Problems with Capitalism

[NuGnostic]

That just shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. She was the opposite of a Statist. She fought against Statists.

The phrase vulgar libertarian seems to exist to describe her.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

The phrase vulgar libertarian seems to exist to describe her.

I suppose that is your point of view, though I find such terminology offensive and unnecessary. I'm still uncertain where you and Rand disagree, or if you've read her work, or if you simply dislike people that like Rand.

I'm still curious as to how you've come around to your position on capitalism being a Statist enterprise. Is it because a free market is protected by law, thus depriving the masses of organizing in some way to interfere with it?

 

[Capt. Haddock]

I get the sense we have a lot of eager undergraduates here who have just taken Economics 101 and are in youthful awe of the wonders of the free market.

The problem is that after being in the real world for a while, you realize that, in the words of Ice-T: "s**t ain't like that." Human beings are not that rational and incentives are not always what you think they are.

The idea that a free market is some sort of magical arbiter of human activity that will make people play by the rules and compete fairly and that the best man will win is 100% pure mental masturbation. Markets are simply another form of human social organization and they are just as f-ed up as any other, for exactly the same reasons.

If you want to see what a society looks like where there is minimal government interference and no official redistribution of wealth, examples are not hard to find. Just look at any underdeveloped country in Africa et voila. Even better, read about what happened in Russia in the 1990's.

Libertarianism is a fantasy on the same order as Communism. They both look nice in undergraduate textbooks, but are completely impractical in the real world.

 

[PureX]

A democracy is designed to give people rights whether it is the collective or not.

Any form of government is a collective decision. Even totalitarianism by violent force is a form of government that exists by collective decision - the decision not to rebel against it. Our "rights" are also the result of a collective decision, as they don't exist unless most of us agree that they should exist, and then agree to grant them to each other by our respecting them. It doesn't matter the form of government or the rights in question, they're all the result of a mutual agreement between the people involved.

But a socialistic system on the other hand does indeed seek the will of the collective. And since the collective is more then likely to be low income, the results are obvious.

You are confused. A pure democracy would obey the "will of the collective". If the majority were poor, then a pure democracy would obey the will of the poor.

A limited democracy, or democratic republic, such as in the U.S., however, is not a pure democracy. It is a democracy only up to the point at which the will of the majority would infringe upon the set rights of an individual or minority group. So if the majority of Americans are poor, the will of the poor would be followed only up until doing so would infringe upon the rights of individuals, or minority groups. I believe this is a pretty good system, but for it to work, the rights of the individual need to be very clearly spelled out, and a clear set of determining guidelines needs to be in place to help settle future questions of such rights. This is needed because the majority will constantly be trying to deny these in favor of their own will. Unfortunately, the United States is mankind's first attempt at this form of government, and so the founders were not able to give us clear and articulate definitions of individual rights and freedoms, nor the clear and specific guidelines we would need to determine these later on. So we have since our founding been fighting amongst each other to determine what these specific rights and guidelines will be, and to whom they will apply. And more unfortunately, a lot of wealthy, clever, and greedy people have been taking advantage of the lack of clarity, here, to make themselves rich and powerful at the expense of their fellow citizens. And this self-centered greed has reached epidemic proportions these days, so much that it's actually threatening to destroy the government and the nation all together.

What we need, desperately, here in the U.S., is to clarify and articulate exactly what rights we as a social collective are going to grant each other and to whom, and therefor what rights we will promote, obey, and protect. And in the process of doing so we will need to clarify and articulate a set of social ideals, goals, and guidelines from which we are establishing our rights, and around which we will write and enforce our laws. And it's in this capacity that I would promote and propose a more "socialist" agenda than I believe the United States currently has. The days of the wild west, and of autonomous individualism are behind us. We are now a nation of 350 million people and there is nowhere we can go to get away from each other, and live totally as we please. Those days are past, and we're now in a situation more like the European nations: hemmed in and more densely populated, and we're going to have to become more socialized and less individualist as a result, in order to live and thrive, together.

