Bailouts are to Creationism as Capitalism is to Darwinism

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Lets see if this gets any traction.

This is my basic thought pattern here with the bailouts and the economy.

Capitalists are believers in economic dariwnism. Basically the strong survive and eat up/kill off the weak.

Bailout lovers are believer in economic creationism. Basically the strong are too strong and the weak deserve government help to survive in the face of the strong.



I know I know its very simple....but maybe we can expand on it/adjust it/change it up a little.

What do you guys think?

 

[editec]

I think its a fairly weak analogy because "economic creationism" isn't a term that has real meaning to begin with.

And in order for analogies to have traction they must compare concepts that are well understood.

How about: capitalism is to survival of the individual as socialism is to survival of the commonweal?

That anlogy draws parallels with the known and well understood belief systems which really already do exist in both scientific and economic theory.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't agree about the strong surviving and the weak being "eaten." The market decides who wins and who loses, only when the government gets involved are the big strong businesses able to keep down smaller weaker competition.

 

[Paulie]

I'm a capitalist, and I don't believe the weak are eaten up by the strong. The "weak", as you put it, have all the potential of becoming stronger. I was once "weak", meaning I knew nothing about business, the economy, the market, etc. But I've studied it on my own, in my spare time, and I've learned enough that I've made profits from investments, albeit small ones compared to others here like, say, Toro. I haven't become RICH, but I've certainly helped myself along in the past 2 years or so.

And I spent about zero dollars doing it, too, besides my internet service and a couple books.

I believe strangling regulations do way more to keep the weak down than anything else.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

goofy analogy on its face, but I will sort of go along with it, as bailouts are based on bad logic, special pleading and appeals to doubtful authority, so I can go along with the sort of equals creationism simile.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

you guys make me smile

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

goofy analogy on its face, but I will sort of go along with it, as bailouts are based on bad logic, special pleading and appeals to doubtful authority, so I can go along with the sort of equals creationism simile.

I was more saying that instead of letting the economy evolve naturally we, through things such as bailouts, are trying to create our economy.

Sorta like how some people believe that instead of life evolving naturally god created it.

Thats all.

 

[midcan5]

Irrelevant analogy. Darwinism is based on natural selection, natural meaning what works survives. Capitalism is based on markets that include agents and agencies (corporations) who can do good and often do bad or even stupid. Creationism only assumes a creator, if one can find help (as assumed in analogy) in creation show it to me. PS There is no free market nor has there ever been one. There are markets and without regulation, you can easily see what those bad guys can do.

Boston Review — Dean Baker: Free Market Myth

Boston Review — Jeff Madrick: No New Tax Cuts

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." John Maynard Keynes

"The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas.. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil." John Maynard Keynes

 

[Richard-H]

Lets see if this gets any traction.

This is my basic thought pattern here with the bailouts and the economy.

Capitalists are believers in economic dariwnism. Basically the strong survive and eat up/kill off the weak.

Bailout lovers are believer in economic creationism. Basically the strong are too strong and the weak deserve government help to survive in the face of the strong.



I know I know its very simple....but maybe we can expand on it/adjust it/change it up a little.

What do you guys think?

What do I think?

While the analogy of Capitalism to Darwinsim has some merit, the one of 'bailout lovers' to creationism doesn't make sense. A better antithesis to darwinsm, and more analogous with the motives of bailout lovers, would be any number of philosophies from basic Christianity to existentialism...any that promote human intelligence, responsibilty and/or compassion.

Darwinism, or being more specific 'survival of the fittest', is a theory of the mechanism that causes evolution in the ANIMAL world. (though I do not believe that this part of Darwinism is correct - I will not argue that point right now).

Anyway, WE ARE HUMANS NOT ANIMALS. People who promote and profess an economic order based on the behavior of animals DO NOT DESERVE THE RIGHTS, FREEDOMS AND PRIVILEDGES OF HUMAN BEINGS AND SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS SUCH!

Murders, theives and other who do not have the compassions of human beings void their own rights as human beings. Why should economic animals be considered any differently?

 

[jillian]

Lets see if this gets any traction.

This is my basic thought pattern here with the bailouts and the economy.

