Dubai's free market capitalism

[Bern80]

kelo v new london was the direct product of capitalism. Of course, ole BE$N will just insist that he with the bigger bank account deserves it anyway. Everyone else can just be glad that they allowed to serve the hallowed wealthy and follow along the trail of crumbs. Hell, Beggars can't be Industrialists; two social roles that ole BE$N has not problem with. It's funny to watch capitalistas act like junkies over wealth as if the sum total of existence is maximizing the annual GDP and squeezing out as much profit for shareholders as possible... even if it means shitting in the same pool that he fishes from.

Your ability to come up with much of anything intelligible or accurate has come and gone as it always does, Shogun. When you can come up with more than useless metaphors and gross mischaracterizations, and maybe answer a direct question or two without pussying out, get back to me.

 

[Shogun]

kelo v new london was the direct product of capitalism. Of course, ole BE$N will just insist that he with the bigger bank account deserves it anyway. Everyone else can just be glad that they allowed to serve the hallowed wealthy and follow along the trail of crumbs. Hell, Beggars can't be Industrialists; two social roles that ole BE$N has not problem with. It's funny to watch capitalistas act like junkies over wealth as if the sum total of existence is maximizing the annual GDP and squeezing out as much profit for shareholders as possible... even if it means shitting in the same pool that he fishes from.

Your ability to come up with much of anything intelligible or accurate has come and gone as it always does, Shogun. When you can come up with more than useless metaphors and gross mischaracterizations, and maybe answer a direct question or two without pussying out, get back to me.

As i've told you before, BE$N, your ability to talk shit is as tepid as your grasp on economics.

hey, maybe you can get a chinese wage slave to help you out with your spelling skills too. I'm sure you can find a cheaper option as long as you can stomach the taste of lead and don't want to pay an American enough to maintain our domestic standard of living.



what direct questions are you referring to, BE$N? Apparently you are as new to USMB as you are to the reason Kelo v New London went to court if you think I am somehow less tenacious with you than EVERYONE ELSE on this forum.

 

[Shogun]

yup.. I just checked, BE$N... looks like i've responded to every one of your lame assed retorts. I dunno man, maybe you can blame it on regulation or something.

 

[Bern80]

hey, maybe you can get a chinese wage slave to help you out with your spelling skills too. I'm sure you can find a cheaper option as long as you can stomach the taste of lead and don't want to pay an American enough to maintain our domestic standard of living.

Why should a person be paid based on what they need for a standard of living as oppossed to the value of their skills?

When you posted your article that was proof of nothing, I asked if you were so naive as to beleive that the only reason people get laid off was because their jobs go overseas. More specifically I asked you if companies should have the right to lay people off at all or if we're just all garunteed jobs for life?

 

[Claudette]

you don't always win in capitalism. any sane economist could have told you the extreme risk dubai was taking. the russian intel agency controlled companies caught the same fate when they held heavy usd debts as the collapse came and attempted to pay it back in ruples.

Gotta agree. Capitalism is risky. Nothing says your venture will be successfull. It can fail just as easily.

Wonder if Dubai will hold the Dubai World Cup horse race this year It is the richest horserace in the world. Wonder if they can come up with a paltry few million for that.

Pump more oil guys!!

 

[Shogun]

hey, maybe you can get a chinese wage slave to help you out with your spelling skills too. I'm sure you can find a cheaper option as long as you can stomach the taste of lead and don't want to pay an American enough to maintain our domestic standard of living.

Why should a person be paid based on what they need for a standard of living as oppossed to the value of their skills?

When you posted your article that was proof of nothing, I asked if you were so naive as to beleive that the only reason people get laid off was because their jobs go overseas. More specifically I asked you if companies should have the right to lay people off at all or if we're just all garunteed jobs for life?

