Are there any positives at all to attribute to Capitalism?

[Wry Catcher]

The fact is we live in a regulated market economy with benefits paid by most of us to some of us. The recipients are the poor and the wealthy (the investor class). Those who provide the entitlements to both...

1- What "entitlements" do the rich receive?
2- What portion of "entitlements" to the poor are paid by the rich?

As for question number two, that is nothing more than a red herring; it matters not what the rich provide the poor, unless the concept of Noblesse Oblige is factored into the discussion.
The point being the middle class - as a much greater segment of the population, and whose wealth is a product of their labor - put more into the economy in terms of labor, producton and taxes than the investor class.
As for number one, anyone who denies the wealthy have increased access to decision makers and the ability to influence law to their advantage must live in a cave.
We are a nation well on its way to becoming a Plutocracy, a much much greater likelihood then remaining a mixed economy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As for question number two, that is nothing more than a red herring; it matters not what the rich provide the poor, unless the concept of Noblesse Oblige is factored into the discussion.

Except that your argument is that the middle class provide entitlements to the poor (and to the rich). The question directly challenges the veracity of your claim and is there for NOT a red herring.
So...What portion of "entitlements" to the poor are paid by the rich?

As for number one, anyone who denies the wealthy have increased access to decision makers and the ability to influence law to their advantage must live in a cave.

"Entitlements" has a meaning - a benefit paid by the government to someone that qualifies for that payment, regardless of available funds. Your response does not describe any such things, and therefore does not address my question.
So...What "entitlements" do the rich receive?

 

[Wry Catcher]

As for question number two, that is nothing more than a red herring; it matters not what the rich provide the poor, unless the concept of Noblesse Oblige is factored into the discussion.

Except that your argument is that the middle class provide entitlements to the poor (and to the rich). The question directly challenges the veracity of your claim and is there for NOT a red herring.
So...What portion of "entitlements" to the poor are paid by the rich?

As for number one, anyone who denies the wealthy have increased access to decision makers and the ability to influence law to their advantage must live in a cave.

"Entitlements" has a meaning - a benefit paid by the government to someone that qualifies for that payment, regardless of available funds. Your response does not describe any such things, and therefore does not address my question.
So...What "entitlements" do the rich receive?

That is one meaning of "Entitlement". As for how much the investor class pays towards SS and Medicare not anymore than the higher paid middleclass. The contribution is capped at around 100k I believe.
Which is one example of how the wealthy benefit from access and influencing law.
One might consider the capital gains tax an entitlement, deductions to improve property used in commerce, insurance on said property and other deductions and tax credits which benefit the special interests.
I suppose I should research 'corporate welfare'. Does it exist? Or is it a made up term?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989508,00.html

See the link for corporate welfare - there are many others and I'm sure one from the Heritage Foundation for a counter point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As for question number two, that is nothing more than a red herring; it matters not what the rich provide the poor, unless the concept of Noblesse Oblige is factored into the discussion.

Except that your argument is that the middle class provide entitlements to the poor (and to the rich). The question directly challenges the veracity of your claim and is there for NOT a red herring.
So...What portion of "entitlements" to the poor are paid by the rich?

As for number one, anyone who denies the wealthy have increased access to decision makers and the ability to influence law to their advantage must live in a cave.

"Entitlements" has a meaning - a benefit paid by the government to someone that qualifies for that payment, regardless of available funds. Your response does not describe any such things, and therefore does not address my question.
So...What "entitlements" do the rich receive?

That is one meaning of "Entitlement".

And the one relevant to this discussion.
So...What "entitlements" do the rich receive?
And...What portion of "entitlements" to the poor are paid by the rich?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Except that your argument is that the middle class provide entitlements to the poor (and to the rich). The question directly challenges the veracity of your claim and is there for NOT a red herring.
So...What portion of "entitlements" to the poor are paid by the rich?


"Entitlements" has a meaning - a benefit paid by the government to someone that qualifies for that payment, regardless of available funds. Your response does not describe any such things, and therefore does not address my question.
So...What "entitlements" do the rich receive?

That is one meaning of "Entitlement".

