Capitalism: A Dish Best Served Cold

Boss

Take a Memo:
Apr 21, 2012
21,884
2,773
280
Birmingham, AL
The liberal left will tell you that it's dangerous and horrid to have "unfettered" capitalism. Every unspeakable capitalist evil will engulf the people like the Black Death, should man ever allow capitalism to be unbridled. Or, that's what they say. It's easy sometimes for a conservative to simply concede that we need some level of government constraint on capitalism for the good of man. I believe it is a mistake to ever concede anything to a liberal.

Now let's get some things straight about capitalism. Capitalists are not inherently greedy. This is a myth the left promotes, but it's simply not the truth of the matter. A capitalist is a person who is capitalizing on a need with a product or service to fill that need to the satisfaction of himself and the customer. A mutual exchange is made between two agreeable parties and capitalism has happened. The capitalist wants to make a profit, he wants to make as much profit as he can and continue to do so, that is how capitalists measure their success.

With capitalists, there are various varieties, some are less desirable than the others, these are exploiter capitalists. They seek to exploit circumstances to make higher than average profits even if it's only temporary. Or they may exploit illegal immigration to make greater profits. Or they may even break anti-trust laws. So capitalists have their bad apples. There are types of capitalism that are exploitive and wrong, and we should indeed have laws in place to ensure those type of capitalists are weeded out and punished.

For the most part, the average capitalist is simply not interested in exploitation. Remember, he is capitalizing on a need and filling it to the satisfaction of himself and his customer. He wants his customer to be satisfied so they tell their friends, come to do business again, help him to grow as capitalist. The liberal considers all capitalism exploitation. Hence, the greedy capitalist meme.

Greed has no place in a capitalist operation. The emphasis is on profit. Liberals will argue since the emphasis is on profit there is certainly greed. However, this fails to acknowledge how capitalism works. Again, the capitalist is interested in a fair mutual exchange to the satisfaction of himself and his customer. He makes a profit, as much as possible, but the customer is satisfied as well. If his customer leaves the transaction feeling as if they didn't get a fair deal, it opens the door to other prospective capitalists who compete for the business. A greedy capitalist soon finds his customers being served by a less greedy capitalist.

We've never known a time when America had unfettered and unbridled capitalism. Even in the Constitution and founding of the nation, some authority has prevailed over capitalism. Liberals will point to the railroads and early business tycoons, conjuring up the image of the "robber baron" we so often hear about. Curiously, when DuPont, Carnegie, Morgan, Vanderbilt, etc. were rapidly advancing America to international greatness which lead to superpower status, they weren't called "robber barons." It's a 'romantic' term coined by liberals in the aftermath of the Great Depression.

Speaking of the Great Depression and capitalism, it not only ended the depression, but won WWII. Liberals take credit by propping up FDR and the New Deal, but the statistics show the New Deal policies were not really helping and we remained economically stagnant. During WWII, our entire capitalist system was turned like a fire hose onto the war effort. The result was something no other enemy could match. We simply out-produced all enemies and allies combined for a few years, and this crushed the Germans and Japanese. When the war was over, the invigorated capitalist system was poised to take us into a new era and the economy exploded.

Our free market capitalist system, along with our Constitution and free enterprise, combined with American spirit and ingenuity, has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Nothing even runs a close second. It is unquestionably the best possible system for free people to thrive and prosper. So why must we endure this almost constant anti-capitalist claptrap from the liberal left?

It's because of their socialist agenda. You see, capitalism has to be destroyed for socialism to replace it. This comes from some of their heroes like Chairman Mao. This is why you constantly hear them breathlessly rant about "big business" and "multinational corporations" ...the wealthiest 1%... It's all about the ideology. Destroy capitalism, ring in Socialism. ~Che Guevara. ~Hugo Chavez. ~Fidel Castro.
 
I had hoped this thread would at least spark a conversation.
Did I scare the Marxists by being too bluntly honest?
 
Naw, it's just laughable that anyone is still trying to push "Greed is Good" after 2008.

Kind of like anyone extolling the virtues of fascism after 1945.

Well no, GREED IS BAD! I think we all know that and agree on that, honestly.