I still believe that we should protect individualism, and individual rights as best we can, but I also believe it's time for Americans to face the fact of their circumstances, and to begin letting go of the self-centered greed and individualism of the 'olden days' and start working toward the collective health of society as a whole. And our models, like it or not, are going to be the more modern socialist democracies that formed after ours, and so have learned from our mistakes, and who have a history of living in more densely packed conditions.

Perhaps the crux of our disagreement (although ideologically we want the same thing) is that I do not wish to take money from someone’s check through government means if he/she does not wish for that money to go to something like welfare. Albeit his/her greed is wrong, but it is hardly against the law. I only wish those who want to help from their hearts to do so. You seem to be one of those people who would do it from their hearts and bless your heart for it. But I won't take money from the rich to give to the poor if they don't want to. This robinhood style does not fix the problem. People have greed in their hearts and will find a way to do it irregardless of the system in place. I think a socialistic system does more harm in the long run then does a capitalist one.

First of all, you seem to be a little stuck on the rich/poor analogy, and there is a lot more to socialism and to taxation than taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people.

The reason for a government imposing taxes is first and foremost to fund the necessary collective activities that the society needs and desires to function. Taxes pay for the government bureaucracy. They pay for necessary mechanical infrastructure such as roads and sewers and water and power distribution. They pay for law enforcement and emergency response systems and for the nation's defense. Taxes can also be used to fund non-essential, but socially desirable endeavors like cultural expression and archiving, scientific exploration, and charity. The deliberate redistribution of wealth from rich to poor is only one possible function of taxation among a whole list of functions. And keep in mind that whether we like it or not, many of these functions are essential to the health and continuity of the nation and it's society. No one likes to pay taxes, because we're all greedy to some degree. But only an idiot would actually suggest that a modern nation try to function without taxation. It's just not possible.

So the only reasonable arguments going on, here, are those occurring in our defining what endeavors are essential for society to fund, what endeavors are desirable for a society to fund, and what are not. And this will mean that we'll have to begin to define some sort of balance between personal greed, personal needs, individual rights and desires, and collective necessity: social and national health and well-being. This balance was never clearly spelled out in the United States, and the vagueness is destroying us. Even if it had been spelled out more clearly, the times and conditions of this nation have changed, dramatically, And the old independent individualism of the past just isn't an option anymore. There are too many of us competing with each other, and with the rest of the world, to afford letting individual citizens horde wealth and opportunities just to satiate their individual natures. Those days are gone.

Sorry, but it's time for we Americans to grow up. And that means that we're going to have to start letting go of our desire for absolute self-determination and begin seeing ourselves as members of a human collective. Not just as individuals, but as a nation, too. Believe me, I love individualism and self-determination as much and more than most, but I am not here, alone. And my neighbor's welfare is as important as my own. If I don't like that, or choose not to see it that way, my neighbors may rudely remind me of it, as well he can and should. That's just the way it is.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Human beings are not that rational and incentives are not always what you think they are.

The idea that a free market is some sort of magical arbiter of human activity that will make people play by the rules and compete fairly and that the best man will win is 100% pure mental masturbation. Markets are simply another form of human social organization and they are just as f-ed up as any other, for exactly the same reasons.

Capitalism and Free Markets are not aimed at creating a utopian society, merely a freer one. Capitalism doesn't solve social problems, it doesn't solve political ones either, but the markets should nevertheless be freed, in order to protect individual ownership (as opposed to state ownership) and to encourage industry and production. Freedom isn't bliss. But it is better than what we've got now.

If you want to see what a society looks like where there is minimal government interference and no official redistribution of wealth, examples are not hard to find. Just look at any underdeveloped country in Africa et voila. Even better, read about what happened in Russia in the 1990's.

