Is Capitalism the Cause or the Solution to the Financial Crisis?

[Charles Stucker]

In an economy where the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, then markets fail. Prices get skewed to pay the rich, and the poor can no longer afford them.

There exists a theory that rising productivity will increase the wealth of everyone, but if the wealth distribution shifts faster than the growth of productivity then those at the bottom suffer while those at the top prosper.
For example take a society of 100 people where everyone shares equally and productivity is 100 units. Everyone gets one unit.
Now change the society so the top 20 have twice the average and the bottom 40 have half while tripling productivity. You have 300 units, the average person gets 3 (yeah) the 'rich' gets 6, and the poor get 1.5. Here everyone came out ahead, even the newly created poor.

The system changes again so that total productivity is now 500 units, but the distribution is more skewed such that the middle 40 gets 3 each (what happened, aren't we making more?) and the poor 40 get one each (I liked it better before) and the top 20 get everything else (18 each)

What is worse is that it may occur, with inherited wealth, that the people in the top 20 don't create as much as those in the lower 80. This is seen as a problem for everyone not in the top 20.

As early as 1729 Dr. Jonathan Swift spoke disparagingly of the notion that "If we pay the poor more, they will work less" which was seen as the central thesis of the "Spirit of Industry" which promoted ever more earnings for the 'better' folk, while the workers lived miserable lives.

A strong case can be made that many current US government policies are hard on those who work for a living. My personal experience is those most in favor of "free trade" are in jobs with monopolistic protection against foreign competition provided by the US government at no, or only token, charge to those receiving the monopolistic advantage. Lawyers and Accountants are prime examples of this.

 

[Shogun]

free market capitalism is exactly why we see our standard of living being normalized with that of mexican paupers and chinese semi slaves and indian beggars. We knew in in the early 90s regarding the auto industry and the hazards of uneven trading on the silly belief that the market will just fix itself. And, alas, look at where we are at now.

 

[mascale]

Anyone should change the paragraphs in the Charles Stucker post, like below, to consider how said economy could even come about.

First, start with this one:
"Now change the society so the top 20 have twice the average and the bottom 40 have half while tripling productivity. You have 300 units, the average person gets 3 (yeah) the 'rich' gets 6, and the poor get 1.5. Here everyone came out ahead, even the newly created poor."

Secondly, change the order of thought. First, triple productivity. There are now 300 thingys. The top 20 get 6 apiece, for 120. The bottom 40 get 1.5 apiece, which is 60. The Middle 40 get 120, which is 3apiece. That is better than before, but something had to triple productivity, number one, and no-one is allowed to notice that 80% of the economy was getting screwed for it, number two(?).

How would triple-fold productivity come about? The basis standard of living is shown to be three. One is no longer wanted! In recent empirical, application: The Soviet economy was far more productive than the Czarist economies. The strange distribution system, like in the paragraph above, however: Created shortages. The "shortages" happened, it would be said, since the "last helicopter to leave Saigon:" Was suddenly out-of-reach--if worth a Nobel Prize(?). Herein: The standard-of-living aspirations had changed. Even recently, the Nappy Headed Ho'meowners are now unemployed, and Widespread Grumbling Nationwide is the outcome.

Even Jesus is reported to have admonished all the viewers(?), (of the living thing on earth that the Holy Father seems to like to see the images made of, (which itself is probably better than in his own Christian Hitler Youth)): That a better standard of living is what it was all about. John 10::10 is about the difference between the thief, come to kill and destroy, versus the new message of a more abundant life. Matthew 20::1-16, and Matthew 25::14-30, set up the statistics of an alternative economy, originating in the Greater Gods of Greece. Israel of that time was Roman, and post-Hellenic, and that math was religion. (As in "Oops, OMG! Oops, OMG!)

Karl Marx was able to ridicule religion, easily said based on increase of standards of living, perceived among the followers(?), if any.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Clearly, after all, not everyone can be President of the United States. That is the law! Apparently, for example, if you are black. . .then you get. . .back! Ask little kids!)

 

[xÞx]

A truly free market does have laws, however. Laws against fraud and breaking contracts, for example.

Fail.

Laws = restrictions upon freedom.

Such laws limit the freedom of the businesses to act. Neither they or the market is truly free, as the laws artificially inhibit their ability to compete in order to protect the interests of smaller businesses. That is government interference (which you profess to hate) ensuring competition, safety, and workers' rights (which you seem to love)

No, they're not. You can't allow fraud on a free market

Not allow = restrictions (on freedoms) = regulations = not truly "free market"

as that would give leverage to those who would commit fraud, and undermine the entire point of the free market

Hence regulations upon the market

 

[xÞx]

Part of capitalism, which relies on profit, is to improve a business's margin by any legal means.

Not free-market capitalism. Those laws you allude to are legislation which limit capitalism in the interest of protecting the good of the masses. A truly free market has no laws, only whatever ethos emerges from personal dealings.

The constitution allows for regulation of interstate commerce. I have no problem with laws that fall within that section of the constitution.

At all? That's pretty broad?

Why do you support the Constitution?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Fail.

Laws = restrictions upon freedom.

Such laws limit the freedom of the businesses to act. Neither they or the market is truly free, as the laws artificially inhibit their ability to compete in order to protect the interests of smaller businesses. That is government interference (which you profess to hate) ensuring competition, safety, and workers' rights (which you seem to love)

No, they're not. You can't allow fraud on a free market

Not allow = restrictions (on freedoms) = regulations = not truly "free market"

as that would give leverage to those who would commit fraud, and undermine the entire point of the free market

Hence regulations upon the market

Fraud undermines the free market, not the prosecution of fraud.

