Capitalists - you really don't see a problem?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Get off the unicorn man.

Chances are you would have lived a short life before 1920.

Life was a living hell for most people

There was a very small middle class.

Most people had deadly or terrible jobs.

Most of the innovation and things you use to have a higher standard of living than anyone before you came after 1920.

Compared to the 1800's nothing has changed since 1928.

When the regulations started having an effect.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: elysiumfire

Capitalism is a parasitic ideology feeding on your minds and bending them to capitalism's will.

Capitalism made the food you eat and the computer and the Alphabet.

Capitalism is not always comforting in the short term, but in the long term it is the cause for everything that you need to live.

Capitalism has nothing to do with creating food. Unless your talking about TV dinners.

People have been eating food since they came to be.

Capitalism is just as responsible for cancer by that token then.

Capitalism causes cancer like hospitals cause crime. There are always more hospitals in cities, where the crime is.

Capitalism is the only reason there was no European Malthusian famine in the 1800's. Capitalism is the only reason there is enough food today.

Competition is uncomfortable for the competitors, but without lethal force regulations it is the default setting of business.
Corruption can't compete. In a free market the only corruption would be somebody charging a little bit more than the natural rate of interest and profit. When he charges too much, and people pay it, he will get new competition.

Horus bought up a good point. Why isn't there horse meat at the grocery store?

Because the consumer rules the market.

Hey maybe famine is like the free market. A necessary population correction.

We have created a monoculture. We are at a very big risk of having a very real disaster with food now.

Not because of the market like you say. Because of human ingenuity.

Half of the things you prescribe to the market came from human igenuity which has been progressing since we evolved from archaic humans.

The seperarion of church and state was the biggest factor in accelerated human achievement.

The free market provides true relative information about the world and by its action solutions are found even when no one person thinks of them or does them.

Excerpt from I Pencil

Here is an astounding fact: Neither the worker in the oil field nor the chemist nor the digger of graphite or clay nor any who mans or makes the ships or trains or trucks nor the one who runs the machine that does the knurling on my bit of metal nor the president of the company performs his singular task because he wants me. Each one wants me less, perhaps, than does a child in the first grade. Indeed, there are some among this vast multitude who never saw a pencil nor would they know how to use one. Their motivation is other than me. Perhaps it is something like this: Each of these millions sees that he can thus exchange his tiny know-how for the goods and services he needs or wants. I may or may not be among these items.

No Master Mind

There is a fact still more astounding: the absence of a master mind, of anyone dictating or forcibly directing these countless actions which bring me into being. No trace of such a person can be found. Instead, we find the Invisible Hand at work.

Hey going off to bed now. Have a good night.

You won't persuade me of any of your BS.

I read it about 20 years ago in college. Your literally reciting word for word an outdated obsolete understanding of the modern world. I find some of it useful and true and the other half rediculous idealism that will NEVER in a million years be reality.

Maybe it's time to check into reality and how any of what you said including the many many contradictions actually make sense.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Keep telling yourself that.

Meanwhile look at some medical stats, production rates, aerospace, robotics, circuits, electronics, automobiles, air conditioners, atomic bombs, particle excellerators, building material, televisions, computers, human rights, polution, etc etc etc.

PS in your magical unicorn era 80 percent of the population was working class

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Keep telling yourself that.

Meanwhile look at some medical stats, production rates, aerospace, robotics, circuits, electronics, automobiles, air conditioners, atomic bombs, particle excellerators, building material, televisions, computers, human rights, polution, etc etc etc.

All of that has improved since the 1920's but all of that was there in the 1920's. None of that at all in the 1800's.

Regulations stopped the rate of advance.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Keep telling yourself that.

Meanwhile look at some medical stats, production rates, aerospace, robotics, circuits, electronics, automobiles, air conditioners, atomic bombs, particle excellerators, building material, televisions, computers, human rights, polution, etc etc etc.

All of that has improved since the 1920's but all of that was not there at all in the 1800's.

Regulations stopped the rate of advance.

No they didn't.

80 percent of the population was working class prior to regulations.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Keep telling yourself that.

Meanwhile look at some medical stats, production rates, aerospace, robotics, circuits, electronics, automobiles, air conditioners, atomic bombs, particle excellerators, building material, televisions, computers, human rights, polution, etc etc etc.

All of that has improved since the 1920's but all of that was not there at all in the 1800's.

Regulations stopped the rate of advance.

No they didn't.

80 percent of the population was working class prior to regulations.

Increased wealth moves people out of the working class, that is all capitalism. (Because greedy people make more money by making more production which makes more jobs and everything gets cheaper by competition)

Regulations, by hindering capitalism, kept more people in poverty.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Keep telling yourself that.

Meanwhile look at some medical stats, production rates, aerospace, robotics, circuits, electronics, automobiles, air conditioners, atomic bombs, particle excellerators, building material, televisions, computers, human rights, polution, etc etc etc.

All of that has improved since the 1920's but all of that was not there at all in the 1800's.

Regulations stopped the rate of advance.

No they didn't.

80 percent of the population was working class prior to regulations.

