Capitalism Saved The Miners

[loosecannon]

This is really what we've reduced the argument for capitalism to?

Essentially yes. After crashing the economy, again, and rallying our debt to the stratosphere, and making our elections a pay to play scheme, and formalizing social welfare for the "too big to fail or jail" capitalism is exposed as a pariah.

But at least the faithful can glom onto one mining accident in which the miners were actually saved and claim that as a victory for capitalism that sent those miners to their brush with death.

Meanwhile capitalism failed to save gazzillions of miners and they take no heat for that. I read some figure today wherein over 3700 miners were killed in the USA in just one year in the teens.

Should we blame capitalism for those deaths or credit them because the figure wasn't twice as high?

Or should we blame capitalism for ALL mining deaths since capitalism drives mining?

 

[loosecannon]

No, I don't. I'm not the one resorting to insulting somebody else and claiming I won an argument to prove that I'm right. Those tactics are reserved for those with no argument.

In this case they are the deserved gloat of the victor. Your argument failed. That's a fact, Jack.

And you seem incapable of understanding that what we hail as capitalists (adherents to a paradigm that you openly exist doesn't exist) are folks whose first agenda is always to pervert free markets. Because "capitalists" hate a free market, it offers them no advantage.

According to you. Again, those who claim they won an argument are generally those who have no argument.

Blow me tard. You claimed that capitalism saved the miners then you spun around and said capitalism didn't exist.

You = EPIC FAIL!

 

[loosecannon]

Something else to point out on why Capitalism saved those miners versus say socialism.

see you don't even understand the discussion.

The question isn't whether capitalism or socialism saved the miners. The question is whether capitalism or society saved the miners.

Socialism doesn't exist, neither does capitalism, just ask Kennedy.

But society does, and despite capitalism, society saved the miners. Case closed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In this case they are the deserved gloat of the victor. Your argument failed. That's a fact, Jack.

And you seem incapable of understanding that what we hail as capitalists (adherents to a paradigm that you openly exist doesn't exist) are folks whose first agenda is always to pervert free markets. Because "capitalists" hate a free market, it offers them no advantage.

According to you. Again, those who claim they won an argument are generally those who have no argument.

Blow me tard. You claimed that capitalism saved the minors then you spun around and said capitalism didn't exist.

You = EPIC FAIL!

Boy you sure just keep showing all of us how "right" you are.

 

[loosecannon]

Boy you sure just keep showing all of us how "right" you are.

WRONG! I keep repeating how WRONG you are.

I can't claim to be proven right merely because your facile argument was proven wrong.

Had you balls and an argument you would admit having failed and move on with a more compelling argument.

Apparently you don't have a more compelling argument than your self contradicting one that failed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Boy you sure just keep showing all of us how "right" you are.

WRONG! I keep repeating how WRONG you are.

I can't claim to be proven right merely because your facile argument was proven wrong.

Had you balls and an argument you would admit having failed and move on with a more compelling argument.

Apparently you don't have a more compelling argument than your self contradicting one that failed.

I'm still waiting on my previous argument to be addressed minus the insults and claims of victory. When you can prove that you're ready to engage with the adults then the adults will take you seriously.

 

[loosecannon]

what previous argument, the last thing you posted was self contradictory tripe.

What else you got? And don't waste my time with bullshit, Kay?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

what previous argument, the last thing you posted was self contradictory tripe.

What else you got? And don't waste my time with bullshit, Kay?

You're wasting your own time.

 

[Big Fitz]

Socialism doesn't exist, neither does capitalism, just ask Kennedy.

Okay, let's. Hey KK, does socialism or capitalism exist? Or is he forgetting to breathe again?

Christ what an idiot.

 

[Sallow]

We do not have a barter system in this day and age, and yet we trade value for value.

With all due respect..that's an aspect of barter. Like I pointed out..barter is part of Capitalism. Except with capitalism we set up a construct value that we can barter with.

Hope that adds some clarity.

The whole idea behind capitalism, ultimately, is the trading of goods and services derived from privately owned means of production.

No one is saying it's the only part of the definition of capitalism. But there would be no capitalism without free trade.

Why are you trying to make it more complex than it really is for the purpose of this particular debate?

You can produce goods and services on the back of labor all day long, but if you don't trade them then there's no "capitalism" to speak of.

Well..correct.

But Capitalism is much more complex then just trading value for value. And good corrupt free government is essential to good corrupt free Capitalism.

They go hand in hand.

 

[Sallow]

I enjoy when adversaries try to explain why their system is better.

Then don't ask the Marxists. Marx never actually said people should choose communism because it's better. He said that it was inescapable that the course of history would lead to communism.

I believe it's not. I am a raging liberal well regulated free market capitalist.

You sound more like a social democrat than a Liberal.

Sound?

Labels are difficult..wouldn't you agree?

Suffice to say..I believe in American Capitalism..for the most part. I believe in Democracy. And I think the rule of law is supreme.

That and I am an Atheist that believes people have the right to worship as they please or be as bigoted or racist as they please so long as it doesn't hurt or infringe on the rights of others.

And I think government should be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Hope that adds clarity.

 

[Charles_Main]

I enjoy when adversaries try to explain why their system is better.