 

[xÞx]

Unbridled capitalism is the problem

capitalism must be restrained if the masses aren't to be bent over by the big corporations

capitalism cannot sustain itself without borrowing from socialistic thought and idealism

Regulation of capitalism that eliminates corruption and greed while enhancing and improving competion is essential to restoring American prosperity.

That is why libertarians and liberals are not anarchists. They realize that in order to preserve those liberties, freedoms, and safeties most cherished, certain liberties must be restricted.

 

[xÞx]

Unbridled capitalism is the problem

capitalism must be restrained if the masses aren't to be bent over by the big corporations

capitalism cannot sustain itself without borrowing from socialistic thought and idealism

Regulation of capitalism that eliminates corruption and greed while enhancing and improving competion is essential to restoring American prosperity.

How do we regulate corruption and greed in government?

Violence, threats of violence, and being ourselves active components within the governing system, both directly (by running for office) and indirectly (by supporting those among us who support our interests and supporting their runs for office). You will either be a part or your government and its workings or a slave to it.

 

[xÞx]

How do we regulate corruption and greed in government?

Like we always have. Give regulators the power to enforce regulations. Simple concept.

What regulators? The government does whatever it wants.

Only because morons like you view it as and allow it to operate as a thing wholly distinct from the People.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Unbridled capitalism is the problem

capitalism must be restrained if the masses aren't to be bent over by the big corporations

capitalism cannot sustain itself without borrowing from socialistic thought and idealism

Regulation of capitalism that eliminates corruption and greed while enhancing and improving competion is essential to restoring American prosperity.

That is why libertarians and liberals are not anarchists. They realize that in order to preserve those liberties, freedoms, and safeties most cherished, certain liberties must be restricted.

Many libertarians are anarchists, however.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Regulation of capitalism that eliminates corruption and greed while enhancing and improving competion is essential to restoring American prosperity.

How do we regulate corruption and greed in government?

Violence, threats of violence, and being ourselves active components within the governing system, both directly (by running for office) and indirectly (by supporting those among us who support our interests and supporting their runs for office). You will either be a part or your government and its workings or a slave to it.

Uh huh.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Like we always have. Give regulators the power to enforce regulations. Simple concept.

What regulators? The government does whatever it wants.

Only because morons like you view it as and allow it to operate as a thing wholly distinct from the People.

Well I wrote them a stern letter telling them they no longer have my permission, but they didn't listen.

 

[xÞx]

Regulation of capitalism that eliminates corruption and greed while enhancing and improving competion is essential to restoring American prosperity.

That is why libertarians and liberals are not anarchists. They realize that in order to preserve those liberties, freedoms, and safeties most cherished, certain liberties must be restricted.

Many libertarians are anarchists, however.

Two different ideologies, dude.

Anarchism

a political theory favoring the abolition of governments
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Libertarianism does not call for anarchy because libertarian (and liberal) philosophy realizes that to protect liberty requires limiting it.

 

[xÞx]

What regulators? The government does whatever it wants.

Only because morons like you view it as and allow it to operate as a thing wholly distinct from the People.

Well I wrote them a stern letter telling them they no longer have my permission, but they didn't listen.

In other words, you didn't do shit but bitch about it and now you're wondering why nothing changed

 

[Charles Stucker]

Why do you support the Constitution?

Presumably because without the constitution a dictator could emerge and we would have a nightmare getting things back to a semblance of peace and normality. Even our current system is better than a demagogue like the ones who emerged in the interwar period taking over. I'm not sure if the IMF taking over is better or worse than a Hitler wannabe, and the IMF might take over if the government fails to get the national debt under control.

 

[xÞx]

Why do you support the Constitution?

Presumably because without the constitution a dictator could emerge and we would have a nightmare getting things back to a semblance of peace and normality. Even our current system is better than a demagogue like the ones who emerged in the interwar period taking over. I'm not sure if the IMF taking over is better or worse than a Hitler wannabe, and the IMF might take over if the government fails to get the national debt under control.

So every country on Earth without our constitution is ruled by a dictator?

Or are you just an idiot?

I'm gonna guess the latter.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That is why libertarians and liberals are not anarchists. They realize that in order to preserve those liberties, freedoms, and safeties most cherished, certain liberties must be restricted.

Many libertarians are anarchists, however.

Two different ideologies, dude.

Anarchism

a political theory favoring the abolition of governments
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Libertarianism does not call for anarchy because libertarian (and liberal) philosophy realizes that to protect liberty requires limiting it.

My guess is that your familiarity with libertarianism is extremely limited. As I said before, there are many anarchist libertarians. Look up anarcho-capitalism.

 

[xÞx]

'anarcho-capitalism' is stupidity, as pure free-market capitalism is implied in an anarchic state.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

'anarcho-capitalism' is stupidity, as pure free-market capitalism is implied in an anarchic state.

Does it make you a liar now that you've gone back on your word "not to deal with a liar?"

At any rate, capitalism is not implied in anarchism. I'd suggest you look up anarcho-communism.

 

[xÞx]

'anarcho-capitalism' is stupidity, as pure free-market capitalism is implied in an anarchic state.

Does it make you a liar now that you've gone back on your word "not to deal with a liar?"

Let the record show that Kevin has admitted to being a liar

At any rate, capitalism is not implied in anarchism. I'd suggest you look up anarcho-communism.

let it also show that he can't comprehend that anarchism and communism are mutually exclusive and that advocating any system at all means you do not advocate anarchy.

No wonder paperview stopped bothering with him