• 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!

Why Pretending That Captive Markets Are Free Markets Doesn't Work

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
In rare cases, it's appropriate.
Consider the ratio of business owners to employees.

I don't know what that ratio is offhand, do you?

However, I will say that I do encounter a lot of people who say they have/had a business, whether it's some sideline operation or whatever. There's a lot of people who go into business, but for whatever reason, it didn't work out. Numerically speaking, out of all the private business entities which have ever existed in America, most have probably failed.

So, when you say that people don't take the initiative to start a business, it seems that "starting" the business is the easy part. It's being able to last over the long haul which most people have difficulty with. Even whole chains have been going belly-up. (I was reading an article lamenting the demise of Sears, as if we're losing an old friend. It's nostalgia for a lot of people.)

The point is, we don't really know what a person's life situation is or was that led them to their current situation. I don't think that there are that many people who simply "coast through life" as you put it. Some people do, but only those who have the wealth to do so.

If I posed as a Nigerian prince, I just might sell some bridges.
But this is different from understanding an entire economic system.

I would say it's analogous to understanding the political system. One can understand the basics without necessarily knowing everything about it at a PhD level.

But it's not just a matter of understanding the system. I daresay that most people probably don't understand the system all that much - otherwise we wouldn't need so many lawyers and judges to have to make a ruling over every little thing that comes up. Every court case that comes up involves someone or some group of people going to a judge and saying "we don't understand the system, can you explain it to us?" Even business owners and large companies employ attorneys because even they don't understand the system.

But we're not really talking about a system. We're talking about a philosophy. Political science, economics - these are social sciences, just as philosophy is. The system is not as much at issue as it is the nature of human beings.

And humans can also be complex organisms - a lot of people don't understand "human nature" or can even agree if such a thing even exists. When you cut to the core issue, that's what the whole "capitalism vs. socialism" debate is all about.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I don't know what that ratio is offhand, do you?
Surveying people I know, it's around 90% +/-11%
However, I will say that I do encounter a lot of people who say they have/had a business, whether it's some sideline operation or whatever. There's a lot of people who go into business, but for whatever reason, it didn't work out. Numerically speaking, out of all the private business entities which have ever existed in America, most have probably failed.

So, when you say that people don't take the initiative to start a business, it seems that "starting" the business is the easy part. It's being able to last over the long haul which most people have difficulty with. Even whole chains have been going belly-up. (I was reading an article lamenting the demise of Sears, as if we're losing an old friend. It's nostalgia for a lot of people.)

The point is, we don't really know what a person's life situation is or was that led them to their current situation. I don't think that there are that many people who simply "coast through life" as you put it. Some people do, but only those who have the wealth to do so.



I would say it's analogous to understanding the political system. One can understand the basics without necessarily knowing everything about it at a PhD level.

But it's not just a matter of understanding the system. I daresay that most people probably don't understand the system all that much - otherwise we wouldn't need so many lawyers and judges to have to make a ruling over every little thing that comes up. Every court case that comes up involves someone or some group of people going to a judge and saying "we don't understand the system, can you explain it to us?" Even business owners and large companies employ attorneys because even they don't understand the system.

But we're not really talking about a system. We're talking about a philosophy. Political science, economics - these are social sciences, just as philosophy is. The system is not as much at issue as it is the nature of human beings.

And humans can also be complex organisms - a lot of people don't understand "human nature" or can even agree if such a thing even exists. When you cut to the core issue, that's what the whole "capitalism vs. socialism" debate is all about.
The simple approach is the empirical one, ie, survey the world throughout
history to see which applied systems best match one's values.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Surveying people I know, it's around 90% +/-11%

Are you saying that the 90% are those who don't own a business now - or that they've never owned any kind of business their entire lives?

The simple approach is the empirical one, ie, survey the world throughout
history to see which applied systems best match one's values.

Yes, although instead of just looking at the system, it's also important to look at the actual nuts and bolts of that system, particularly the ways and means of how we managed to get to where we are now.

There's also the question of how long it can sustain itself this way. Capitalism may be fine for some Americans today (or even "everyone"), but whether or not America itself can survive is another matter. If we have to temporarily sacrifice capitalism in order to save America, then it might be worth it in the long run. We've done it before (FDR in WW2).
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Are you saying that the 90% are those who don't own a business now - or that they've never owned any kind of business their entire lives?
Never.
Yes, although instead of just looking at the system, it's also important to look at the actual nuts and bolts of that system, particularly the ways and means of how we managed to get to where we are now.