Then don't ask the Marxists. Marx never actually said people should choose communism because it's better. He said that it was inescapable that the course of history would lead to communism.

I believe it's not. I am a raging liberal well regulated free market capitalist.

You sound more like a social democrat than a Liberal.

And I think government should be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

A nice idea, but often the 2 are incompatible.

 

[Sallow]

Then don't ask the Marxists. Marx never actually said people should choose communism because it's better. He said that it was inescapable that the course of history would lead to communism.
You sound more like a social democrat than a Liberal.

And I think government should be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

A nice idea, but often the 2 are incompatible.

In some cases..correct.

But that is where compromise come into play..no?

 

[midcan5]

If one gives credit to ideas rather than people, you'd need to give credit to Constitutional Democracy as that is where enough freedom exists to control and support solutions to human problems. Any honest reading of history has to give good government credit. Even this thing we debate on is a product of government.

"In 1929 Federal, state, and municipal governments accounted for about 8 percent of all economic activity in the United States. By the 1960s that figure was between 20 and 25 percent, far exceeding that in India, a socialist country. The National Science Foundation reckoned that federal funds were paying for 90 percent of research in aviation and space travel, 65 percent in electrical and electronic devices, 42 percent in Scientific Instruments, 31 percent in machinery, 28 percent in metal alloys, 24 percent in automobiles, and 20 percent in chemicals." William Manchester "The Glory and the Dream"

 

[Angelhair]

I will drink to the guys in PA who invented the drill that drilled the hole for the miners to be able to escape. I will drink to NASA and to all the inventors in OUR society who made this rescue possible. I'm glad that they were there and able to help these miners who otherwise would have faced a terrible death. This too shall pass and it will be just one more story of what these miners did to stay sane. Their '15 minutes of fame' will soon become yesterday's news - but the inventions will get better and better and more lives will be saved in the future - and this will be thanks to the ingenuity of a FREE society as is the USA.

 

[Paulie]

You ask me what I believe and then say 'I'm not sure what exactly this means to this discussion though.'?

I was simply satisfied with the fact that there's just one more person in the world who advocates the Austrian ideal.

Agana left... or so we're told

I definitely don't agree with minimum wag

Cool. You can see the results of the idiocy you espouse here

Limited necessary regulation is much different from "raging liberal" regulation

Fail. A raging liberal would oppose any regulation. Have you never read Locke or Hume? Do you have any idea what Liberalism is?

I don't know what Agana is, so I'm not sure how to respond to that.

I don't care to read yet another argument about minimum wage. I have my own opinion on it with its own supporting evidence. That's for an entirely different thread.

And don't play dumb about liberalism. You know damn right well I'm talking about today's liberals, the tax, spend, and regulate to death liberals.

I'm a classical liberal, the antithesis of today's liberal as we've come to know the term.

 

[JBeukema]

tax, spend, and regulate to death liberals.

That's an oxymoron.

 

[boedicca]

tax, spend, and regulate to death liberals.

That's an oxymoron.

Not it's not.

It's a perfect example of how the Big Government Lefties behave.

 

[georgephillip]

"Historian Juan Cole poses these questions:

“'Are copper and gold mine owners stronger in relation to workers and have they escaped government regulation because the US engineered a coup in 1973 to destroy the Chilean Left?'

“'Was the San Esteban mining company’s ability to marginalize the union and to disregard input from the workers rooted in American-imposed corporate privilege?'

"In other words, was the trapping of these workers in the first place Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger’s fault?”

"That deep hole in that Chile mine was caused in part by a gold rush there—triggered, in turn by, a global financial crisis MADE IN THE USA.

"It had its counterparts in the US and, not just among those 29 miners who perished in the Big Main mine in West Virginia, last April, a disaster that was supposed to lead to new safety rules that the Republicans have been insidiously blocking."

ALL governments socialize cost and privatize profit for the benefit of a wealthy few. It matters little what political parties are in control.

When someone like Salvador Allende tries to reverse that process, capitalists kill him.

It's the capitalist ethic at work.

Report from...

 

[Paulie]

With all due respect..that's an aspect of barter. Like I pointed out..barter is part of Capitalism. Except with capitalism we set up a construct value that we can barter with.

Hope that adds some clarity.

The whole idea behind capitalism, ultimately, is the trading of goods and services derived from privately owned means of production.

No one is saying it's the only part of the definition of capitalism. But there would be no capitalism without free trade.

Why are you trying to make it more complex than it really is for the purpose of this particular debate?

You can produce goods and services on the back of labor all day long, but if you don't trade them then there's no "capitalism" to speak of.

Well..correct.

But Capitalism is much more complex then just trading value for value. And good corrupt free government is essential to good corrupt free Capitalism.

They go hand in hand.

First of all, my whole post you just responded to already pointed out the obvious, in that the definition of capitalism is more than just "trade". So I'm not really sure why you repeated yourself again.

Second, the point of this discussion wasn't about the existence of corruption or no corruption. Capitalism is still capitalism whether there's corruption or not.

You've steered the discussion toward your personal opinion now, about the best way to utilize capitalism. For the purpose of this discussion, you'll have to excuse me for not really giving a crap about how you feel capitalism is best utilized.