More Fundamentals of Capitalism:

[GreatDay]

The first fundamental of capitalism:

1. Without capitalism, we'd all still be living in caves and eating dirt.

I could say the same thing about government.

 

[regent]

The first fundamental of capitalism:

1. Without capitalism, we'd all still be living in caves and eating dirt.

Well not all were living in caves and eating dirt during the Medieval period. With feudalism as the economic system, the royalty, the church the nobles all lived quite well. Look at the castles, palaces and cathederal of that period, not very cave-like. True the serfs didn't have it so well, and for some reason it seems that a number of Americans would like to go back to the period of royalty and nobles, now the money class. Instead of royal blood determing status and class, it is now money.

 

[eflatminor]

OK, how about kidneys?

A perfect example of where your well-intended meddling causes far more harm than good. Yes, we restrict the sale of body organs through regulation and as a result, people die. There is NO REASON there should not be a market for body parts as there certainly is a demand...demand that often goes unfilled meaning people die.

Sure, you'll scream the sky is falling and that thieves would be stealing children's kidneys in the middle of the night. That there are already laws against such non-consensual activity matters not to the nanny stater. You know better, you have to step in and oversee the entire market for body parts by removing that evil profit motive. Again, the result is people die. But hey, you know what's best for everyone else, right?

Stick your anti-capitalism, meddling ways. You've done enough damage.

When money is King, the King shall be born again....

Nice dodge. Way to completely ignore the point.

 

[eflatminor]

OK, how about kidneys?

A perfect example of where your well-intended meddling causes far more harm than good. Yes, we restrict the sale of body organs through regulation and as a result, people die. There is NO REASON there should not be a market for body parts as there certainly is a demand...demand that often goes unfilled meaning people die.

Sure, you'll scream the sky is falling and that thieves would be stealing children's kidneys in the middle of the night. That there are already laws against such non-consensual activity matters not to the nanny stater. You know better, you have to step in and oversee the entire market for body parts by removing that evil profit motive. Again, the result is people die. But hey, you know what's best for everyone else, right?

Stick your anti-capitalism, meddling ways. You've done enough damage.

I suppose you hold the same position in regard to drugs and sex? if it's sex with children does it make a difference?

Consensual activity between adults is no of your damn business, nor that of the government.

 

[GreatDay]

A perfect example of where your well-intended meddling causes far more harm than good. Yes, we restrict the sale of body organs through regulation and as a result, people die. There is NO REASON there should not be a market for body parts as there certainly is a demand...demand that often goes unfilled meaning people die.

Sure, you'll scream the sky is falling and that thieves would be stealing children's kidneys in the middle of the night. That there are already laws against such non-consensual activity matters not to the nanny stater. You know better, you have to step in and oversee the entire market for body parts by removing that evil profit motive. Again, the result is people die. But hey, you know what's best for everyone else, right?

Stick your anti-capitalism, meddling ways. You've done enough damage.

I suppose you hold the same position in regard to drugs and sex? if it's sex with children does it make a difference?

Consensual activity between adults is no of your damn business, nor that of the government.

If you are saying the sex trade between adults should be legal I think I agree, my point in the piece is that it is not, so the ideal that money can be anything is something we already restrict so the question should be, What should money be allowed to buy? not wither it's "freedom" what we do or don't do we have to decide, we have decided that killing each other is bad, I agree, I don't agree with everything "we" decide but you can't win them all, I just think those that equate money with freedom have it wrong, freedom is freedom, in England they are free to see a doctor any time they are sick, and they pay less per person than we do, even if we spread our cost over people that get no health care at all, so it's not about "cost" it's about freedom, the people with the money don't want Americans to be free to see a doctor, unless they give something to the "kings" first

 

[GreatDay]

You're just one vast geyser of idiocies.

If you don't want money corrupting education, then perhaps teachers should work for free. After all, we don't want them corrupted by that dirty money.

Is there ever an acceptable reason to restrict the use of money? Say for the purchase of drugs, or sex? OK, how about kidneys? It seems we have already accepted the ideal that the power of money should have limits, now the question becomes what should those limits be?

I feel there is widespread belief that money should not be allowed to purchase government, I would like to co-op those feelings and suggest that money should not be allowed to buy healthcare or education for the same reasons we don’t allow it to buy kidneys. Because it cheapens the process to allow people to just buy them, it should go who need them, and education to those who have earned it not just by being born into the right family, but by working hard and yes by being lucky enough to be born smart,

I think smart should matter more than rich, but it doesn’t in America and that’s our problem.

Cute kid in your pic, How much?

 

[Toro]

The first fundamental of capitalism:

1. Without capitalism, we'd all still be living in caves and eating dirt.

I could say the same thing about government.

You could but not to the same extent.

All per capita economic growth, or living standards, comes from innovation and technological improvement. Anything government does to facilitate this contributes to higher living standards. Anything government does to enforce contracts and the rule of law does so also, and is absolutely critical. But government is very poor at responding where to allocate capital to innovate and commercialize. It doesn't mean government doesn't have a role, but government is generally not the institution which drives innovation and mass commercialization of new technologies. Even if the technology arises out of government, i.e. a lab at a university, it still needs to be applied broadly. Government is generally poor at that.