Actually, you'll want to look at:

1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. Ireland
4. Luxembourg
5. United Kingdom
6. Iceland
7. Estonia
8. Denmark
9. Australia

All of which have freer markets than the United States. Now, is it your opinion that these countries are evil, irrational nations?

Libertarianism is a fantasy on the same order as Communism. They both look nice in undergraduate textbooks, but are completely impractical in the real world.

That is ridiculous.

 

[Capt. Haddock]

Capitalism doesn't solve social problems, it doesn't solve political ones either, but the markets should nevertheless be freed, in order to protect individual ownership (as opposed to state ownership) and to encourage industry and production. Freedom isn't bliss. But it is better than what we've got now.

I agree with you, to an extent. A market economy is undoubtedly better than a centrally planned command economy. But if free markets don't solve social problems, as you admit, then clearly we have to seek solutions elsewhere. These don't necessarily have to be incompatible with a capitalist economy, but they more or less rule out a completely unregulated free market of the sort Libertarians dream of.

Actually, you'll want to look at:

1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. Ireland
4. Luxembourg
5. United Kingdom
6. Iceland
7. Estonia
8. Denmark
9. Australia

Lol! Please tell me in what way these economies are freer than America's. Most of the nations you list above are European nations with extensive social welfare nets and considerable state participation in the economy (huge farm subsidies, for instance). I'll grant you Hong Kong, maybe, and I know nothing about Estonia, but every other country you list there has an equally or less capitalist economy than the US. I remember you on another thread listing Norway as a socialist country, but here you say Denmark has freer markets than the United States. The Scandinavian nations all follow pretty much the same economic model. They all have cradle to grave social welfare, high taxes, farm subsidies, and strict environmental and labour laws.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Lol! Please tell me in what way these economies are freer than America's.

Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom FAQ

The US has far more economic regulation than Denmark. Just because Denmark provides more social services doesn't mean that they have more regulated markets. Social saftey nets are not necessarily anti-capitalism, though they are in the United States, where we simply cannot afford it. Social saftey nets are always subject to Scale. The United States, China, and India cannot afford the kind of services that smaller nations like Switzerland, Finland, or Sweden can afford. These nations don't have to fund militaries and hundreds of thousands of small domestic programs that develop amongst larger populations.

 

[Capt. Haddock]

Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom FAQ

The US has far more economic regulation than Denmark.

Like what? I have no idea what criteria these people use to compare regulation. Looking at their description of Denmark they say:

"Denmark applies high standards with regard to environment, health and safety, and labor.… Bureaucratic procedures appear streamlined and transparent, and corruption is generally unknown

It sounds to me like they give them a high score for streamlined bureaucratic procedures and the lack of corruption, but I can assure you that Denmark's "high standards wiith regard to environment, health and safey, and labor" are due to regulations in place which are far stricter than those in the United States.

Social saftey nets are not necessarily anti-capitalism, though they are in the United States, where we simply cannot afford it.

But Denmark can? How?

Social saftey nets are always subject to Scale. The United States, China, and India cannot afford the kind of services that smaller nations like Switzerland, Finland, or Sweden can afford.

What does scale have to do with it? The United States has vastly greater resources at its disposal than Switzerland, Sweden, India or China. If we take Europe as a whole, it is a larger economy with a larger population than the United States, and yet the social safety nets are pretty much universal, despite the fact that those countries have fewer natural resources and greater population densities.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Like what? I have no idea what criteria these people use to compare regulation.

There is a link on the FAQ that shows you the method in which they worked their calculations. Its a PDF file. If you are interested in understanding the various ways in which markets are free or constrained, check it out.

But Denmark can? How?

Because Denmark has a smaller population.

What does scale have to do with it? The United States has vastly greater resources at its disposal than Switzerland, Sweden, India or China. If we take Europe as a whole, it is a larger economy with a larger population than the United States, and yet the social safety nets are pretty much universal, despite the fact that those countries have fewer natural resources and greater population densities.