My argument is, capitalism isn't inherently greedy by nature. Greed tends to destroy capitalists.

You will never get rid of greed by destroying capitalism. Totalitarian governmental regimes are among the greediest people in the world. Whether you look at Dictators, Emirs, Czars, Kings, Despots, you find greed of the utmost proportion compared to the mass population.

In fact, Greed is why Socialism, Marxism and Communism fail. On paper, they should all work brilliantly, that's why you always hear intellectuals going on and on about them. That's the motivation behind this push, this movement, this insidious idealism of chasing Utopia.

But there is the human factor of greed involved. This is an attribute found in the heart of a man, it doesn't matter what he does, what he is, or what he stands for. It's a matter of personal integrity more than anything else. There are greedy people from all walks of life.

"Greedy" is also a very subjective term. What is Greed? And who gets to determine the parameters of it? Since the term is so subjective and can range widely in interpretation, it is easily applied to a group of people with a broad brush, and this is why it's a cornerstone in socialist propaganda.

A greedy capitalist soon finds himself replaced by a less greedy capitalist.
 
I have a very simple definition of greed.

Greed is taking more than you need because you can. When you have a CEO who collects 8 figures when his company is hemoraging money and they are laying thousands of working folks off, that's greed.
 
I have a very simple definition of greed.

Greed is taking more than you need because you can. When you have a CEO who collects 8 figures when his company is hemoraging money and they are laying thousands of working folks off, that's greed.

Bullshit. The corporate officers are hired by the Board of Directors. They negotiate an employment contract with officers that includes compensation terms. The CEO and other officers have to answer to the Board.

The CEO is paid according to his or her contract. It is not arbitrary. Moreover, it is not controlled by the CEO. The CEO' s compensation package is negotiated in an arms length transaction with the Board. He or she gets paid no more or less than he or she is entitled to get.

You are parroting typical populist tripe which is ignorant of fact. You may as well have posted "I am an ignorant fucking dumbass". At least that would have some basis in fact.
 
I have a very simple definition of greed.

Greed is taking more than you need because you can. When you have a CEO who collects 8 figures when his company is hemoraging money and they are laying thousands of working folks off, that's greed.

Again.... Capitalism is simply not conducive with paying more for CEOs than they are worth. Why don't you think about this some more? If it were possible to be a more successful capitalist (make more profit) by having a cheaper CEO, wouldn't some capitalists attempt that? If that strategy worked, wouldn't more capitalists do that?

Now, Joe, I highly suspect you don't have the first clue as to what a CEO actually does. You've probably never personally known a CEO, so you couldn't ask them first hand, and I doubt many successful corporate CEOs frequent your Marxist blogs. What you have developed in your mind that a CEO does, has no value, or much lesser value than it is. But you see, there is no government regulation which requires capitalists to pay a CEO six or seven figures. (I don't know any making 8 figures yet.)

Capitalists are what, Joe? People in the business of making a profit, right? So doesn't paying a CEO more than you should, regardless of finances and layoffs, sound a little self-defeating? The point is this, a CEO is paid for by capitalists interested in profits, and his/her value is determined by the market for quality CEOs.
 
I have a very simple definition of greed.

Greed is taking more than you need because you can. When you have a CEO who collects 8 figures when his company is hemoraging money and they are laying thousands of working folks off, that's greed.

Bullshit. The corporate officers are hired by the Board of Directors. They negotiate an employment contract with officers that includes compensation terms. The CEO and other officers have to answer to the Board.

The CEO is paid according to his or her contract. It is not arbitrary. Moreover, it is not controlled by the CEO. The CEO' s compensation package is negotiated in an arms length transaction with the Board. He or she gets paid no more or less than he or she is entitled to get.

You are parroting typical populist tripe which is ignorant of fact. You may as well have posted "I am an ignorant fucking dumbass". At least that would have some basis in fact.

Wow. So the people in charge of the Cookie Jar amazingly get the most cookies.

And sadly, people like you think that's okay.

EarlyCurler, is that you?
 
[

Again.... Capitalism is simply not conducive with paying more for CEOs than they are worth. Why don't you think about this some more? If it were possible to be a more successful capitalist (make more profit) by having a cheaper CEO, wouldn't some capitalists attempt that? If that strategy worked, wouldn't more capitalists do that?