Because that is how we, as our American society, have chosen to standardize the range of our standard of living. It's exactly why we have a minimum wage, BE$N. You see, we don't care to disregard castoff "too fucking bad you can't afford living" classes like your heroes in India, Mexico and China, BE$N. Believe it or not, BE$N, humanity has more value than merely what you can rationalize as their bottom shelf labor value. True Story. If you are not on board feel free to move to India where the labor is cheap and the streets are filled with pauper classes.


And, as far as your loaded question, of COURSE people don't only get laid off because of exported jobs. As i've stated time and again: I have no problem with internal, domestic competition. However, when the national trend is to see tech jobs exported enough to become nationally fucking relevant and we see droves of unemployed IT while their former companies overtly rehire Indians it doesn't take a fucking java programmer to detect a correlation. Indeed, just so you know, there is a correlation between cheap shit from China being sold in Wal Mart and the wide scale closings of mom and pop stores too. Ever see a fucking shoe factory in the US this side of the 90s, BE$N? If you do maybe you can show an auto worker what you have in store for his future while insisting that global "wage slave loving" FMC is benefiting his all the way to the unemployment line.


As to your second question: I live in, and work with an at will state. I don't have a problem with the process of people being layed off. But, this isn't a matter of a closed job so much as it is the direct effort to low ball the cost of labor. When the same company that fires and American goes on to hire an Indian it's not a matter of the lack of a job so much as the desire to circumvent paying the kind of wage that supports our American SOL. Especially in an age where your kind would rather bleed yourself to death before enforcing any kind of reciprocal fair trade standards in the name of a "free market". All the while enjoying the bennies of having open access to the American consumer like a tick on a dog's balls, no less.


Now, does it sound like I'm, in any way, coy around the likes of you and your questions, BE$N? Are you content that I answered your questions or is it time to stomp another foot?

 

[Dr Grump]

Sue your school system and demand your money back. I'll back you up.

The Nature of Socialism

The essence of Socialism is this: All the means of production are in the exclusive control of the organized community. This and this alone is Socialism.All other definitions are misleading.

.

Proletarian is right, and you are wrong. Maybe you should sue your school. Irony is your own post proves his point.

You talk about means of production. He talks about personal property. In socialism, the government owns and runs production, but doesn't own your house. In Communism, the govt owns and produces everything. That is why it is called Communism - look up related word 'commune' in dictionary...;O)

under socialism there is no private ownership, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=600http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=600

.

Put simply, the link to your uber Capitalist sight - and the persons OPINION, is wrong. Socialism and Communism are similar economic systems, but they are not the same. My point stands.

 

[Bern80]

Because that is how we, as our American society, have chosen to standardize the range of our standard of living. It's exactly why we have a minimum wage, BE$N. You see, we don't care to disregard castoff "too fucking bad you can't afford living" classes like your heroes in India, Mexico and China, BE$N. Believe it or not, BE$N, humanity has more value than merely what you can rationalize as their bottom shelf labor value. True Story. If you are not on board feel free to move to India where the labor is cheap and the streets are filled with pauper classes.

Really? When you got hired to do whatever it is you do, the HR dept. asked you to bring in all your bills, tell him how many children you had, what part of the city you lived in, etc. so he could figure out how much he was supposed to pay you?

And, as far as your loaded question, of COURSE people don't only get laid off because of exported jobs. As i've stated time and again: I have no problem with internal, domestic competition. However, when the national trend is to see tech jobs exported enough to become nationally fucking relevant and we see droves of unemployed IT while their former companies overtly rehire Indians it doesn't take a fucking java programmer to detect a correlation. Indeed, just so you know, there is a correlation between cheap shit from China being sold in Wal Mart and the wide scale closings of mom and pop stores too. Ever see a fucking shoe factory in the US this side of the 90s, BE$N? If you do maybe you can show an auto worker what you have in store for his future while insisting that global "wage slave loving" FMC is benefiting his all the way to the unemployment line.