The costs of running a country increases exponentially with regard to population. It seems to me like you've bought into the liberal-conservative back and forth that focuses only on what tax revenues provide its citizens. Republicans want high revenues but claim to want to spend it on areas that conservatives like, i.e. corporate welfare, military, NASA, etc; while Democrats want high revenues but claim to want to spend the majority of it on social services and entitlement programs.

Conservatives call the Democrats socialist for that reason and liberals call Republicans capitalists. However, neither side is showing the slightest understanding of what it means to have a free market. Free markets have nothing to do with what governments spend money on or what it makes as a priority. Furthermore, it doesn't take into account the needs of a society based on their population and domestic problems.

 

[Capt. Haddock]

Because Denmark has a smaller population.

and therefore a smaller tax base, so what?

The costs of running a country increases exponentially with regard to population.

and so do potential tax revenues. It's all relative. The larger countries of Europe all have similar social safety nets. Scale makes no difference.

Republicans want high revenues but claim to want to spend it on areas that conservatives like, i.e. corporate welfare, military, NASA, etc; while Democrats want high revenues but claim to want to spend the majority of it on social services and entitlement programs.

and Libertarians don't want to spend money on any of that. I understand it very well, and it's a fantasy that will only ever exist in the framework of academic theories.

Free markets have nothing to do with what governments spend money on or what it makes as a priority.

They have to do with how much a government taxes and regulates the economy, which is certainly tied in to how much money they collect and spend, if not what they choose to spend it on. It also very much ties in to a government's priorities in regards to environmental protection, labor protection, health and hygiene standards, public infrastructure, competition policy, fraud prevention, stable financial markets, etc.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

and therefore a smaller tax base, so what?

and so do potential tax revenues. It's all relative. The larger countries of Europe all have similar social safety nets. Scale makes no difference.

Scale makes a very real difference. Larger countries have to deal with a lot more domestic problems than do smaller ones. It isn't relative. Increases in population change the priorities for a nation. There isn't a single country in the EU that has to deal with the same kind of complications as the United States, India, and China. Furthermore, if you look at the larger European nations, there are suffering from high unemployment caused by higher taxes. But taxes aren't the only thing that restricts the free flow of capital. You keep wanting to focus on where government spends revenue and ignoring all the ways in which a government regulates the economy.

Do you really believe that the United States has less regulation than Iceland or Denmark?

and Libertarians don't want to spend money on any of that. I understand it very well, and it's a fantasy that will only ever exist in the framework of academic theories.

Again, you are arguing emotionally from a CNN/FOX influence that ignores most economic realities, instead focusing on the where money is raised and spent. That's only a small part of the relationship between Government and Business.

They have to do with how much a government taxes and regulates the economy, which is certainly tied in to how much money they collect and spend, if not what they choose to spend it on. It also very much ties in to a government's priorities in regards to environmental protection, labor protection, health and hygiene standards, public infrastructure, competition policy, fraud prevention, stable financial markets, etc.

It's good to see that you do understand that, but its a lot more complicated. You should really look into this link, it will give you a better understanding of what I'm talking about. If all you want to do is bash "groups" that you disagree with, then there is no point in drawing out this debate. I get that you don't like Libertarians, and that's nice and all, but it has nothing to do with this debate.

 

[Quiddity]

Any form of government is a collective decision. Even totalitarianism by violent force is a form of government that exists by collective decision - the decision not to rebel against it. Our "rights" are also the result of a collective decision, as they don't exist unless most of us agree that they should exist, and then agree to grant them to each other by our respecting them. It doesn't matter the form of government or the rights in question, they're all the result of a mutual agreement between the people involved.
You are confused. A pure democracy would obey the "will of the collective". If the majority were poor, then a pure democracy would obey the will of the poor.