Increased wealth moves people out of the working class, that is all capitalism. (Because greedy people make more money by making more production which makes more jobs and everything gets cheaper by competition)

Regulations, by hindering capitalism, kept more people in poverty.

Your rediculous. Seriously. You should step back and look at how you just say anything even when your proven wrong

Government regulations protect large corporations from competition from small businesses.

originally posted by: TheBandit795
Government regulations protect large corporations from competition from small businesses.

Really like the antitrust regulations? Or child labour laws?

Another the solution to the problem has problems so there for there is no solution or problem arguement.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Great response, so much substance!

I recognize the evils of government have corrupted capitalims and that it was inevitable. However, that doesn't mean socialism works or works better. It absolutely does not. History is replete with examples of massive socialist failings. And of the few that have remained somewhat afloat, that is all that they have done. What was the last major technological advancement made by denmark, norway, or sweden?

And here's some news to all of you who seem to believe that you can soak the rich and get something for nothing by going the "european socialist" route:
We have a higher corporate tax rate.
The middle class in the nordic countries pays ~30-40% income tax. Buffets secretary pays 15%, oh the humanity.
The top 10% in sweden pay 26% of the tax burden, in the US the top 10% pay 45% of it.

a reply to: jacobe001

I never said that Crony Capitalism doesn't affect most aspects of business--my point was that not all business participates in Crony Capitalism.

The small-scale capitalism to which I refer is that we still have the ability to use our skills and knowledge and drive to make something out of nothing in America, and to go from poverty to millionaire within a lifetime. That is Capitalism.

Yes, the prevalence of Crony Capitalism at the macro level makes it harder and harder to do so, but it's still possible.

a reply to: luthier

Anti-trust regulations:

fee.org...

Child Labour Laws:

eh.net...

Most economic historians conclude that [child labor] legislation was not the primary reason for the reduction and virtual elimination of child labor between 1880 and 1940. Instead they point out that industrialization and economic growth brought rising incomes, which allowed parents the luxury of keeping their children out of the work force.

a reply to: deadlyhope

That's been so in the majority of human history. Back then the wealthy few where the monarchs who owned the governments. Nowadays the cronies own the politicians are protected by the government.

None are a form of true capitalism.

originally posted by: TheBandit795
a reply to: luthier

Anti-trust regulations:

fee.org...

Child Labour Laws:

eh.net...

Most economic historians conclude that [child labor] legislation was not the primary reason for the reduction and virtual elimination of child labor between 1880 and 1940. Instead they point out that industrialization and economic growth brought rising incomes, which allowed parents the luxury of keeping their children out of the work force.

Uh no. Economic growth was in no way the reason. It was the depression and jobs being opened up to adults who were not working. Quite the opposite.

The oligarchs and religious groups particularly in the South fought very hard against passing any regulations. They certainly had effects in the States that were able to pass them.

Do you have an article that says not passing laws would have made the market more free?

Again your arguement is because the solution failed there is no problem.

Politics has a way of thinking you can just magically write a law and it will be the best solution. This happens nowhere else in science or design. You have to admit when things don't work and try and redesign based on what you learned from failures.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

luthier :

Just because the government goes to far and needs to be corrected or revolted doesn't mean it isn't necessary.

Exactely!

Semicollegiate:

Why is gov necessary?

Because Hobbs said so?

Are you realy asking this, Semicollegiate? I followed the discussion this far, but had to jump in here. You contradict yourself on almost every turn. Your whole argument is in-coherent. Sometimes you say there was a free-market economical system sometime ago (or even now to some degree) and sometimes you say it never actually exsited. The latter is my take on it, by the way.

And regarding if gov is neccessary or not, here my answer: OF COURSE big communities need to be managed somehow! Call it government or otherwise. I think we can agree here that company-owners nowerdays do not build streets, public transportation systems, bridges, free education systems like schools and universities, paying a police-force, social-workers...etc.

A free-market economy does not take care of those kind of parts of a society, because a free-market economy is only interested in providing and sustaining free exess to the market-place and maintaining fair and adequat conditions for competition AND cooperation to take place, for the sake of benefitting all members of a society.

Anarchie (the absense of any form of government), in big societies like we have now, is utter utopie!