Unfortunately then you have a bit of a contradiction on your hands. First you contend that employers pay people based on what they need for a standard of living. Yet you also say it is okay (assuming your fairy tale isolationist world) for companies to lay people off. If it is the primary role of business to provide people a standard of living how can they EVER legitimately lay anyone off?

Competition is what drives innovation. Innovation generally improves societies. Forcing us to not compete globally will only weaken us as a country. Your foreign labor argument is grossly overstated. We have a hair over 10% unemployment. An increase of about 4 - 5% in a year or so. Is it really your contention that all of that is due to foreign labor? Under good economic conditions our system manages to keep 95% of the country employed (give or take). And yet you want to invoke these isolationist polices that will assuradely be more detrimental to the country over all than positive because again your simply playing a zero sum game.

As to your second question: I live in, and work with an at will state. I don't have a problem with the process of people being layed off. But, this isn't a matter of a closed job so much as it is the direct effort to low ball the cost of labor. When the same company that fires and American goes on to hire an Indian it's not a matter of the lack of a job so much as the desire to circumvent paying the kind of wage that supports our American SOL.

There are so many problem with that statement it's hard to know where to begin. First it falsely assumes it is the purpose of business to provide an SOL. Disagree all you want, but it isn't. Secondly even assuming that's true why might it not be to keep from going under all together and keep as many American jobs as they can?

 

[antagon]

A depression has nothing to do with the gold standard economy.


The Congresscritters decided in 1913, that by fucking around with the economy they could enhance their re-election chances. They created the federal reserve board and ordered it to inflate the currency . The fuckers totally forgot that in 1913 the US dollar was still redeemable in gold and silver. While the amount of paper notes were increasing the amount and gold and silver was not.

So gold and silver currency was not the problem. Stupid lowlife congresscritters were , are , the problem. Unfortunately, the victims of public education can't read.

.

you seem like an absolute putz, so i agree with you entirely, lest i lock horns with a total ignaramus.

Complete and total surrender, I love it.

.

merry christmas, man!

 

[Bern80]

kelo v new london was the direct product of capitalism. .

HUH?

Elaborate please - explain how eminent domain is a CAPITALISTIC concept.

I won't hold my breath.

.

Diuretic brought this up too. I just don't get it I guess. There is this claim by both he and Shogun that capitalistic societies take things from people force. I asked how so simply because I've never had an instance in my life where I was forced to buy something from a private entity through coersion, the law, lack of options or otherwise. He claimed through eminent domain. I'm not sure a private company can do that without it at the very least being approved by government. But more often than not it is government itself that actually claims eminent domain is it not (i.e roads, infrastructure)? Maybe private companies can claim it, but if so it occurrs so rarely that it is hardly a valid argument against capitalism. In fact doesn't a government planned economy most likely assure that eminent domain will be claimed even more often?

 

[Shogun]

Really? When you got hired to do whatever it is you do, the HR dept. asked you to bring in all your bills, tell him how many children you had, what part of the city you lived in, etc. so he could figure out how much he was supposed to pay you?


nope.. but I knew, at the VERY LEAST, there would be a minimum wage cut off. Lord knows I don't make minimum wage... but, we BOTH know how retarded your question is given the reality of federally mandated minimum wages.





Unfortunately then you have a bit of a contradiction on your hands. First you contend that employers pay people based on what they need for a standard of living. Yet you also say it is okay (assuming your fairy tale isolationist world) for companies to lay people off. If it is the primary role of business to provide people a standard of living how can they EVER legitimately lay anyone off?

No, FIRST, I've told you time and again (see, this is where your purposful obtuse nature kicks in), that the AMERICAN standard of living must be preserved. You've never seen me post a single fucking sentence about the range of SOLs one can find between different AMERICAN locations and the differences thereof. I'm fully aware that a fast food job pays more in a location with a higher SOL than, say, BFE wisconsin. I challenge you to quote me suggesting otherwise. But you won't. Instead, you'll just sit there looking stupid with even more egg on your bullshit face.