Capitalists are believers in economic dariwnism. Basically the strong survive and eat up/kill off the weak.

Bailout lovers are believer in economic creationism. Basically the strong are too strong and the weak deserve government help to survive in the face of the strong.



I know I know its very simple....but maybe we can expand on it/adjust it/change it up a little.

What do you guys think?

no offense, but isn't the syllogism you're looking for:

bailouts is to capitalism as creationism is to darwinism?

don't agree with you, but just saying.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Weird to be saying this, but all humans are humans and should be treated as such. Disaster lurks for those who forget that essential point.

I thought the original poster was being kind of silly, and I think the analogy is flawed. The similarity is in the fakery of the argument, not the argument itself.

It kind of shocks me the level of incomprehension of Darwin's ideas. I will admit that since he was a pioneer, he made lots of interesting goofs. But the man spoke the truth as he saw it, which is not necessarily what is actually there.

I think lots of people here are confusing the ideas of Lamark and Darwin. Which is unfair, because Darwin spent a good part of his time arguing against the ideas of Lamark.

The first thing to point out is that the theory was called evolution for a good reason. Evolution is just change according to circumstance. There is no judgment on better or worse or stronger or whatever. It is just change to meet what is there. Environments change on a regular basis, and animals (and we are animals, don't forget. We still do animal stuff, even though we are sort of set apart from the rest of them) adapt to the circumstances.

Survival of the fittest is a messed up understanding. A better description would be the success of the best adapted. There are lots of really cool animals that have neat features, but they still will be evolutionary failures, not because they are unfit, but because they don't fit. Polar bears won't work in the Sahara, crocodiles would have a problem in Alaska. This is not a judgement on the 'fitness' of either, it is just a reflection of how animals fit.

What is wrong and evil is to think you can breed humans the same way you breed pigs, cattle or sheep. If 'fittest' is your goal, then you have made an error in understanding. Sheep are not bred for courage or intelligence.

 

[Richard-H]

I was more saying that instead of letting the economy evolve naturally we, through things such as bailouts, are trying to create our economy.

Sorta like how some people believe that instead of life evolving naturally god created it.

Thats all.

Any economy is in fact created by the dominant military paradigm. Which right now, is the U.S. Government. The nature of the Soviet economy was determined by the Soviet government and the nature of our economy is determined by the U.S. government in accordance with a long evolution of the Western European economies descended from the monarchist economies of Europe.

The wealthiest woman in the world is the Queen of England. Her wealth is the product of the military conquests of her ancesters.

That is one of the BIG LIES of CAPITALISM. The financial basis of the western economy is based on mideval fuedalism (no the European royalty did not just disappear - they control our banking system). The entire supply-side/ free-market philosophy that has lead us to this economic disaster is due to the worlds royalty reasserting their domination after some 200 years of dormancy.

But to get back to the point, a better analogy would be, rather than comparing the bailout to creation, possibly comparing the bailout to devine intervention.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I was more saying that instead of letting the economy evolve naturally we, through things such as bailouts, are trying to create our economy.

Sorta like how some people believe that instead of life evolving naturally god created it.

Thats all.

Any economy is in fact created by the dominant military paradigm. Which right now, is the U.S. Government. The nature of the Soviet economy was determined by the Soviet government and the nature of our economy is determined by the U.S. government in accordance with a long evolution of the Western European economies descended from the monarchist economies of Europe.

The wealthiest woman in the world is the Queen of England. Her wealth is the product of the military conquests of her ancesters.

That is one of the BIG LIES of CAPITALISM. The financial basis of the western economy is based on mideval fuedalism (no the European royalty did not just disappear - they control our banking system). The entire supply-side/ free-market philosophy that has lead us to this economic disaster is due to the worlds royalty reasserting their domination after some 200 years of dormancy.

But to get back to the point, a better analogy would be, rather than comparing the bailout to creation, possibly comparing the bailout to devine intervention.

The free market philosophy that led to this economic disaster? What's the free market got to do with the Federal Reserve? What's it got to do with Fannie or Freddie? What's it got to do with the Community Reinvestment Act? The answer is nothing. Not one of those entities can be laid at the door of free market capitalism.