 

[GreatDay]

The first fundamental of capitalism:

1. Without capitalism, we'd all still be living in caves and eating dirt.

I could say the same thing about government.

You could but not to the same extent.

All per capita economic growth, or living standards, comes from innovation and technological improvement. Anything government does to facilitate this contributes to higher living standards. Anything government does to enforce contracts and the rule of law does so also, and is absolutely critical. But government is very poor at responding where to allocate capital to innovate and commercialize. It doesn't mean government doesn't have a role, but government is generally not the institution which drives innovation and mass commercialization of new technologies. Even if the technology arises out of government, i.e. a lab at a university, it still needs to be applied broadly. Government is generally poor at that.

I don't get where you get all this stuff about America being bad at doing stuff when we work together, that only in our individual efforts are we efficient, what about the free way system, the post office, rural electrification? Not to mention landing on the Moon, i think America can do great things if we develop the will to do so.

 

[Toro]

I could say the same thing about government.

You could but not to the same extent.

All per capita economic growth, or living standards, comes from innovation and technological improvement. Anything government does to facilitate this contributes to higher living standards. Anything government does to enforce contracts and the rule of law does so also, and is absolutely critical. But government is very poor at responding where to allocate capital to innovate and commercialize. It doesn't mean government doesn't have a role, but government is generally not the institution which drives innovation and mass commercialization of new technologies. Even if the technology arises out of government, i.e. a lab at a university, it still needs to be applied broadly. Government is generally poor at that.

I don't get where you get all this stuff about America being bad at doing stuff when we work together, that only in our individual efforts are we efficient, what about the free way system, the post office, rural electrification? Not to mention landing on the Moon, i think America can do great things if we develop the will to do so.

The market isn't perfect. If the market cannot efficiently price a product, it cannot allocate capital efficiently. The market also creates losers. Society may deem that there cannot be losers, or at least minimize losses, in critical segments. When that happens, government can be a more efficient allocator of capital. Roads, education (particularly primary and secondary education), police, armed forces, etc., are examples where the market often fails because it has problems clearing, or society deems it more important that everyone get a basic education or everyone gets proper policing.

The problem with collectivism, however, is that incentives are often misaligned. Collectivism can work if everyone believes that their effort to the greater good is worth the effort. This is why war economies can work differently from peacetime economies. However, if enough people start believing that they can get more out of whole and put in less effort, it starts to break down and becomes corrupt and unproductive.

But in the end, the primary driver of increasing standards of living is innovation and technology. And the primary - not the only, the primary - driver of innovation is the private market because the market is generally - not always, generally - more efficient at allocating capital to new innovation and technologies than the government.

 

[GreatDay]

hi Tod's pat, you little chicken shit....

 

[bripat9643]

Is there ever an acceptable reason to restrict the use of money? Say for the purchase of drugs, or sex? OK, how about kidneys? It seems we have already accepted the ideal that the power of money should have limits, now the question becomes what should those limits be?

Sorry, but I don't accept the premise. Why shouldn't you be able to purchase drugs or sex? Why shouldn't you be able to purchase a kidney? The only thing that should be allowed is to pay for crimes against other innocent people. For instance, you shouldn't be allowed to pay to have someone murdered.

I feel there is widespread belief that money should not be allowed to purchase government, I would like to co-op those feelings and suggest that money should not be allowed to buy healthcare or education for the same reasons we don’t allow it to buy kidneys. Because it cheapens the process to allow people to just buy them, it should go who need them, and education to those who have earned it not just by being born into the right family, but by working hard and yes by being lucky enough to be born smart,

I think smart should matter more than rich, but it doesn’t in America and that’s our problem.


Class Matters - Social Class in the United States of America - The New York Times

Even if government runs healthcare and education, money is still used to purchase it. You simply want to insert a middleman.

Fuck you.

 

[bripat9643]

Both capitalism and socialism should be regarded as tools, not God given ideologies. National Parks are pure socialism. Preserving the best and most unique for the enjoyment of all citizens. Companies like MicroSoft are capitalism, creating products that we can afford and enjoy. Trying to foist either off as a solution to every need of society is simply insane.

Socialism is a tool for impoverishing everyone and giving dictators absolute power.

 

[GreatDay]

Both capitalism and socialism should be regarded as tools, not God given ideologies. National Parks are pure socialism. Preserving the best and most unique for the enjoyment of all citizens. Companies like MicroSoft are capitalism, creating products that we can afford and enjoy. Trying to foist either off as a solution to every need of society is simply insane.

Socialism is a tool for impoverishing everyone and giving dictators absolute power.

The only way to get absolute power is to be born King, the GOP are working on it, if they can just kill that death tax.....

 

[bripat9643]

Socialism is a tool for impoverishing everyone and giving dictators absolute power.

The only way to get absolute power is to be born King, the GOP are working on it, if they can just kill that death tax.....

You mean this country was a dictatorship before the 16th Amendment was passed?

You're an idiot.