Second, when the domestic range of opportunity is preserved from your global meltdown there are plenty of viable options elsewhere. YOU may not recognize it because YOU have not seen a shoe factory in America since the 80s but, hey... unwinding your silly fucking rhetoric isn't even a challenge by this point. I fire people ALL THE FUCKING TIME BE$N. But guess what they can do as long as your kind don't starve our fucking economy of employment opportunity?? they can go get another fucking job. Try passing that joke off in FLINT, MICHIGAN this side of your fucking rice patty auto fest.







Competition is what drives innovation. Innovation generally improves societies. Forcing us to not compete globally will only weaken us as a country. Your foreign labor argument is grossly overstated. We have a hair over 10% unemployment. An increase of about 4 - 5% in a year or so. Is it really your contention that all of that is due to foreign labor? Under good economic conditions our system manages to keep 95% of the country employed (give or take). And yet you want to invoke these isolationist polices that will assuradely be more detrimental to the country over all than positive because again your simply playing a zero sum game.


Indeed, and we SAW competition between no less than 3 major AUTO manufacturers in AMERICA before your kind started pretending that America would benefit from losing their jobs. How does that global market seem to be working for US autos NOW, BE$N?

You see, YOU seem to think that restricting American's from having to compete with mexican paupers semi-slaves will keep American innovation from happening. As if nothing was ever invented in this fucking nation until we had china to compare blueprints with. But, you silly fucking capitalista, this is why you gloss over the economic fact of our greatest American generation and the DOMESTIC PRODUCTION AND COMPETITION THEREOF.


Grossly overstated? YEA.. I guess a capitalista WOULD say that. It is my estimation that our domestic economics is inherently linked by our ability to consume products. So, yes, when a former UAW worker loses his fucking job to a toyota plant paying a third of his former salary, THEN YES BE$N, he probably can't purchase that house that won't sell in a decade. This is why I talk about exponential consuming potential of domestic employees while you pretend former lathe workers can just go back to school to become heart surgeons.




ps, your opinion of what amounts to a zero sum game is noted and disregarded into the same trash bin that you'll find your lame ass attempts to talk shit. You can't preserve the AMERICAN STANDARD OF LIVING BY MAKING EXCUSES FOR IT BEING NORMALIZED WITH THE SOL OF A FUCKING MEXICAN PAUPER, BE$N.




There are so many problem with that statement it's hard to know where to begin. First it falsely assumes it is the purpose of business to provide an SOL. Disagree all you want, but it isn't. Secondly even assuming that's true why might it not be to keep from going under all together and keep as many American jobs as they can?




well, THAT was an awfully short paragraph, mr grandstander. I welcome your full fucking criticism about a job I do every day. If you want to pretend you know more about my job function than I do feel free to leap onto your soapbox, motherfucker.

FIRST, you presume that you have an inherent right to do business however you want, directed at whomever you want, and despite the cost paid by the rest of us. Sorry, pig farmer, you just can't hae your fucking sty in city limits because WE say so. So, when WE say you must pay employees a minimum standard wage for a minimum SOL then you WILL do it or you WILL take your fucking ass somewhere else besides the very America that you latch onto like a vampire to a vein.

Second, you need to learn how to form a fucking sentence if you are going to talk shit about my metaphors. SERIOUSLY. Maybe it takes a fucking Indian beggar to understand that train wreck of a statement but I still have no idea what you are even remotely trying to say.


why might it not be to keep from going under all together and keep as many American jobs as they can?


I'll answer what I'm assuming is a question as soon as you clean that shit up, BE$N.

 

[Shogun]

kelo v new london was the direct product of capitalism. .

HUH?

Elaborate please - explain how eminent domain is a CAPITALISTIC concept.

I won't hold my breath.

.