There's also the question of how long it can sustain itself this way. Capitalism may be fine for some Americans today (or even "everyone"), but whether or not America itself can survive is another matter. If we have to temporarily sacrifice capitalism in order to save America, then it might be worth it in the long run. We've done it before (FDR in WW2).
What alternative to capitalism will save Ameristan?
And will it likely require our being saved from something even worse?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I think she's long gone.
Jeopardy is much more watchworthy.
Aspects of my cultural connections and knowledge have developed severe gaps as I have aged, but I do agree that Jeopardy is a much more interesting view.

Looking on the internet at more recent photos, Vanna seems to have held up well for her age, but the photos I remember are from another time.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Never.

What alternative to capitalism will save Ameristan?
And will it likely require our being saved from something even worse?
I hesitate to declare that it needs replacing. Optimized seems to be a better path and pulling out economics as some ordained position of fundamentalist religious dogma would also help.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
If we're to abandon capitalism, it would be best to first have a demonstrably better alternative.
I think it would be insane not to have a better alternative to replace it with. I do not know of any alternative that has proven to work. Communism failed. It might have worked if humans had a social structure similar to ants.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Never.

What alternative to capitalism will save Ameristan?
And will it likely require our being saved from something even worse?

I try not to look at it as an either/or choice as implied by the phrase "alternative to capitalism." It doesn't have to be just one or the other.

The way I see it, we have two choices, regardless of whether we have a capitalist system or not. The first choice is the nationalistic choice, which is what Trump and the America Firsters are after. That means building Fortress America and having a large military to enforce our economic and political will wherever we can get away with it. After all, it's a dangerous world out there - full of countless "have nots," and they want what we "have." But we want to keep it for ourselves, and that's how capitalism has worked in the past, so why not go on, business as usual? Worked before, but with the price of blood.

The second choice is a more international, globalist choice - one that would entail mutual cooperation and friendship. But in order to gain trust and cooperation, we have to recognize the gross disparities in wealth in this world. We have companies with sweatshops and people living in abject squalor by the billions. This is the underside of global capitalism which will need to be addressed. You say that socialists don't understand capitalism, but this is one aspect of capitalism that they seem to understand better than most capitalists (since they don't even want to acknowledge its existence).
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I think it would be insane not to have a better alternative to replace it with. I do not know of any alternative that has proven to work. Communism failed. It might have worked if humans had a social structure similar to ants.
We just need ant human hybrids.....the mindset of ants, with the opposable thumbs of humans.
Then socialism would be wonderful for all.
38bd50b30a8f816accf119dd30a0c2a2--sea-monsters-fantasy-creatures.jpg
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I try not to look at it as an either/or choice as implied by the phrase "alternative to capitalism." It doesn't have to be just one or the other.
Why not the obvious solution (so often rejected by commies)?
Capitalism with a social safety net, ie, assistance where useful.
History shows that government owning the means of production
always leads to oppression & famine. But the Scandinavian
model is doing well.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Hahahaa...oh wait...you're serious! Can we say "Mao", "Stalin", "Franco", "Castro", "Kim Jung.." et. al.
I know....we need to get rid of capitalism because it's so terrible compared to all the worse alternatives.
And you left out Hitler....did you want me to be the guy who invoked Godwin's Law?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
We just need ant human hybrids.....the mindset of ants, with the opposable thumbs of humans.
Then socialism would be wonderful for all.
38bd50b30a8f816accf119dd30a0c2a2--sea-monsters-fantasy-creatures.jpg
Pretty much just the mindset of a colony creature would do it. Since we do not, communism and the related socialism does not seem to work or equate to a healthy system. It does seem to work if there is a dictatorship at the top with an army. At least it works for the dictatorship.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Why not the obvious solution (so often rejected by commies)?
Capitalism with a social safety net, ie, assistance where useful.
History shows that government owning the means of production
always leads to oppression & famine. But the Scandinavian
model is doing well.
That is the hybrid that has worked for us so far. I am not implying or claiming that there are not problems, but rather than throw the whole thing out, I think we should look into fixing the problems.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
That's an ongoing (imperfect) process.
Yes it is.

What I find so difficult is to reconcile my own passions and emotions to the logic of arguments that I find myself making.

But I still cannot get passed examples where people got something for nothing and that population ended up the worse off for it.
 
Top