A limited democracy, or democratic republic, such as in the U.S., however, is not a pure democracy. It is a democracy only up to the point at which the will of the majority would infringe upon the set rights of an individual or minority group. So if the majority of Americans are poor, the will of the poor would be followed only up until doing so would infringe upon the rights of individuals, or minority groups. I believe this is a pretty good system, but for it to work, the rights of the individual need to be very clearly spelled out, and a clear set of determining guidelines needs to be in place to help settle future questions of such rights. This is needed because the majority will constantly be trying to deny these in favor of their own will. Unfortunately, the United States is mankind's first attempt at this form of government, and so the founders were not able to give us clear and articulate definitions of individual rights and freedoms, nor the clear and specific guidelines we would need to determine these later on. So we have since our founding been fighting amongst each other to determine what these specific rights and guidelines will be, and to whom they will apply. And more unfortunately, a lot of wealthy, clever, and greedy people have been taking advantage of the lack of clarity, here, to make themselves rich and powerful at the expense of their fellow citizens. And this self-centered greed has reached epidemic proportions these days, so much that it's actually threatening to destroy the government and the nation all together.

What we need, desperately, here in the U.S., is to clarify and articulate exactly what rights we as a social collective are going to grant each other and to whom, and therefor what rights we will promote, obey, and protect. And in the process of doing so we will need to clarify and articulate a set of social ideals, goals, and guidelines from which we are establishing our rights, and around which we will write and enforce our laws. And it's in this capacity that I would promote and propose a more "socialist" agenda than I believe the United States currently has. The days of the wild west, and of autonomous individualism are behind us. We are now a nation of 350 million people and there is nowhere we can go to get away from each other, and live totally as we please. Those days are past, and we're now in a situation more like the European nations: hemmed in and more densely populated, and we're going to have to become more socialized and less individualist as a result, in order to live and thrive, together.

I still believe that we should protect individualism, and individual rights as best we can, but I also believe it's time for Americans to face the fact of their circumstances, and to begin letting go of the self-centered greed and individualism of the 'olden days' and start working toward the collective health of society as a whole. And our models, like it or not, are going to be the more modern socialist democracies that formed after ours, and so have learned from our mistakes, and who have a history of living in more densely packed conditions.
First of all, you seem to be a little stuck on the rich/poor analogy, and there is a lot more to socialism and to taxation than taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people.

The reason for a government imposing taxes is first and foremost to fund the necessary collective activities that the society needs and desires to function. Taxes pay for the government bureaucracy. They pay for necessary mechanical infrastructure such as roads and sewers and water and power distribution. They pay for law enforcement and emergency response systems and for the nation's defense. Taxes can also be used to fund non-essential, but socially desirable endeavors like cultural expression and archiving, scientific exploration, and charity. The deliberate redistribution of wealth from rich to poor is only one possible function of taxation among a whole list of functions. And keep in mind that whether we like it or not, many of these functions are essential to the health and continuity of the nation and it's society. No one likes to pay taxes, because we're all greedy to some degree. But only an idiot would actually suggest that a modern nation try to function without taxation. It's just not possible.

So the only reasonable arguments going on, here, are those occurring in our defining what endeavors are essential for society to fund, what endeavors are desirable for a society to fund, and what are not. And this will mean that we'll have to begin to define some sort of balance between personal greed, personal needs, individual rights and desires, and collective necessity: social and national health and well-being. This balance was never clearly spelled out in the United States, and the vagueness is destroying us. Even if it had been spelled out more clearly, the times and conditions of this nation have changed, dramatically, And the old independent individualism of the past just isn't an option anymore. There are too many of us competing with each other, and with the rest of the world, to afford letting individual citizens horde wealth and opportunities just to satiate their individual natures. Those days are gone.

Sorry, but it's time for we Americans to grow up. And that means that we're going to have to start letting go of our desire for absolute self-determination and begin seeing ourselves as members of a human collective. Not just as individuals, but as a nation, too. Believe me, I love individualism and self-determination as much and more than most, but I am not here, alone. And my neighbor's welfare is as important as my own. If I don't like that, or choose not to see it that way, my neighbors may rudely remind me of it, as well he can and should. That's just the way it is.