Diuretic brought this up too. I just don't get it I guess. There is this claim by both he and Shogun that capitalistic societies take things from people force. I asked how so simply because I've never had an instance in my life where I was forced to buy something from a private entity through coersion, the law, lack of options or otherwise. He claimed through eminent domain. I'm not sure a private company can do that without it at the very least being approved by government. But more often than not it is government itself that actually claims eminent domain is it not (i.e roads, infrastructure)? Maybe private companies can claim it, but if so it occurrs so rarely that it is hardly a valid argument against capitalism. In fact doesn't a government planned economy most likely assure that eminent domain will be claimed even more often?

Hey BE$N... do you want to brush up on WHY Kelo v New London personal property was confiscated by the city of New London? go ahead and refresh your notes.. I'll wait.


and, while you are busy bringing yourself up to speed feel free to remind me how that shit turned out years later... And, just so you know, the very same process happened in Columbia, Missouri right after Kelo and Missouri was QUICK to limit the application of the precedence defined in Kelo. YOU may want to throw eminent domain at some ebil socialist gov but, and this is why it's so funny that you are acting coy here, the "good of the people" had absolutely NOTHING to do with Kelo.



so, go brush up, BE$N, so you'll understand what I'm saying when I point out that capitalism has dictated that tax revenue from commerce is more viable than personal property.

 

[Bern80]

nope.. but I knew, at the VERY LEAST, there would be a minimum wage cut off. Lord knows I don't make minimum wage... but, we BOTH know how retarded your question is given the reality of federally mandated minimum wages.

And what eveidence do you have that if not for a minimum wage law you're boss would try to pay you less?

No, FIRST, I've told you time and again (see, this is where your purposful obtuse nature kicks in), that the AMERICAN standard of living must be preserved. You've never seen me post a single fucking sentence about the range of SOLs one can find between different AMERICAN locations and the differences thereof. I'm fully aware that a fast food job pays more in a location with a higher SOL than, say, BFE wisconsin. I challenge you to quote me suggesting otherwise. But you won't. Instead, you'll just sit there looking stupid with even more egg on your bullshit face.

I never said that about you in the first place. I said it is your contention that the purpose of business is to provide for your standard of living. Is that accurate or not?

Further I have contended that I want the same thing you want. For people to have the best SOL they can. I simply contend that the isolationist policies you propose won't accomplish that because you can't see past the nose on your face as to what would happen in practice if they were actually implemented.

Indeed, and we SAW competition between no less than 3 major AUTO manufacturers in AMERICA before your kind started pretending that America would benefit from losing their jobs. How does that global market seem to be working for US autos NOW, BE$N?

Would you stop posting giberish and nonsense. We didn't pretend anything. The American consumer was offered a choice and they chose. That's how people buy things. If they can get the same quality or better and keep more of their money what the fuck do you think they're going to do? What fucking help are you to them when you insist that a) they can not buy that foreign car for less and must pay the higher price to protect someone elses who isn't able to compete in the first place? You'll have to excuse me if I don't worship at your alter because you forced me to pay more than what I would have if we competed on a global level. This is basic fucking math Shogun. YOU FORCED ME TO SPEND MORE THAN YOU SIT THERE AND TRY TO SPIN SOME SHIT ABOUT HOW YOU'RE RAISING MY SOL.

Grossly overstated? YEA.. I guess a capitalista WOULD say that. It is my estimation that our domestic economics is inherently linked by our ability to consume products. So, yes, when a former UAW worker loses his fucking job to a toyota plant paying a third of his former salary, THEN YES BE$N, he probably can't purchase that house that won't sell in a decade. This is why I talk about exponential consuming potential of domestic employees while you pretend former lathe workers can just go back to school to become heart surgeons.

