Capitalism vs Corporatism

The inevitable end result of pure unregulated capitalism is almost the same as pure communism. You end up with one supplier...one media source.....etc..etc...

This prediction gets repeated quite a bit, but I don't see much evidence to back it up. Pretty much every example of wealth centralization or market monopolization involves heavy government involvement. It's quite hard to accomplish this kind of control without colluding with the state.

In any case, we can't discuss "unregulated" capitalism until we have a clear understanding what people mean by regulation. Free market advocates aren't proposing no laws regarding economic transactions. We're saying that government shouldn't be in the business of deciding winners and losers. Laws pertaining to the economy should be basic rules that allow transparency and fair dealings.

But all-too-often, what is referred to as 'regulation' involves deliberate attempts to manipulate the economy - to 'incentivize' this or that behavior, or to penalize others. Whenever government has this kind of power, people who stand to benefit from such manipulation will do whatever they can to influence their reps. The more power the reps have to interfere in this way, the more people will seek to influence them.
 
:yawn:

It's as if people believe if they repeat the same thing over and over, it will some how become true. Yes, public campaign finance reform laws will stop corporations from buying politicians because OF COURSE! we have judges and prosecutors and jails! And politicians and large corporate donators caught in misconduct and scandals ALWAYS go to jail! See!

treating a symptom of the disease will not cure the disease. Keep table pounding.

But you offer no cure either. If the thought of going to jail won't bother the politicians, that's their concern. They and you will just have to be proven wrong. This isn't about thinking all bad actors will be rooted out, just that it wouldn't be allowed as a matter of course. You seem to have given up. Why should we listen?

Actually, I did. You just don't seem to get. Review my posts and come back and try again. I have given up on corporatism. You want to publically finance it. Which works wonders for the cause of corporatism.
 
FWIW, I'd like to point out that "corporatism" isn't a reference to incorporated businesses. It's a style of government. Our discussion would be much better informed if we kept that in mind. The wikipedia article on it gives a decent overview.
 
The inevitable end result of pure unregulated capitalism is almost the same as pure communism. You end up with one supplier...one media source.....etc..etc...

This prediction gets repeated quite a bit, but I don't see much evidence to back it up. Pretty much every example of wealth centralization or market monopolization involves heavy government involvement. It's quite hard to accomplish this kind of control without colluding with the state.

In any case, we can't discuss "unregulated" capitalism until we have a clear understanding what people mean by regulation. Free market advocates aren't proposing no laws regarding economic transactions. We're saying that government shouldn't be in the business of deciding winners and losers. Laws pertaining to the economy should be basic rules that allow transparency and fair dealings.

But all-too-often, what is referred to as 'regulation' involves deliberate attempts to manipulate the economy - to 'incentivize' this or that behavior, or to penalize others. Whenever government has this kind of power, people who stand to benefit from such manipulation will do whatever they can to influence their reps. The more power the reps have to interfere in this way, the more people will seek to influence them.

It's simply a case of the repeater. I agree with you. But from the other side, you see people screaming for more regulation.

Show me someone who wants to regulate every industry and I'll show you a natural economic planner. It's a control thing.
 
The GOP is set to complete what the railroad barons pushed the Grant administration to start: to take democracy and its institutions of governance from the hands of the human citizen/voters the Founders fought and died for, and give it to the very types of monopolistic corporations the Founders fought against when they led the Tea Party revolt against the East India Company in Boston Harbor in 1773.

So, how does this compare with Obama's gift to the insurance industry? At least Grant didn't mandate that we all ride the rails.
 
Today, from the minute a candidate wins their seat, they immediately start campaigning again for the next election. It takes about $5000 a day to win a House Seat. Public financing would solve our problem with elections but won't lobbyists still be in Washington 360 days greasing our politicians palms?

If they didn't have to beg for money they'd have more time for our business and maybe read a bill once in a while! That's the bonus result of public financing. Sure lobbyists would still be in DC talking to our representitives. That's cool. No one is trying to take away their Freedom of Speech. It's just that when the "greasing of palms" takes place, we can take care of it the old fashioned way, with bribery prosecutions. They wouldn't be able to use the money for their campaign, so taking it would mean they're stuffing it in the own pockets, or freezers!!!, and dealt with like the criminals they'd be.

Great point. You can't stop someone from being corrupt. You can only hope they don't for fear of getting caught.

Financing their campaign is how the rich legally get away with greasing their palms. Do away with this and you are right, now its not legal anymore.

Funny the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision goes the exact opposite way. So obvious they are in the corporations pockets. So obvious our system is corrupt. And its not unions or socialists. Its greedy rich corporate robber barons. They've been around for hundreds of years. Our founding fathers warned us but notice the tea baggers don't mention this?
 
Free airtime would go along way too

Typical socialist.

So the first thing you guys will do when finally taking over is to completely nationalize the networks. Then we will be able to watch Fidel, Hugo and Obama holding hands 24/7.

.

Who owns the airwaves?

Ohhhhhhhh, Is that what you meant....you fuckers are going to start YOUR OWN radio and TV networks.......no nationalization.......hummmmmmmmmm

.
 
All we have to do is make it part of the rental contract that they have to allow each candidate a certain amount of time.
 
:yawn:

It's as if people believe if they repeat the same thing over and over, it will some how become true. Yes, public campaign finance reform laws will stop corporations from buying politicians because OF COURSE! we have judges and prosecutors and jails! And politicians and large corporate donators caught in misconduct and scandals ALWAYS go to jail! See!

treating a symptom of the disease will not cure the disease. Keep table pounding.