I’ve been laid off twice because of the capitalist system, so I’m not a big fan of it myself. But I’m also not quite convinced that I’m a socialist either. I can’t help but think of communist and welfare states that seem to be failing in comparison to its more capitalist neighbors. The US has a far better employment percentage then its European counterparts for example. Theoretically and ideologically I’m more attracted to socialism, I have no doubts about that. But what it produces is quite another thing. That’s why I kept on mentioning “real people”. For socialism to truly work one must lose this “individualistic” mindset, which I agree with but that’s just not what happens.

Perhaps if everything you noted can truly be applied and followed, then it might work. But until then, I will remain an observer.

 

[Capt. Haddock]

Scale makes a very real difference. Larger countries have to deal with a lot more domestic problems than do smaller ones.

Like what?

It isn't relative. Increases in population change the priorities for a nation.

how so?

There isn't a single country in the EU that has to deal with the same kind of complications as the United States, India, and China.

Such as?

Furthermore, if you look at the larger European nations, there are suffering from high unemployment caused by higher taxes.

So are the smaller ones. Size has nothing to do with it.

But taxes aren't the only thing that restricts the free flow of capital. You keep wanting to focus on where government spends revenue and ignoring all the ways in which a government regulates the economy.

I know this and I have repeatedly mentioned environmental, labor, and health regulations in this thread. Taxation is also an important way the government intervenes in the economy and so are state subsidies.

Do you really believe that the United States has less regulation than Iceland or Denmark?

Absolutely. I can believe that their bureaucracy may be more transparent and efficient than ours, but their regulations are more numerous and much stricter. Scandinavian countries have the most stringent environmental laws in the world, for instance, and no Danish or Icelandic company could get away with treating their employees the way they are routinely treated in America. They also are known to have very stringent rules about sex discrimination. Workers in Scandinavia get short work weeks, five plus weeks of annual leave (required by law), long periods of paid maternity leave and also PATERNITY leave (imagine that!) And let's not forget that Denmark is part of the EU, an institution famous for having long and detailed rules about what shape bananas must be and how much cocoa powder must be in chocolate, etc.

I lived, on and off, for close to ten years in the UK, and I've worked for several European companies and done business all around Europe. The economies of Europe are, by and large, far more regulated than America's. We can always find specific sectors in specific countries where that may not be the case. Britain's capital markets are less regulated than America's, for example. But on the whole, Europe's economies are far more regulated than America's, and America's for that matter is far more regulated than most economies of Africa or Latin America, where pretty much anything goes.

That's only a small part of the relationship between Government and Business.

We've been over this already.

I get that you don't like Libertarians, and that's nice and all, but it has nothing to do with this debate.

I have nothing against libertarians and I have never said such a thing, so now you're putting words in my mouth. I far prefer them to neocons, fundamentalists, communists and any number of others. Academically, the idea is appealing. I once believed it myself, and would love to continue doing so, but experience has suggested to me that such ideas are really not realistic or practical.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Capt., have you looked at the methodology link I posted? Take a look at that and then at the evaluation of the United States.

Then take a look nations that rank higher than the United States.

 

[PureX]

I’ve been laid off twice because of the capitalist system, so I’m not a big fan of it myself. But I’m also not quite convinced that I’m a socialist either. I can’t help but think of communist and welfare states that seem to be failing in comparison to its more capitalist neighbors. The US has a far better employment percentage then its European counterparts for example. Theoretically and ideologically I’m more attracted to socialism, I have no doubts about that. But what it produces is quite another thing. That’s why I kept on mentioning “real people”. For socialism to truly work one must lose this “individualistic” mindset, which I agree with but that’s just not what happens.

Perhaps if everything you noted can truly be applied and followed, then it might work. But until then, I will remain an observer.