The numbers are the numbers Shogun. Explain to me how some number less than 10% unemployment, a number that is going to go down, some fucking national crisis?

ps, your opinion of what amounts to a zero sum game is noted and disregarded into the same trash bin that you'll find your lame ass attempts to talk shit. You can't preserve the AMERICAN STANDARD OF LIVING BY MAKING EXCUSES FOR IT BEING NORMALIZED WITH THE SOL OF A FUCKING MEXICAN PAUPER, BE$N.

Again math is not your strong suit. If you force me to pay higher costs for goods and services how exactly have you helped improve my standard of living? It is amazing this is so hard for me. I can improve my standard of living, WHICH IS WHAT YOU CLAIM TO WANT, by spending less money.

why might it not be to keep from going under all together and keep as many American jobs as they can?

Your contention is that companies are moving to overseas labor to save a buck. The reality is they do it often times to save the American jobs they can.

 

[Diuretic]

There's a larger irony Grump - those who support capitalism and denounce the state. Capitalism can't exist without the state.

I believe you meant to say PARASITES can't exist without the state.

.

Nope. Capitalism can't exist without the state. If you disagree then disprove it.

 

[Diuretic]

Fine. Last shot. My question was, is it your position that all should have an equal claim to resources?

No, it's that there should be social ownership of the means of production, that includes resources.

Are you sure there's a difference? If all resources are socially owned. That means everyone in society owns them. For everyone to own them, everyone would have to have an equal share. You may say that's fair, but it is also going to be horribily inefficient. Maybe I don't want an equal share of some of those resources because I have no need for them. Or as I said before maybe there are certain members of society that are better equipped to supply those resources to the masses. I think you would acknowledge that, right?

Right. As a general rule people consider it in their benefit to stay in power. When that corruption does rear it's head you want some entity to turn to to correct it. Since you seem to acknowledge that it will occur under a privitized system or government run one the question which is easier to deal with. My contention is that in a state run economy you have no one to turn to because THE STATE RUNS THE ECONOMY.

If a system rewards those in power then they want to keep it. That's the case in capitalism and in fascism when capitalism becomes intertwined with the state. In a socialist system there is no benefit to those in power because there is no-one in a position of power as authority is diffused.

So why were those in control of the economy in the USSR corrupt? Planning the economy is power in of itself.



Yes it is. I disagree with your advertising theory though. Advertising doesn't convince me what is fun. I play video games as a hobby for example. Sony or Microsoft didn't dupe me into liking videogames. I just like them cause their fun. People want to enjoy life, Di. Not just survive it. Is there something inherently wrong with companies that essentially trade money to people for enjoyment, through whatever good or service that may be. Hell I can argue that that makes those, what you call non-essential items, MORE socially valuable. Is it not of social value to have a happy society? After all going to the doctor doesn't make me happy. Having a roof over my head doesn't make me happy. Food at a neccessity level doesn't make me happy. What kind of a life is merely having my needs meat and little opportunity for anything more? What kind of life is a system that can't do any better than just insuring survivial. If the trade off is between some risk and at the very least the opportunity to experience all the world has to offer, the choice between the systems that allow that should be a no brainer.

[How do yo compensate those that provide those things?

You pay them and you pay them at a rate which recognises their socially useful skills. Since those in the healing and teaching occupations are socially valuable they should be paid at a rate that recognises that value.

Except you just said people shouldn't have to pay for those things.

[I'm not up on the laws, but I don't believe a private company can claim eminent domain. If they can it is exceedingly rare and thus not a very good point. The only entity I've ever heard claim it is government for roads, infrastructure, etc

I think you're right, but the point is that the state can do it in liberal democracies as well as in fascist, state capitalist totalitarian (eg China) and socialist societies. Its existence isn't unique to any one of those systems.

But you originally contened that capitalism can take property from people by force. In reality it is socialism and centrally planned government that would inherently have more authority to do that.

The mechanism of social ownership is one thing, management of those socially owned resources is another. Where resources are socially owned the benefits flowing from those resources are available to everyone. The issue then is management and distribution.