And the one relevant to this discussion.
So...What "entitlements" do the rich receive?
And...What portion of "entitlements" to the poor are paid by the rich?

We're done now. Continuing to ask a question to which there is no specific answer simply makes you a bore. Failing to acknowledge points made suggest a basic dishonesty; your inability to provide counter points suggests you're mind is closed. Not an uncommon characteristic of a callous conservative.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So...What "entitlements" do the rich receive?
And...What portion of "entitlements" to the poor are paid by the rich?

We're done now. Continuing to ask a question to which there is no specific answer....

...means your claims to the specifed effects are unsound.
Good of you to admit as much.

 

[JBeukema]

History has proven it?

So WHAT market system has predominated for the past 10,000 years of human history?

Either put up or shut up and stop embarassing yourself with your obvious ignorance.

None. I already explained this to you. Scroll up and learn to read.

JB the problem is the entire argument rests on a presumption that simply isn't so.

What I mean is you might have a point about the flaws of capitalism IF the reason there were haves and have nots had nothing to do with the individuals in the system. Unfortunately that is something liberals always assume. 'Your' problems are NEVER 'your' fault, in the world of a liberal.

You don't know what Liberalism is, do you?

Here's some reading for you:

Thomas Paine's 'Agrarian Justice': The Rights of Individuals to Own Property Investigated

An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith - Project Gutenberg



That isn't reality. Reality is people don't take responsibility when it comes to weath accumulation. It is not someone elses job to provide for your standard of living. Figuring out how to do that is YOUR job. Reality is that while most people would like more money, most have not made it a goal and actively pursued it and yet they have the balls to wonder why they are a have not.[/quote]

 

[JBeukema]

Right here;

"Humanity cannot afford to allow a free market to exist. History has proven that. "

That seems farily cut and dry that you want capitalism done away with.

Fail.

I said we cannot allow market anarchy.

I said nothing of the capitalist mode of production.

They are not the same thing, you idiot.

No

Your full on support of communism and socialism, is another indicator.

Cite.

No, you said, and I'm quoting you here;
"Humanity cannot afford to allow a free market to exist. History has proven that. "

It doesn't take an idiot to make the short leap that you want to do away with capitalism.

You're supposed to be showing where I ever rejected the capitalist mode of production, dimwit.

I refer you to the writings of Shachtman.

 

[Bern80]

None. I already explained this to you. Scroll up and learn to read.

JB the problem is the entire argument rests on a presumption that simply isn't so.

What I mean is you might have a point about the flaws of capitalism IF the reason there were haves and have nots had nothing to do with the individuals in the system. Unfortunately that is something liberals always assume. 'Your' problems are NEVER 'your' fault, in the world of a liberal.

You don't know what Liberalism is, do you?

Here's some reading for you:

Thomas Paine's 'Agrarian Justice': The Rights of Individuals to Own Property Investigated

An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith - Project Gutenberg

Don't pretend for a second the liberalism talked about in your links is anything like the liberalism practiced today. Way to avoid the point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Modern American Conservatism, the odd combination of

1. Christian values, and,

2. a reverence for the personal accumulation of vast amounts of wealth.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So...What "entitlements" do the rich receive?
And...What portion of "entitlements" to the poor are paid by the rich?

We're done now. Continuing to ask a question to which there is no specific answer....

...means your claims to the specifed effects are unsound.
Good of you to admit as much.

What ever floats your boat. Editing for the purpose of censorship is not a sign of honesty.

 

[Wry Catcher]

While corporate welfare has attracted critics from both the left and the right, there is no uniform definition. By TIME's definition, it is this: any action by local, state or federal government that gives a corporation or an entire industry a benefit not offered to others. It can be an outright subsidy, a grant, real estate, a low-interest loan or a government service. It can also be a tax break--a credit, exemption, deferral or deduction, or a tax rate lower than the one others pay.

