That's were corruption comes in. This has nothing to do with the economic system. That's more to do with human nature which is always going to be a problem regardless of the economic system in place.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Captalism should prevail!
- Thread starter John Sjhepard
- Start date
That's were corruption comes in. This has nothing to do with the economic system. That's more to do with human nature which is always going to be a problem regardless of the economic system in place.
Augustus
…
99% of the number of companies or 99% of capitalism?
I'd rather you'd answer the other question, but yes 99% of the companies in the US are small businesses.
It's folk's choice to support corporate America or not. I get my food from a mom & pop shop because that's who I choose to support.
Good luck with your writing. I like writing myself. I'm pretty much a technical writer. I hate Word btw.
I'm all for supporting small business, but folks choose to go to Walmart. What drives folks is not the economic system, what drives people is something else. Charity, compassion is not dependent on a economic system. It's dependent on the individual. The people of the US are the most charitable folks in the world. Capitalism hasn't stifled that.
Augustus
…
Of course most companies are small companies, thats like saying 99% of settlements aren't cities. How much of the total economy is small business?
Why should small businesses operate at a constant disadvantage because they can't dodge tax like the big corporations do? Corporations can game the system, go 'rent seeking', engage in anti-competetive practices, win favours from corrupt politicians, etc. smaller businesses can't do this. They don't engage in pointless mergers to create artificial growth and 'downsize' at every opportunity to boost a manager's bonus.
SME's tend to care about their customers and staff as they are people, not statistics and balance sheets. People take pride their work, rather than designing products that will break frequently enough to keep consumers buying.
Almost everyone agrees that making the best society possible is the aim, they just disagree in the best way to do this. I don't agree that this is best achieved by a society that considers 'growth' the be all and end all.
I part own a small business, everything that is good about it would not be possible if we were larger. I want a society where smaller and medium sized businesses are encouraged, and larger corporations don't get to milk the system. Where speculation is less attractive than investment and where the best interests of managers align more closely with the best interests of workers, consumers and society, rather than frequently oppose them.
Am not sure of the best way to do this, certainly not via complex regulation as that doesn't work. A more simple system that replaces complex regulations with disincentives to carrying out certain harmful practices.
The problem with capitalist economics is that it ignores power in the equation. Economics was always political economy, not pseudo-mathematics, and the 'market' was never considered to be the god it is today.
Marx was right in much he had to say about capitalism, although he was wrong with his prescriptions to fix these problems. As I mentioned before though, classical free market thinkers also accepted the fatal flaws of an unrestrained market.
Modern day market fundamentalists' faith in the market is unfounded, and will prove to be the downfall of the system. It is just a question of when. Current trends make this increasingly likely to happen, the system will get more and more fragile till it cracks permanently.
Ok, but again, how are other economic systems going to fix these problems. Yes we have large corporations running government. Communism/socialism the large corporation is the government and it has no competition. It has no necessary regulation.
Augustus
…
I specifically said Marx was wrong in his prescriptions.
The key is to take the best of the free market while mitigating the obvious problems. How to do this is the hard part, but you don't start by creating a false dichotomy between corporate capitalism and socialism.
In parts of Americastan, capitalism thrived before these areas became states.
Within it, Standard & Poor's arose to rate credit worthiness.
There are many such examples of voluntary capitalist structures arising without government support.
This is not to say gov isn't useful.
But socialism cannot exist without it to prevent capitalism, which would replace socialism as the predominant system.
This is unclear.
Capitalism allows anyone to strike out on their own or to find a better job.
I know a great many people who do these things.
As for drones who find a career in making sammiches for an employer, they are not the
cream of the top, ie, they lack the drive &/or talent to do anything better with their lives.
That is not the fault of capitalism.
Even socialism will have its pedestrian drones.
If we are to compare apples to apples, "unbridled socialism" could be described in extremely unappealing terms too.
But what actually happens when capitalism & socialism are practiced in real world systems?