The state doesn't run the economy in a socialist system, the economy is managed.

I think the problem in the USSR was that following Lenin, the Party became the state and the interests of the Party transcended those of the collective. I'm not that knowledgeable about socialist theory and certainly not about the history of the USSR but I think that when the dictatorship of the proletariat turned into the dictatorship of the Communist Party is when the rot set in.

I completely agree with you on people enjoying life Bern. One thing that concerns me about a planned economy and the society that flows from it is that there is a tendency to dictate what is acceptable or good taste or as I've used the phrase, socially useful. I would be considered by a party apparatchik from the USSR of the 1950s or the 1960s to be a social parasite because of the things I like to do, eat, drink, listen to, play at and so on. For example, I like classical music but I love rock and roll and no-one is going to tell me that listening to rock is a bad thing. They can get stuffed. But you know I get the feeling that where I live now our government is getting a bit too involved in the “this is bad for you” approach and this is a capitalist economy albeit less intense in its form than in the States. I don't mind a bit of advice but I'll not be told I can't do this or I can't do that. So for me that's more of a social issue than a purely economic issue. The way I see it, flawed probably, is that everyone should have a good minimum standard of living and if they can build on that then they should be able to, if they want to be a dilettante, then they should be able to, provided they are not going to descend into parasitism. I've seen a Stalinist communist state up close and personal and it's an ugly, ugly thing, possibly more depraved in its way than anything capitalism can do simply because it smashes down humanity. There can be socialism and enjoyment together, that was what Marx and Engels intended. They would have been horrified at the grim nature of Soviet state capitalism and its crushing of natural human desires.

On the social goods of – for example – health care and education, I do believe they should be provided by the state and not paid for by individuals. Those who provide those services should be properly compensated by the state for their labours and their skills and social usefulness should be recognised by higher compensation and other benefits. The healers and teachers in society are far more necessary than actors, although actors of course have their social usefulness. And if I sound doctrinaire then I don't mean to be – my previous comments about humanity should reassure on that point.

The “resumption” or whatever name it's given in various locales, of property is a fact of life for us all. Any government can exert force to do so, the form of economy is probably irrelevant. How it's done is important.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There's a larger irony Grump - those who support capitalism and denounce the state. Capitalism can't exist without the state.

I believe you meant to say PARASITES can't exist without the state.

.

Nope. Capitalism can't exist without the state. If you disagree then disprove it.

I believe the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, and it's you saying capitalism can't exist without the state.

 

[Diuretic]

I believe you meant to say PARASITES can't exist without the state.

.

Nope. Capitalism can't exist without the state. If you disagree then disprove it.

I believe the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, and it's you saying capitalism can't exist without the state.

Kevin, I'm more than happy to back up any claim I make and I will.
Witness the bailout.
QED.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nope. Capitalism can't exist without the state. If you disagree then disprove it.

I believe the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, and it's you saying capitalism can't exist without the state.

Kevin, I'm more than happy to back up any claim I make and I will.
Witness the bailout.
QED.

For one, the bailouts weren't necessary, in fact they were detrimental to our future economic health. Secondly, the recession that gave rise to the bailout craze was caused by government policies and wouldn't have happened without the government.

 

[Bern80]

There's a larger irony Grump - those who support capitalism and denounce the state. Capitalism can't exist without the state.

I believe you meant to say PARASITES can't exist without the state.

.

Nope. Capitalism can't exist without the state. If you disagree then disprove it.

Why does there need to be a government in place before you and I can agree on a fair transaction?

 

[Bern80]

The mechanism of social ownership is one thing, management of those socially owned resources is another. Where resources are socially owned the benefits flowing from those resources are available to everyone. The issue then is management and distribution.

My point exactley. My point is that everything is socially owned, which should mean everyone has an equal share of everything. That would make distributing those resources in an efficient manner rather difficult.

The state doesn't run the economy in a socialist system, the economy is managed.