Now, Joe, I highly suspect you don't have the first clue as to what a CEO actually does. You've probably never personally known a CEO, so you couldn't ask them first hand, and I doubt many successful corporate CEOs frequent your Marxist blogs. What you have developed in your mind that a CEO does, has no value, or much lesser value than it is. But you see, there is no government regulation which requires capitalists to pay a CEO six or seven figures. (I don't know any making 8 figures yet.)

Capitalists are what, Joe? People in the business of making a profit, right? So doesn't paying a CEO more than you should, regardless of finances and layoffs, sound a little self-defeating? The point is this, a CEO is paid for by capitalists interested in profits, and his/her value is determined by the market for quality CEOs.

Guy, I have thought about it. I've also worked for Japanese and British owned companies.

And you know what. This concept of paying a CEO 8 figures for failing miserably is a uniquely American one.
 
I have a very simple definition of greed.

Greed is taking more than you need because you can. When you have a CEO who collects 8 figures when his company is hemoraging money and they are laying thousands of working folks off, that's greed.

Bullshit. The corporate officers are hired by the Board of Directors. They negotiate an employment contract with officers that includes compensation terms. The CEO and other officers have to answer to the Board.

The CEO is paid according to his or her contract. It is not arbitrary. Moreover, it is not controlled by the CEO. The CEO' s compensation package is negotiated in an arms length transaction with the Board. He or she gets paid no more or less than he or she is entitled to get.

You are parroting typical populist tripe which is ignorant of fact. You may as well have posted "I am an ignorant fucking dumbass". At least that would have some basis in fact.

Wow. So the people in charge of the Cookie Jar amazingly get the most cookies.

And sadly, people like you think that's okay.

EarlyCurler, is that you?

Do you dream up your blue collar, populist morality while sitting in your easy chair, wearing a cholo wife beater shirt and chugging some off-brand beer, you fucking hillbilly? "I tell ya, Leroy, it jest ain't right dem big city fellers rakin' in all dat money while we'uns have to live in a mobile home." Pathetic peasant morality.

CEOs at large corporations get the big bucks because of what they can do, which involves things you will never understand. The Board has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders when they hire executive officers. Nobody is in "cahoots" with one another, asshole. That is not how it works.

Go suck it, you hick.
 
[

Again.... Capitalism is simply not conducive with paying more for CEOs than they are worth. Why don't you think about this some more? If it were possible to be a more successful capitalist (make more profit) by having a cheaper CEO, wouldn't some capitalists attempt that? If that strategy worked, wouldn't more capitalists do that?

Now, Joe, I highly suspect you don't have the first clue as to what a CEO actually does. You've probably never personally known a CEO, so you couldn't ask them first hand, and I doubt many successful corporate CEOs frequent your Marxist blogs. What you have developed in your mind that a CEO does, has no value, or much lesser value than it is. But you see, there is no government regulation which requires capitalists to pay a CEO six or seven figures. (I don't know any making 8 figures yet.)

Capitalists are what, Joe? People in the business of making a profit, right? So doesn't paying a CEO more than you should, regardless of finances and layoffs, sound a little self-defeating? The point is this, a CEO is paid for by capitalists interested in profits, and his/her value is determined by the market for quality CEOs.

Guy, I have thought about it. I've also worked for Japanese and British owned companies.

And you know what. This concept of paying a CEO 8 figures for failing miserably is a uniquely American one.

I don't know of ANY CEO making an 8-figure salary. Only a handful make 7-figure salaries.

Again... Whether it's American or not, capitalism is not conducive with paying too much for CEOs. You see, the capitalist is trying to make profit, so any cost that is not needed is a direct obstacle to that objective. In other words, your argument doesn't make logical sense.

Now, I didn't ask if you had worked for companies. I said I doubted you know what a CEO does because you've probably never known one and they probably aren't available on your Marxist blogs.

Joe, what I have discovered in my many years of debating liberal mush-brains, is they don't know what they are talking about most of the time. This is the case with CEOs and what they make. The liberal simply repeats the garbage propaganda without thinking for themselves. You don't know what a CEO does, you don't have a clue. In the liberal's mind, the CEO simply consumes wealth of the workers and contributes nothing. As I stated, this is contradictory to the principles of capitalism.
 