 

[Richard-H]

Weird to be saying this, but all humans are humans and should be treated as such. Disaster lurks for those who forget that essential point.

I thought the original poster was being kind of silly, and I think the analogy is flawed. The similarity is in the fakery of the argument, not the argument itself.

It kind of shocks me the level of incomprehension of Darwin's ideas. I will admit that since he was a pioneer, he made lots of interesting goofs. But the man spoke the truth as he saw it, which is not necessarily what is actually there.

I think lots of people here are confusing the ideas of Lamark and Darwin. Which is unfair, because Darwin spent a good part of his time arguing against the ideas of Lamark.

The first thing to point out is that the theory was called evolution for a good reason. Evolution is just change according to circumstance. There is no judgment on better or worse or stronger or whatever. It is just change to meet what is there. Environments change on a regular basis, and animals (and we are animals, don't forget. We still do animal stuff, even though we are sort of set apart from the rest of them) adapt to the circumstances.

Survival of the fittest is a messed up understanding. A better description would be the success of the best adapted. There are lots of really cool animals that have neat features, but they still will be evolutionary failures, not because they are unfit, but because they don't fit. Polar bears won't work in the Sahara, crocodiles would have a problem in Alaska. This is not a judgement on the 'fitness' of either, it is just a reflection of how animals fit.

What is wrong and evil is to think you can breed humans the same way you breed pigs, cattle or sheep. If 'fittest' is your goal, then you have made an error in understanding. Sheep are not bred for courage or intelligence.

"If Mankind evolved from monkeys - then why are there still monkeys"?

-George Carlin

All people born of human form are NOT HUMANS. In fact NONE of us are born humans. We are all born with animals instincts that we formed during the caveman and hunter gatherer phase of our development. We are born dumb vicious animals.

What distingushes humans is that in addition to instincts we have the capacity to LEARN (some more than others). Society evolves quickly and we learn from the societies that we are born into.

Example - Just a mere thousand years ago it was perfectly normal and healthy, according to Northern European Viking soceity, to break into someone's house, murder them, rape the women take anything that belonged to them, and enslave anyone else. In our society today, this is known as home invasion and is punishable by death. (the Vikings would be soooo disappointed in us!)

A thousand years does not provide for any outstanding biological evolution - it's soceity that has evolved. ('cepting for Republicans of course)

Being a human being is a goal which we have the opportunity to achieve over our lifetime.

 

[Richard-H]

I was more saying that instead of letting the economy evolve naturally we, through things such as bailouts, are trying to create our economy.

Sorta like how some people believe that instead of life evolving naturally god created it.

Thats all.

Any economy is in fact created by the dominant military paradigm. Which right now, is the U.S. Government. The nature of the Soviet economy was determined by the Soviet government and the nature of our economy is determined by the U.S. government in accordance with a long evolution of the Western European economies descended from the monarchist economies of Europe.

The wealthiest woman in the world is the Queen of England. Her wealth is the product of the military conquests of her ancesters.

That is one of the BIG LIES of CAPITALISM. The financial basis of the western economy is based on mideval fuedalism (no the European royalty did not just disappear - they control our banking system). The entire supply-side/ free-market philosophy that has lead us to this economic disaster is due to the worlds royalty reasserting their domination after some 200 years of dormancy.

But to get back to the point, a better analogy would be, rather than comparing the bailout to creation, possibly comparing the bailout to devine intervention.

The free market philosophy that led to this economic disaster? What's the free market got to do with the Federal Reserve? What's it got to do with Fannie or Freddie? What's it got to do with the Community Reinvestment Act? The answer is nothing. Not one of those entities can be laid at the door of free market capitalism.

Derivatives, sub-prime mortgages and deregulation were products of the capitalist free-market philosophy - along with a Darwinist interpertation of capitalism that has pervaded our society for the past 30 years.

 

[Richard-H]

Lets see if this gets any traction.

This is my basic thought pattern here with the bailouts and the economy.

Capitalists are believers in economic dariwnism. Basically the strong survive and eat up/kill off the weak.

Bailout lovers are believer in economic creationism. Basically the strong are too strong and the weak deserve government help to survive in the face of the strong.



I know I know its very simple....but maybe we can expand on it/adjust it/change it up a little.