By whom if not the state? What body makes the managerial decisions that guide the economy?

I completely agree with you on people enjoying life Bern. One thing that concerns me about a planned economy and the society that flows from it is that there is a tendency to dictate what is acceptable or good taste or as I've used the phrase, socially useful. I would be considered by a party apparatchik from the USSR of the 1950s or the 1960s to be a social parasite because of the things I like to do, eat, drink, listen to, play at and so on. For example, I like classical music but I love rock and roll and no-one is going to tell me that listening to rock is a bad thing. They can get stuffed. But you know I get the feeling that where I live now our government is getting a bit too involved in the “this is bad for you” approach and this is a capitalist economy albeit less intense in its form than in the States. I don't mind a bit of advice but I'll not be told I can't do this or I can't do that. So for me that's more of a social issue than a purely economic issue. The way I see it, flawed probably, is that everyone should have a good minimum standard of living and if they can build on that then they should be able to, if they want to be a dilettante, then they should be able to, provided they are not going to descend into parasitism. I've seen a Stalinist communist state up close and personal and it's an ugly, ugly thing, possibly more depraved in its way than anything capitalism can do simply because it smashes down humanity. There can be socialism and enjoyment together, that was what Marx and Engels intended. They would have been horrified at the grim nature of Soviet state capitalism and its crushing of natural human desires.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions as you've heard. There simpy isn't the opportunity to get everything there is to get out of life under socialism because it isn't able to be much stronger than its weakest members. It sounds cliche but it is true, it only sounds good on paper. Capitalism on the other hand doesn't even attempt to promise what it can't deliver. It doesn't try to sell people on the idea that everything will be great for everyone. It states up front, you're success is going to be mostly dependant on your effort.

On a side note, being a 'gamer' I know a bit about Austrailia's standards of decency and that they like to choose for people what is appropriate rather than allowing people to choose for themselves. Australia is generally the first to ban games with high levels of violence.

On the social goods of – for example – health care and education, I do believe they should be provided by the state and not paid for by individuals. Those who provide those services should be properly compensated by the state for their labours and their skills and social usefulness should be recognised by higher compensation and other benefits. The healers and teachers in society are far more necessary than actors, although actors of course have their social usefulness. And if I sound doctrinaire then I don't mean to be – my previous comments about humanity should reassure on that point.

Where free market principles are allowed here (it isn't for things like police or firemen) for socially valuable work, socially valuable skills are compensated for quite well. Doctor's here make more than any country in the world. The pro's and con's of universal health care are for another time, but one FACT is that what free market is allowed in our health care system allows doctor's to make more here than in countries that have UHC. Is our system OVER compensating doctors even though you deem it a socially valuable skill?

And you're still not really addressing the question. How are you going to pay these people for their socially valuable skills if the public is not paying for them? Maybe you're assumming through taxes, but that would still be the public paying for it (FORCED to pay for it as oppossed to allowing consumers to choose). Otherwise what? Allow the government to print money for them?

The “resumption” or whatever name it's given in various locales, of property is a fact of life for us all. Any government can exert force to do so, the form of economy is probably irrelevant. How it's done is important.

So haven't you just contradicted yourself? You said:

Involuntary deprivation of property under capitalism happens when someone bigger than you wants what you have. Eminent domain.

This all started with your charcterization that capitalism is bad because somehow it fleeces people without their consent. The only way you could make that work is by claiming that a private industry can claim eminent domain. Well, I'm sorry that just isn't so. A private company can not simply take from you. Emminent domain, even in this country is almost always claimed by the government. If a private industry does it, it STILL requires government approval to do so. You may think this is a small point but it runs to the heart of your contention of the 'badness' of capitalism. Not only is the concept not true where capitalism is concerned. It is EXACTLY the opposite. It is the system YOU proporte to be so fair that is the most likely to take from people by force in the name of the overall good to society.