a reply to: deadlyhope
You should come to New Zealand, Deadlyhope. It's a real dump. Sure, it's got its mountains and its lakes and its rivers and its woodlands and its wildlife, but then so does Taiwan. However, the social problems here are shocking. We have the highest rate of child suicide in the world -- something that 'they' won't tell you and you have to find out for yourself, eventually. We have more gangs per capita than America, according to English writer Ross Kemp in his book 'Gangs.' Hard to believe. We've got gangs here that the police fear. They quail at the thought of them -- the Mongrel Mob, for instance, comprising the so-called 'indigenous' people, the Maoris, or part-Maoris or anything in between. They have a special kind of violence that you don't want to even think about. (Did you see the film 'Once Were Warriors'?) Then you've got the Black Power gang. And when they front up to each other . . . well, don't go down that road. We've got the third highest rate of depression in the word. (Japan has the lowest.) We've got the third highest amphetamine use. We are the third fattest nation in the OECD countries. The highest rate of melanoma cancer. The third highest rate of child abuse. The third highest rate of car crashes. We've got so many social ills here, so much deprivation, shocking child poverty, hospital waiting lists as long as the Mississippi, doctors and specialists leaving for Australia, businesses shutting down (Dick Smiths Electronics, for example, just collapsed, with a loss of 3,000 jobs across Australasia), Islamic refugees pouring in like there's no tomorrow, a world-class 'P' problem, the highest rate of cannabis use the world -- geez, we make California look like Switzerland. New Zealanders won't like me for saying any of this, because they have an ostrich mentality here. They relate to some stupid, sweating, panting, drug-taking, womanizing rugby player grunting up and down a ball park, instead of seeing what's under their nose. New Zealand, to me, is hell on earth. I've been here 24 years, and it's too late for me to return to Britain. I am in poor health, and I would be a foreigner now, an outcast, a pariah, in my home country. I wouldn't stand a chance. So I make do and tread water until it's all over here in Godzone, as they call it. What a joke. Even Winston Peters, one of our MPs, described this place as "a Third World country." I wouldn't insult the Third World by comparing us with them.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Dfairlite

Sounds like you need to look up people who advocate socialism. Einstein, Twain, orwell - many intellectuals support socialism, so don't just throw some random names at me. There's plenty of people on both sides.

So two authors and a physicist who worked for the state. Gotcha. Seems like a real economic brain trust.

To (mis)quote einstein: "If you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, it will live it's whole life believing it is stupid." Understanding physics != understanding economics. Understanding journalism/writing != understanding economics.

ETA:
Those aren't just random names, those are the basics of economics. SMH that you don't even recognize them.

a reply to: Willingly

And regarding if gov is neccessary or not, here my answer: OF COURSE big communities need to be managed somehow!

Management implies that the community is doing something as a community. The community is not doing anything. The community is a collection of people who each are doing what they want to or think is best.

You have a management myopia.

Call it government or otherwise. I think we can agree here that company-owners nowerdays do not build streets, public transportation systems, bridges, free education systems like schools and universities, paying a police-force, social-workers...etc.

First bear in mind that without government you would have at least 20 times more money and income than you have now.

All of those items, roads and bridges in particular, are made by people who work for money. If those objects were paid for directly, their cost would be subject to competition and all would be completed for less money and corruption.

When some number of people decide a public work would be nice, They can form a corporation to effect it. They would probably make a net profit on a bridge, over the life of the bridge.

The land of a house could include the proportional section of the street, or a company would provide street services for a fee. The free market or evolution would find the best solution. . All emergency services can be covered by insurance.

Today and into the nearer future, gov is probably necessary because it is the way people were raised.

Gov is just a technology and can become obsolete like anything else.

A free-market economy does not take care of those kind of parts of a society,

Please explain

because a free-market economy is only interested in providing and sustaining free exess to the market-place and maintaining fair and adequat conditions for competition AND cooperation to take place, for the sake of benefitting all members of a society.

So the free market is a good thing, or so the passage above seems to say.

Dfairlite:

Wow, what an uninformed post. You have a fundamental problem understanding what capitalism is...

Lol. you are not short on either arrogance or pomposity, you carry the former like a scepter, and the latter like a crown.

Capitalism is pure freedom to buy and sell whatever you want to whomever wants to buy or sell it.

No such thing as pure freedom, nor can a capitalist buy or sell whatever he likes to whomever he likes, certain things that can be made to be bought or sold are (rightly) highly regulated, requiring specific criteria to be met, or illegal to do so. So right away, you are in catastrophic error (and to think, the following poster believes you to be talking sense...you are, but it is nonsense). Capitalism, by its very mechanism, has to be regulated, otherwise, there would not be a world left on which it could capitalise.

I'm not going to try to help you understand capitalism...

That's because you don't understand it yourself, and even if I didn't understand it, it doesn't automatically equate to me being wrong, it just means I see capitalism's harmful effects and disagree with it. Capitalism isn't right for a society, because it always, without exception, unravels society by creating economic imbalances across the societal spectrum. Capitalism takes the oft' misinterpreted Darwinian evolutionary mode of 'only the fittest survive', and twists it to its own agenda which is to view humanity as a means to further capitalism's own success, leaving in its wake the detritus of a humanity severely exploited.

If you truly want to understand it you need to take some econ courses. The problems you bring up are only problems that seem impossible to solve if you look at it from a central planning standpoint, which is a false starting point. Look up some Milton Friedman, some Maynard Keynes, and some Adam Smith.

I see, and because you have looked up these economic strategists, and done econ courses, you think you are entitled to lecture others and pontificate on capitalism's virtues? I would also caution you on adopting assumptions that others do not share the same level of knowledge as you.
Let me ask you a question, and do me the courtesy of answering truthfully...do you think capitalism is harmful?

a reply to: elysiumfire

Some people live with unicorns. Some people live in reality. Thats what I am learning from this thread.

I never would have guessed free market capitalists live in the same fantasy world as communists.