Wow. So the people in charge of the Cookie Jar amazingly get the most cookies.

And sadly, people like you think that's okay.

EarlyCurler, is that you?

Wait a second... Cookie Jar? Is that what you think a capitalist corporation represents? There are no cookies and no jar unless the capitalist creates it. There is no rainbow pony or unicorn being prevented from delivering you cookies and milk. You live in a fucking fantasy.

What is really ironic about your cookie jar quip is, this is how your preferred Marxist-Socialist system is operated. Everyone works collectively to put cookies in the jar, the government controls the jar and decides how many cookies everyone should get. Strangely enough, in this system, the ruling class do get most all of the cookies and the masses are relegated to fighting over crumbs.

With a corporation it's more like a Cookie STORE. The capitalist is minding the store, making sure customers pay, keeping the inventory stocked, taking care of the records and deposits and paying the people who supply the cookies. As with ANY capitalist, they have two objectives. First, to make as much profit as legally and ethically possible and second, to satisfy the customer so they can continue to be successful capitalists. Neither of these objectives are helped by greed or paying too much for a CEO.
 
[

Do you dream up your blue collar, populist morality while sitting in your easy chair, wearing a cholo wife beater shirt and chugging some off-brand beer, you fucking hillbilly? "I tell ya, Leroy, it jest ain't right dem big city fellers rakin' in all dat money while we'uns have to live in a mobile home." Pathetic peasant morality.

CEOs at large corporations get the big bucks because of what they can do, which involves things you will never understand. The Board has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders when they hire executive officers. Nobody is in "cahoots" with one another, asshole. That is not how it works.

Go suck it, you hick.

Uh, right.

So when the CEO of GM got a 12 million dollar Salary, it was because he was doing such a great job... that the company went bankrupt and required a huge government bailout. Same with AIG- required a bailout and the CEO and executives STILL required their bonuses.

Incidently, it's Leroy in his wife-beater tee-shirt whose the problem. His middle class lifestyle disappears and he still votes for Republicans.
 
[



I don't know of ANY CEO making an 8-figure salary. Only a handful make 7-figure salaries.

Here's a list of the top 100 CEO's. ALL Of them make 8 figure salaries. Except the top guy. He makes a NINE figure salary.

100 Highest Paid CEOs





[
Again... Whether it's American or not, capitalism is not conducive with paying too much for CEOs. You see, the capitalist is trying to make profit, so any cost that is not needed is a direct obstacle to that objective. In other words, your argument doesn't make logical sense.

Now, I didn't ask if you had worked for companies. I said I doubted you know what a CEO does because you've probably never known one and they probably aren't available on your Marxist blogs.

I've met the CEO's of most of the companies I've worked for. And, yes, most of them are nothing special.



[
Joe, what I have discovered in my many years of debating liberal mush-brains, is they don't know what they are talking about most of the time. This is the case with CEOs and what they make. The liberal simply repeats the garbage propaganda without thinking for themselves. You don't know what a CEO does, you don't have a clue. In the liberal's mind, the CEO simply consumes wealth of the workers and contributes nothing. As I stated, this is contradictory to the principles of capitalism.

Guy, Capitalism and Communism have one thing in common.

They both look GREAT on paper.

And they are both a shit sandwich when real people apply them.
 
I had hoped this thread would at least spark a conversation.
Did I scare the Marxists by being too bluntly honest?

Ironic that you are cut from the same cloth as Marxists... a Marketist

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

more

The Betrayal of Adam Smith - Excerpt

It seems a common practice for corporate libertarians to justify their actions based on theories that apply only in the world that by their actions they seek to dismantle. Economist Neva Goodwin suggests that neoclassical economists have invited this distortion and misuse of economic theory by drawing narrow boundaries around their field that exclude most political and institutional reality. She characterizes the neoclassical school of economics as the political economy of Adam Smith minus the political and institutional analysis of Karl Marx:

The classical political economy of Adam Smith was a much broader, more humane subject than the economics that is taught in universities today.... For at least a century it has been virtually taboo to talk about economic power in the capitalist context; that was a communist (Marxist) idea. The concept of class was similarly banned from discussion.