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Socialism is NOT communism. Socialism does not eliminate a free market. What it does is place the well-being of the whole society as the guiding factor in determining economic processes, and the limits of commercial interaction, rather than the desires and ambitions of individuals. Free markets are fine for luxury goods and services: anything that the public can reasonably refuse to buy, and reasonably live without.

Also, keep in mind that the employment rate has little to do with people's quality of life. It's true that the employment rate in the US may be higher than many socialist countries in Europe, and so even is our average income. Yet the quality of life here is really beginning to suck, compared to these other countries. And the reason for this is that our culture has become poisoned by our having to constantly struggle to survive. We have lots of jobs, but many of them are horrible. We're being nickel-and-dimed to death in the U.S. as more and more of the nations wealth is being hoarded and controlled by fewer and fewer people, leaving everyone else to fight all the more intently over what's left. We do not feel secure in America. We do not feel appreciated, or respected, or even listened to by our own government, or by our own neighbors. And in fact we AREN'T. Our employers will drop us the moment we are no longer maximizing his profits. Our politicians will cheat us and rob us every chance they get. Our neighbors will stand idly by and watch us go down the economic tubes, just happy that it's not them, and that they don't have to pay anything to help us. Our business leaders are selling us out constantly for the sake of just a bit more profit. Our CEOs take home huge bonuses for figuring out how to squeeze just a little more money out of the rest of us, or how to eliminate just a few more jobs by making those employees he has work harder and longer for less.

Our own greed is killing us, and is ruining our quality of life. It's gotten so bad that it's basically destroying our government. Bribery is now a legal and common practice in Washington, and in many of the state's capitols, too. And we all know it. And with each bribe paid comes another law that creates yet another monopoly that forces americans to pay some corporation yet more money. The rich just keep on feeding off everyone else, stacking up bigger profits, while they produce nothing in return. It's not commerce, it's legalized exploitation. This is the "free market" that the paid liars for the rich keep telling us must be made even MORE free! This is the free market that the paid liars for the rich keep telling us will solve all our problems if we just let the rich become even MORE rich! This is the free market that so worships "private ownership" as though it were a sacred mandate from God Himself.

Look around. This is what happens when we don't govern our commerce. This is what happens when we let greed dictate commercial interaction rather than the well-being of the society as a whole. Our country is collapsing under the weight of our own greed, because we have not reigned it in, and forced commerce to serve the well-being of the people ... ALL the people involved, not just the most aggressive and greedy.

It's not about jobs and GNP. That's just more BS that the professional liars for the rich keep spewing out to confuse everyone. It's about our quality of life. It's about ALL our citizens being healthy and happy and secure and able to contribute as best they are able to a society to which they feel they belong. It's not about MONEY. It's not about MAXIMUM PROFITS. It's not about how well the stock market is doing. It's about people's quality of life. Commerce should be our SERVANT, not our masters.

I repeat: COMMERCE SHOULD BE SOCIETY'S SERVANT, NOT IT'S MASTER! And this is why I'm a socialist.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

In your lawless Utopia, how do you propose to deal with those who choose to abuse others?

Strawman and fallacy of interrogation.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I repeat: COMMERCE SHOULD BE SOCIETY'S SERVANT, NOT IT'S MASTER! And this is why I'm a socialist.

Whoa, I didn't realize you were a socialist until your later posts.

And you're right. This gives me an idea for a new thread....

 

[Quiddity]

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Socialism is NOT communism. Socialism does not eliminate a free market. What it does is place the well-being of the whole society as the guiding factor in determining economic processes, and the limits of commercial interaction, rather than the desires and ambitions of individuals. Free markets are fine for luxury goods and services: anything that the public can reasonably refuse to buy, and reasonably live without.

Socialism can't help but be economically limited to public needs. The needs may be reasonable or they may not. Maybe I'm taking the phrase free market hyper-literally but I can't see how socialism can ever truly be a free market. Companies will always be at the whim of the people.