Socialism:
N Korea, USSR, PRC, Cuba, E Germany
Capitalism:
Sweden, USA, Canada, Australia
Which system results in emergent properties suiting us?
I'll take the capitalistic examples.
So what's the true dichotomy?
dust1n
Zindīq
I remained unconvinced because I've yet to see an example of what is commonly referred to as capitalism existing without a state.
"Government in the colonies represented an extension of the English government. Courts enforced the common law of England. The Governor's Council or the Governor's Court was a body of senior advisers to the appointed royal Governor in each province.
The legislative body, which went by various names from colony to colony and through time, was elected by the enfranchised voters. By 1750, most free white men could vote. In colonial New England there were annual town meetings, where each colonist had a voice.[1]
Diplomatic affairs were handled by London, as were some trade policies.[2] The colonies generally handled domestic matters (and wars with the Native Americans), but England – and after 1707, Great Britain – handled foreign wars.[2]
The Council[edit]
Governor's council members were appointed, and they served at the governor's pleasure, who in turn served at the monarch's pleasure. Often the councilors' terms of service lasted longer than the governor's. The usual first act of a new royal governor was to re-appoint or continue the council members in their offices.
When there was an absentee governor or an interval between governors, the council acted as the government.[2]
Members of the council included ex-officio members, who served by virtue of their position. Others were appointed in order to have a representative cross-section of the diverse interests in the colony. Council members were theoretically subject to approval by the London government, either the Secretary of State for the Southern Department, or after 1768 the Secretary of State for the Colonies.[2] In practice, the distance and delay in communications meant that a veto occurred only in rare cases.
The council as a whole would sit as the supreme court for the colony, as was needed. On the local level, justices of the peace periodically convened a county court session.
As with the House of Lords, the council had to approve new laws, which usually originated in the legislature. The council was seen as serving continuously; whereas the elected lawmakers of the colony typically met just once a year, addressing at that time taxes, budgets, and other concerns. Like the assembly, most council positions were unpaid.
While lawyers were prominent throughout the Thirteen Colonies, merchants were important in the northern colonies and planters were more involved in the southern provinces. These were the groups from which the appointed councilors and elected delegates were chosen.
The Assembly[edit]
The assemblies had a variety of names, such as: House of Delegates, House of Burgesses, or Assembly of Freemen. They had several features in common. Members were elected annually, by the propertied citizens of the towns or counties. Usually they met for a single, short session; but the council or governor could call a special session.[2] Suffrage was allotted only to free white men and, in the early days at least, limited to landowners. Land ownership was widespread, however, which meant that most white men were able to cast a vote.
Tax issues and budget decisions originated in the assembly. Part of the budget went toward the cost of raising and equipping the colonialmilitia. As the American Revolution drew near, this subject was a point of contention and conflict between the provincial assemblies and their respective governors.[2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_government_in_the_Thirteen_Colonies
What's unclear about it?
It's been argued and I think correctly that so-called "socialist" states are really examples of state capitalism.
Marxist literature typically defines state capitalism as a social system combining capitalism—the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value—with ownership or control by a state. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
Outside of natural monopolies, I don't want a private company charging me tolls to leave my driveway in my car, I'm in favor of private enterprise with robust government preventing all kinds of abuses such as pollution, exploiting workers and so forth. I'm open to arguing what is a "natural monopoly" these days.
And to call, PRC, China a socialist system in today's world is stretching socialism so far that it goes over the line. There are many state corporations but there's a lot of private enterprise as well.
But also having had experience of Medicare and private insurance, I by far and away prefer Medicare. With the government health insurance, I can look up and read the exact regulation that a bureaucrat used to judge my claim. With private insurance, I have no way of knowing what a bureaucrat used to determine what they would pay or not pay.
With government bureaucracies I have redress - Congressional reps and Senators have office staff who help resolve problems and they've done so for us. With private businesses, my only recourse in some cases is a lawsuit with the deck stacked way way against me.