Adam Smith was as acutely aware of issues of power and class as he was of the dynamics of competitive markets. However, the neoclassical economists and the neo-Marxist economists bifurcated his holistic perspective on the political economy, one taking those portions of the analysis that favored the owners of property, and the other taking those that favored the sellers of labor. Thus, the neoclassical economists left out Smith's considerations of the destructive role of power and class, and the neo-Marxists left out the beneficial functions of the market. Both advanced extremist social experiments on a massive scale that embodied a partial vision of society, with disastrous consequences.

If corporate libertarians had a serious allegiance to market principles and human rights, they would be calling for policies aimed at achieving the conditions under which markets function in a democratic fashion in the public interest. They would be calling for an end to corporate welfare, the breakup of corporate monopolies, the equitable distribution of property ownership, the internalization of social and environmental costs, local ownership, a living wage for working people, rooted capital, and a progressive tax system. Corporate libertarianism is not about creating the conditions that market theory argues will optimize the public interest, because its real concern is with private, not public, interests.
 
Naw, it's just laughable that anyone is still trying to push "Greed is Good" after 2008.

Kind of like anyone extolling the virtues of fascism after 1945.

Well no, GREED IS BAD! I think we all know that and agree on that, honestly.

My argument is, capitalism isn't inherently greedy by nature. Greed tends to destroy capitalists.

You will never get rid of greed by destroying capitalism. Totalitarian governmental regimes are among the greediest people in the world. Whether you look at Dictators, Emirs, Czars, Kings, Despots, you find greed of the utmost proportion compared to the mass population.

In fact, Greed is why Socialism, Marxism and Communism fail. On paper, they should all work brilliantly, that's why you always hear intellectuals going on and on about them. That's the motivation behind this push, this movement, this insidious idealism of chasing Utopia.

But there is the human factor of greed involved. This is an attribute found in the heart of a man, it doesn't matter what he does, what he is, or what he stands for. It's a matter of personal integrity more than anything else. There are greedy people from all walks of life.

"Greedy" is also a very subjective term. What is Greed? And who gets to determine the parameters of it? Since the term is so subjective and can range widely in interpretation, it is easily applied to a group of people with a broad brush, and this is why it's a cornerstone in socialist propaganda.

A greedy capitalist soon finds himself replaced by a less greedy capitalist.


The way to get rid of greed is a TRUE free market, not the current malfeasance of crony capitalism.

You seem to want to school liberals on markets. So tell me, what is you knowledge of:

1) externalization

2) how absentee ownership of companies destroys a KEY ingredient of a TRUE free market, that owner being a stakeholder in the results of that company's actions.

Yf4J2Jc.png
 
Last edited:
watch out, Bfgrn, Boss will come back here and totally call you a Maoist for that kind of stuff.

A MAOist?

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads"
Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung- Combat Liberalism
 
Capitalism is not inherently greedy, as leftists claim.

What is greedy are the left wing ideologies of socialism, Marxism, and communism because these terrible systems ALWAYS centralize power and wealth into the hands of a GREEDY small elite.

Capitalism is the opposite of leftist ideologies, since it offers access to all people to succeed and this is why the Left must denigrate it. The exact things the Left criticizes capitalism of are what their ideologies will cause.

Sadly many foolish Americans, like Lil Joe fall for the lies of the elite left over and over and over................................................
 
Capitalism is not inherently greedy, as leftists claim.

What is greedy are the left wing ideologies of socialism, Marxism, and communism because these terrible systems ALWAYS centralize power and wealth into the hands of a GREEDY small elite.

Capitalism is the opposite of leftist ideologies, since it offers access to all people to succeed and this is why the Left must denigrate it. The exact things the Left criticizes capitalism of are what their ideologies will cause.

Sadly many foolish Americans, like Lil Joe fall for the lies of the elite left over and over and over................................................

Guy, if Capitalism offers all these "oppurtunities", then why does 40% of the population have less than 1% of the wealth while 1% has 43% of the wealth.

The Secretary General of the USSR Never lived with as much decadence as your average Kardashian or Hilton.
 

Forum List

Back
Top