Corporations (or individuals for that matter) should be able to donate as much as they like to a campaign - they just shouldn't expect any favors in return.

And you expect to change human nature how? If they can't expect favors, they won't contribute, but since there's no way you could make that work, it's just "business as usual" without public financing.

You're right I cant change human nature...

I suppose it sucks living in a world where 99.9% of the public lack morals, ethics and integrity. A world where people need to buy favors and whom want to manipulate an economic model just to get ahead.

If I give someone something I expect nothing of significance in return. It's a gesture of kindness not a purchased favor for later..

Obama is a fantastic example of greedy asshole. The best example of this is his UAW bailout. UAW (and unions in general) vote and contribute Obama into office and Obama bails them out with American tax dollars -- not only that but creates another taxpayer funded program called Cash for Clunkers to stimulate demand for autos manufactured by -- no other than UAW...

I would call that nepotism...
 
Finally, something that makes sense. The game IS rigged, hence my call for public financing. They don't give money to just one politician, but to many on both sides of the aisle. That's why so many say there's no difference between the parties, they've both been co-opted by the way we finance elections.

Yeah, and? So, we make a new public campaign finance law. One that no politician will ever touch and then they take bribes in the backdoor and nothing changes. Yay.

That is why you take away the politicians ability to intervene in the market altogether and leave them with their original task. The only reason this doesn't seem to make sense to you is because I don't think you really understand how this works and why your suggestion wont change anything.

We can start by repealing the nightmare of nonsense jammed under interstate commerce.

I'm afraid you're the one talking nonsense. Let them take bribes in the back door, that's why we have prosecutors, courts and jails. Your solution, taking away their ability to intervene in the market, doesn't make sense. Sometimes that's necessary. Nothing changes under your plan, because it depends on an impossibility and, in the end, a bad idea. Totally leaving government out of the market is as clueless as total government control of markets. Both require a basic change in human nature to work.

Do you not think that the "prosecutors, courts and jails" systems have not been compromised as well? Thinking that the judicial system is some bastion of sanity and good left in our country is naive. All the branches of our government are corrupt as hell.
 
Today, from the minute a candidate wins their seat, they immediately start campaigning again for the next election. It takes about $5000 a day to win a House Seat. Public financing would solve our problem with elections but won't lobbyists still be in Washington 360 days greasing our politicians palms?

If they didn't have to beg for money they'd have more time for our business and maybe read a bill once in a while! That's the bonus result of public financing. Sure lobbyists would still be in DC talking to our representitives. That's cool. No one is trying to take away their Freedom of Speech. It's just that when the "greasing of palms" takes place, we can take care of it the old fashioned way, with bribery prosecutions. They wouldn't be able to use the money for their campaign, so taking it would mean they're stuffing it in the own pockets, or freezers!!!, and dealt with like the criminals they'd be.

Great point. You can't stop someone from being corrupt. You can only hope they don't for fear of getting caught.

Financing their campaign is how the rich legally get away with greasing their palms. Do away with this and you are right, now its not legal anymore.

Funny the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision goes the exact opposite way. So obvious they are in the corporations pockets. So obvious our system is corrupt. And its not unions or socialists. Its greedy rich corporate robber barons. They've been around for hundreds of years. Our founding fathers warned us but notice the tea baggers don't mention this?

AActually, the tea party has been talking about it since the movement formed back in 07-08. The difference is they realize the "robber barons" are in office and the best way to get them out and keep any others out for good is to limit the size, scope and intrusion of government in the economy and in our liberties.

This is the difference.

We are talking about a corrupted government that has been given the power to interfere with our markets in almost everyway through regulation and subsiy measures and the monopolies that have long since bought our elected officials for these concessions in their favor. That is what corporatism is all about.

The answer, is to get the government OUT OF BUSINESS and put them back in their original and proper role. This restores capitalism, which is the best system we've nearly never had.

We can start by repealing all the nonsense stuffed under interstate commerce. Then, people have to realize the actual problem adn stop asking to fix a symptom. Prolly never happen though, prolly.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand your disconnect between GOVERNMENT regulating and subsidizing in favor of those who pay to play. If a politician is taking tons of money to give concessions to an industry that the politician can NOT grant them, why would they give them the money?

For what purpose? That's the whole point. Govt. has no role in dictating the market except for exactly what we see now; corporatism. They may better define laws in order to protect our rights and our private property. Once they start pickign who gets what based on the money they provide, the game is rigged.

Finally, something that makes sense. The game IS rigged, hence my call for public financing. They don't give money to just one politician, but to many on both sides of the aisle. That's why so many say there's no difference between the parties, they've both been co-opted by the way we finance elections.

Tell me something.

Would not public financing limit the number of people that can run?

I always assumed it would and tended not to support it. Power will consolidate in the hands that prove themselves "eligible" for financing, and the question then becomes who is eligible. Memebers of the major Parties? Third Party candidates that is assumed by many pundits not to have a chance. Or can the TEA and CUPCAKES coalition gain equal funding?


I do not know what system is best for campaign financing, but it is ovious that the GOP are suffering from a case of too much money too burn in their nomination process. Add to this the fact that one of the least funded candidate, Santorum, is able to win states against Romney, it becomes apparent that too much money is not the issue. How the money is spent is.

And election fraud.
 

Forum List

Back
Top