What I am totally in favor of is small business private enterprise. People should have the right to build or produce something other people are interested in.
But when some get so rich that they become plutocrats, like the Koch brothers, and start using their power to overrule the will of the majority (see "Koch primary", for example), I want to bring out the regulatory 16 ton clue bat and tax and regulate them down to size. The same applies, to a much smaller degree, on the left.
It can be difficult to find anyplace where some government didn't claim some authority.
But before MI became a state, we had free trade, eg, fur.
Isn't this really avoiding my claim though?
Consider....
- A capitalist system can allow for socialist systems within it.
If a group of people want to practice socialism among themselves, this no threat to the rest of us.
Thus, it needn't be prevented.
History shows that communes & cooperatives can thrive within a larger capitalist framework.
- Capitalism is something many people naturally gravitate towards.
- A socialist system cannot exist if capitalism is allowed.
Were it so, more people would engage in free economic association, & this would result in private ownership of their means of production.
History shows that socialism operates this way, ie, capitalism must be stopped. This is why all socialist regimes are more oppressive than the better capitalist ones.
I don't know what you mean.
Augustus
…
Who says there is a dichotomy?
I'm just saying that some people tend to phrase it in terms of a dichotomy, when there are many potential paths available.
I'm working with primary commonly accepted dictionary definitions here.....not arcane Marxist language.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism?s=t
What is called "state capitalism" (eg, the USSR structure) is fundamentally socialism.
If the state owns/controls the means of production, then this is by definition "socialism".
dust1n
Zindīq
I don't know why I would be expected to accept a claim about something 300 years without a source.
"French and then British control. The first Jesuit mission, in 1668 at Sault Saint Marie, led to the establishment of further outposts at St. Ignace (where a mission began work in 1671) and Detroit, first occupied in 1701 by the garrison of the former Fort de Buade under the leadership of Cadillac. Soon after their arrival, his troops erected Fort Pontchartrain du Detroit and achurch dedicated to Saint Anne, the mother of the Virgin Mary. As part of New France, the upper Great Lakes had first been governed from Michilimackinac, then Detroit; this was essentially a military regime that reported to the governor-general at Quebec. Its role was to supply the needs of the fur traders and discourage any settlements not directly supportive of that effort. After the surrender of Montreal in 1760, British troops under Robert Rogers occupied Detroit and its dependent posts. In 1763, Pontiac's Rebellion saw the fall of Fort Michilimackinac to the northern tribes, and a lengthy siege of Fort Detroit. The siege was lifted in 1764, and rule under a British lieutenant-governor at Detroit followed soon thereafter.... etc. etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Territory
What is your definition of capitalism here? Are you suggesting there is no capitalism in the PRC or Cuba?
Like are socialist systems considered a subset of capitalism, but capitalism not a subset of socialism? I'm not sure what you are getting at? Are you asking me if someone can start a workers operated means of production in various capitalist environments? Um, sure? I'm not actually sure how my claim that capitalism existed without a state though.
That my hitman company would be more competitive to serve out a bounty, but before doing so, taking out another bounty from the person about to kill for the person who ordered the killing, take that money, kill that person, go back collective the original bounty and kill that person.
Super tidy.
Who says I've no source for pre-statehood Michiganistanian commerce?
It's the same one I used above (post #117).
Under a capitalist system, eg, USA, people may form their own socialist system.
Under a socialism, people may not practice capitalism., lest others see how much better the results are, & become fellow running dogs.
This is what happens historically under socialism, ie, oppression of free economic (& political) association always happens.
Under capitalism, there is more liberty (particularly economic) than under socialism.
No....I'm stating that this can happen.
It isn't necessary that capitalism exist entirely outside of some form of government.
But it requires less governmental authority than does socialism.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you advocating a Capitalist system with a Welfare state - I thought you were strongly opposed to even the concept of Welfare?