What do you guys think?

no offense, but isn't the syllogism you're looking for:

bailouts is to capitalism as creationism is to darwinism?

don't agree with you, but just saying.

No it's:

Bailism is to capitalouts as dartionism is to creatwinism

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Any economy is in fact created by the dominant military paradigm. Which right now, is the U.S. Government. The nature of the Soviet economy was determined by the Soviet government and the nature of our economy is determined by the U.S. government in accordance with a long evolution of the Western European economies descended from the monarchist economies of Europe.

The wealthiest woman in the world is the Queen of England. Her wealth is the product of the military conquests of her ancesters.

That is one of the BIG LIES of CAPITALISM. The financial basis of the western economy is based on mideval fuedalism (no the European royalty did not just disappear - they control our banking system). The entire supply-side/ free-market philosophy that has lead us to this economic disaster is due to the worlds royalty reasserting their domination after some 200 years of dormancy.

But to get back to the point, a better analogy would be, rather than comparing the bailout to creation, possibly comparing the bailout to devine intervention.

The free market philosophy that led to this economic disaster? What's the free market got to do with the Federal Reserve? What's it got to do with Fannie or Freddie? What's it got to do with the Community Reinvestment Act? The answer is nothing. Not one of those entities can be laid at the door of free market capitalism.

Derivatives, sub-prime mortgages and deregulation were products of the capitalist free-market philosophy - along with a Darwinist interpertation of capitalism that has pervaded our society for the past 30 years.

Without the Federal Reserve and the federal government none of that would have been possible, neither of which represent the free market in action. Deregulation, however, is a scapegoat for those who want to blame the free market, considering that we have a highly regulated market with tens of thousands of regulations on the books. Our economy is no where near a free market, because the existence of a central bank means we're not allowing the market to act on it's own.

 

[Richard-H]

No, our economy has not been a free-market since the 1890s. Regulation was a growing trend from then until the late 1920's when the economy went bust. Again from the 1930s to the 1980s - and we had the most robust economy in human history.

Deregulation has slowly but steadily disemboweled our economy until it finally broke last year. Now we have to rebuild it - and regulation combined with manufacturing stimulus are the primary tools.

Our 'economic boom' since the 1980s has been due to deficit spending and a credit drunken soceity. It was NEVER real.

Now we've got a hell of a hangover to deal with.

What the free-market capitalists just DO NOT UNDERSTAND is that the wealth of society is solely a product of productive manufacturing and the HEALTH of an economy is determined by the equitable distribution of the wealth within that soceity so as to maintain a robust rate of transactions for the product produced.

Instead free-market capitalist believe that economics is the knowledge to grab all the asset ownership and capital they can get their greedy little hands on.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, our economy has not been a free-market since the 1890s. Regulation was a growing trend from then until the late 1920's when the economy went bust. Again from the 1930s to the 1980s - and we had the most robust economy in human history.

Deregulation has slowly but steadily disemboweled our economy until it finally broke last year. Now we have to rebuild it - and regulation combined with manufacturing stimulus are the primary tools.

Our 'economic boom' since the 1980s has been due to deficit spending and a credit drunken soceity. It was NEVER real.

Now we've got a hell of a hangover to deal with.

What the free-market capitalists just DO NOT UNDERSTAND is that the wealth of society is solely a product of productive manufacturing and the HEALTH of an economy is determined by the equitable distribution of the wealth within that soceity so as to maintain a robust rate of transactions for the product produced.

Instead free-market capitalist believe that economics is the knowledge to grab all the asset ownership and capital they can get their greedy little hands on.

If you accept that we haven't been a free market since 1890, which I would dispute by the way, then how can you blame the free market for our current downturn? It makes no sense. As to deregulation since the 80's being responsible, that's a fallacy. Regulation easily outstrips any deregulation.

The Federal Reserve is responsible for this recession, and we can agree that the Federal Reserve is not a creation of the free market I'm sure. By artificially lowering interest rates the Fed created malinvestment which seemed to be good during the boom period, but must inevitably bust. Now we're simply doing the same things we did to create the recession, to solve the recession. It's an exercise in madness that is only going to make our situation that much worse.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Oh wow that was good