really matter what system is in place; history shows us the government will fall prey to corruption and fail at some point. For the record, every 'capitalist' country uses elements of socialist policy, and every 'socialist' country implements aspects of capitalism too.

a reply to: Willingly

Uh no. Other than Alex Jones propaganda I don't believe for a second anybody is crapping themselves. I think we are exactly where they want us. Completely divided.

Economics, sociology, and politics are inherently connected. They are not in any way at all seperate entities. Only an idealistic dreamer would assume so. No disrespect. But it's the truth.

For instance a terrorist attack happens the market contracts as people fear the unknown. Same with election cycles. Down to bussinesses holding spending even on necessity until the dust settles. Same goes for consumers. You can not adjust an economic system without considering human behaviour. This is why so many fail. The worst of which assuming economics operate in a vacuum.

Taking this in account using historical emperical evidence and continuing to amend and respond to issues is imparitive for stability. The problem and dilema is that you can not give a single person, government, financial institution, or entity the power to do this without very well thought out safeguards. The dilema again is being able to act fast enough to make corrections.

I see several problems with the current system. The fed is a big one. Fiat currency is a big problem. Keynesian economics allow you to correct problems quickly but also allow quick mistakes and unproportional and UN accountable power structures.

Socialism by the way is both an economic and social construct. It works well in small democratic situations like townships or even small countries with a unified culture.

All economics and money matters are both theoretical philosophical constructs and observations.

The problem I see is the lack of connection between free market capitalist philosophy and reality of sociology. You can not create or guide a system without studying human behaviour or your leaving yourself open to people, particularly psychopaths, who will exploit human behaviour. I think some of Austrian economics does try and examine human behaviour like Fiat money issues or federal reserve interest rate manipulations. However, in other cases they assume human greed will be abolished by the market alone.

Capitalism is like science. It does not have morality. It just is a method or means. You can make a perfect weapon and use it to kill people or make unlimited clean energy. It's upbto the morality of the person within the system. This is where guidance and safeguards are necessary.

a reply to: luthier

Wow. Couldn't have said it better myself. Your sanity is commendable

a reply to: humanityrising

Appreciate that man.

I am so sick of the left right paradigms as you say. It is hardly black and white. It's a messy khaki color.

You can't ignore reality no matter how good your idea seems or how much you put your fingers in your ears when other people talk.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Capitalism doesn't exist anywhere except the free market. The Federal Reserve warps the whole system through artifical interest rates that free market capitalism doesn't have a say in. The entire system is manipulated, which is the opposite of capitalism. Too big to fail isn't capitalism. You can't have capitalism without failure. The system we have is socialism for corporations, also known as corporate fascism.

a reply to: AshleyRobinson

So prior to the fed what is the excuse? What prevents things like child labour without intervention in the market? Or what prevent monopolies. What prevents outsourcing and job market collapse?

I am not advocating Keynesian economics but it was a response to real problems.

originally posted by: Willingly
And the pope claims to be the representation of god on earth. What do you think about that?

Read Owell, in case you don't know that a claim is just a claim. It has to be proven to be the case for a claim to be a reality.

I'm just pointing out that your claim and their claim don't match up.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Semicollegiate

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

The term Capitalism is from socialist rhetoric. It emphasizes denial rather than usage.

The Capitalism from economics is simply the market. There is no market when there is no ownership. Markets are real and real economic science describes their behavior.

Real economic science cannot micromanage an economy. All gov intervention into the economy presumes omnipotence about the economy.

I never once made an arguement for socialism.

You made the only argument for socialism-- that capitalism doesn't work.

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

The free market is a scientific force, like gravity. It has an effect whether other forces are present or not. A completely free market would exert its force more efficiently.

Friction stops most motion like gov stops most free markets.

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

There would be more competitors without the FDA. Which is why there is an FDA.

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

What did they do, besides take over the government, the gov that was only there to take because of socialism?

The gov that was only there to take because of anti-capitalism.

So in this theoretical model I own land which oil is first discovered. I then develop the equipt to do extraction. I buy more land and create the devices to find oil. I buy more land. Continually all the while building relationships which you can call political or not.

Politics monopolizes violent coercion. That is a quantum jump from capitalism. Different species.

It's part of business to do so either way. If I control a substantial portion of the market I can control the commodity prices substantially.

Control outside of competition is not capitalism. Control by use of competition means the best deal is being offered. The gov has often "saved" consumers from the best deal. Claimed to save but really screwed the consumer.

If a new business springs up I can make conditions unfavorable for the amount of investment in equiptment vs the production value of the commodity. Particularly with credited equiptment.

Too expensive. Wont work. I guess the credited equipment is from a capitalist who isn't trying to gouge his customers.

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

Pollution is a legal issue. Human rights is an access issue. Folks who deny human rights are eventually denied human rights by the largest market.

The market is billions of human brains working out big problems by solving small local ones. The market solutions are unforeseeable, but the market will seek them for as long as their problems cause unease.

Furthermore this form of economics is so idealistic it can only exist in a vacuum.

Capitalism is what replaced feudalism.

Anti-capitalism is the road to serfdom.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Capitalism is what replaced feudalism.

Did it?

Maybe they just tweaked it a bit and gave it a flashy new name.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Again never advocated socialism I made an observation of how badly Austrian and free market capitalists ignore human relations in the system.

In order for the system to work you need absolute perfection. Otherwise human social issues destroy the system. You absolutley can not seperate humanity from economics which is why the free market doesn't exist.

This is the same problem under socialism except that you give ultimate power to the gov which makes the process happen much faster.

No by the way capitalism was developed in the enlightenment era and the French Revolution as merchants began to be upset with extortion. It was developed by philosophers.

Economics is completely made up by human beings. It is not science. It is social science. Physics will continue without human beings economics will not.

One major issue with human social issues and economics is the correction period of the free market. It is necessary however leaves open the possibility of exploitation of anger through political means. Which is the main purpose of Keynesian economics and socialism. It was to keep the population from being manipulated by people like Hitler. (Ironic I know but it was the intention)

What you are essentially doing is saying this completely theoretical situation that has never occurred and has failed as a scientific theory in practice (excuse being it has never been practiced) will work if x y and z happen. Yet they never do. Not is there a way to make them happen because of social aspects and subversion which is reality.

You can't have a system that won't work in reality.

Yes capitalism is the best system but intervention is needed to relieve social issues and political corruption.

Your theories of market manipulation are completely destroyed by reality. Your arguement is "if things were perfect it would work" except there is no emperical evidence to support this other than theory.

a reply to: luthier

In order for the system to work you need absolute perfection.

No Way.

The free market just happens.

Economics studies the free market.

Perfection is a collectivist straw man argument.

Otherwise human social issues destroy the system. You absolutley can not seperate humanity from economics which is why the free market doesn't exist.

The free market is composed of all possible human actions. Prices include the fact that people do other things than buy stuff and make stuff.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The free market just happens.

Not the way you describe.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The free market just happens.

Not the way you describe.

Reality just happens.

Did I describe that correctly?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Capitalism is what replaced feudalism.

Anti-capitalism is the road to serfdom.

**********************************************************************************************************************************