The rationale to curtail traditional welfare programs, such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children and food stamps, and to impose a lifetime limit on the amount of aid received, was compelling: the old system didn't work. It was unfair, destroyed incentive, perpetuated dependence and distorted the economy. An 18-month TIME investigation has found that the same indictment, almost to the word, applies to corporate welfare. In some ways, it represents pork-barrel legislation of the worst order. The difference, of course, is that instead of rewarding the poor, it rewards the powerful.



Read more: Corporate Welfare: Corporate Welfare - TIME

 

[Jeremy]

 

[Sallow]

So...What "entitlements" do the rich receive?

-Direct access to government officials.
-Copyrights and patents.
-Grants.
-Government contracts.
-Access to researched materials.
-Loans.
-Protection of their business properties by police and fire departments.
-Legislative protection of brick and mortar business from "sidewalk" or "mobile" startups.
-Meals and entertainment.

And of course the big one..

-Profit is privatized and risk taking is protected with public funds.

 

[Gadawg73]

as in he who dies with the most toys wins?

Maybe, but I don't care about when I die.
I like all my shit now.
Worked very hard for it and earned it.
Created a lot of jobs and wealth FOR OTHER FOLKS along the way.
How is that done other than capitalism?

that isn't capitalism.

If you work for a living you aren't a capitalist, you are labor. If you work for yourself you are capital and labor.

Virtually every other kind of economic system that ever existed allowed you to keep your shit - taxes. Capitalism isn't unique in how it allows wealth, it is unique in how it allows society to compete for and create wealth.

Wrong.
I invest my capital.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We're done now. Continuing to ask a question to which there is no specific answer....

...means your claims to the specifed effects are unsound.
Good of you to admit as much.

What ever floats your boat. Editing for the purpose of censorship is not a sign of honesty.

I didin't edit anyting of any value.
You made an claim. When you were asked to provide the specifics that backed up your claim, you, yourself, said you could not. Not much else need be said.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So...What "entitlements" do the rich receive?

-Direct access to government officials.
-Copyrights and patents.
-Grants.
-Government contracts.
-Access to researched materials.
-Loans.
-Protection of their business properties by police and fire departments.
-Legislative protection of brick and mortar business from "sidewalk" or "mobile" startups.
-Meals and entertainment.
one..
-Profit is privatized and risk taking is protected with public funds.

None of these things are entitlements.
Please try again.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Capitalism is a hotly debated topic in this..and many other countries. Where should regulation begin and end; for example. And this is something I am very interested in.

That is a very relevant question because it points to a component which usually is missing from this discussion, that being the kind of society we are talking about. I.e., the kind of regulation needed to maintain a democratic society will be vastly different from that most appropriate for a plutocracy.

The conflict seen in this discussion, while superficially attributable to left vs right disparities, is in fact a manifestation of America's drift from democracy toward fascistic plutocracy. The dispute is between those who favor the kind of rigidly regulated capitalism which accommodated the rise of the middle class and those who favor the kind of de facto economic monarchy defined by George W. Bush as "the haves and the have mores." At the root of this socioeconomic disparity are psychological factors which will require a separate discussion to adequately present.

 

[Gadawg73]

Pluto is a Disney invention.
I saved my $$, drove older cars for 40 years and became wealthy with property and investments and cash through hard work.
The rest is all hooey.

 

[MikeK]

That's not even close to the truth.

first off, communism requires a huge murder count to get properly installed. Then it needs more murder to keep it in place.

Russia, while it was still a "thriving" country, had lines for the very basics of life, and frequently people went w/o.

Why?

Communism could work if it started off with a substantial economic base to foster its progress. But societies which are politically and economically comfortable have no reason to convert from whatever system sustains them. Communism appeals most to populations which have liberated themselves from aristocratic monarchies. Their efforts usually fail because they start off in abject poverty and succumb to internal conflict.

No matter how hard you worked or how good you were at what you did, you didn't get one pea more than the other guy that sobered up long enough to "stand" in line.

Do you want to rid the world of capitalism?

If so. With what? Again, keeping in mind that communism and socialism are failures.

Neither capitalism nor socialism as separate economic entities are beneficial to the common people. But a well designed amalgam of the two systems, such as existed between the 1940s and the 1980s is capable of producing the extraordinary economic growth that took place during those four decades.