Also, keep in mind that the employment rate has little to do with people's quality of life. It's true that the employment rate in the US may be higher than many socialist countries in Europe, and so even is our average income. Yet the quality of life here is really beginning to suck, compared to these other countries. And the reason for this is that our culture has become poisoned by our having to constantly struggle to survive. We have lots of jobs, but many of them are horrible. We're being nickel-and-dimed to death in the U.S. as more and more of the nations wealth is being hoarded and controlled by fewer and fewer people, leaving everyone else to fight all the more intently over what's left. We do not feel secure in America. We do not feel appreciated, or respected, or even listened to by our own government, or by our own neighbors. And in fact we AREN'T. Our employers will drop us the moment we are no longer maximizing his profits. Our politicians will cheat us and rob us every chance they get. Our neighbors will stand idly by and watch us go down the economic tubes, just happy that it's not them, and that they don't have to pay anything to help us. Our business leaders are selling us out constantly for the sake of just a bit more profit. Our CEOs take home huge bonuses for figuring out how to squeeze just a little more money out of the rest of us, or how to eliminate just a few more jobs by making those employees he has work harder and longer for less.

All this in the name of Capitalism? I'm not sure if I buy that. It seemed to be working just fine some years back. Why do you think that is?

Our own greed is killing us, and is ruining our quality of life. It's gotten so bad that it's basically destroying our government. Bribery is now a legal and common practice in Washington, and in many of the state's capitols, too. And we all know it.

Right, and this is happening with men and women who hold to socialism as well, no? Or is it just right wing capitalist taking the bribe? If not, how will socialism make it any better that high in ranks?

And with each bribe paid comes another law that creates yet another monopoly that forces americans to pay some corporation yet more money. The rich just keep on feeding off everyone else, stacking up bigger profits, while they produce nothing in return. It's not commerce, it's legalized exploitation. This is the "free market" that the paid liars for the rich keep telling us must be made even MORE free! This is the free market that the paid liars for the rich keep telling us will solve all our problems if we just let the rich become even MORE rich! This is the free market that so worships "private ownership" as though it were a sacred mandate from God Himself.

No doubt such people exist but I'm trying dearly to connect it to capitalism itself.

Look around. This is what happens when we don't govern our commerce. This is what happens when we let greed dictate commercial interaction rather than the well-being of the society as a whole. Our country is collapsing under the weight of our own greed, because we have not reigned it in, and forced commerce to serve the well-being of the people ... ALL the people involved, not just the most aggressive and greedy.

What's stopping us from governing a capitalist right now? We can put tariffs and push the government for certain regulations and it would still be a capitalist nation.

It's not about jobs and GNP. That's just more BS that the professional liars for the rich keep spewing out to confuse everyone. It's about our quality of life. It's about ALL our citizens being healthy and happy and secure and able to contribute as best they are able to a society to which they feel they belong. It's not about MONEY. It's not about MAXIMUM PROFITS. It's not about how well the stock market is doing. It's about people's quality of life. Commerce should be our SERVANT, not our masters.

I repeat: COMMERCE SHOULD BE SOCIETY'S SERVANT, NOT IT'S MASTER! And this is why I'm a socialist.

No qualms here.

 

[NuGnostic]

I'm still curious as to how you've come around to your position on capitalism being a Statist enterprise. Is it because a free market is protected by law, thus depriving the masses of organizing in some way to interfere with it?

You don't seem to understand how much pro-corporatist state interference there is and has always been in the current system or capitalism it is massive and chronic.

 

[NuGnostic]

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Socialism is NOT communism. Socialism does not eliminate a free market. What it does is place the well-being of the whole society as the guiding factor in determining economic processes, and the limits of commercial interaction, rather than the desires and ambitions of individuals.

Huh? Since when has socialism done that,you are mixing it with social democracy.

I repeat: COMMERCE SHOULD BE SOCIETY'S SERVANT, NOT IT'S MASTER! And this is why I'm a socialist.

No offence but you seem very unsure of what socialism is,you seem to be a liberal or social democrat.