Not sure Republicans understand difference between "capitalism" and "exploitation"

[rdean]

Not sure Republicans understand difference between "capitalism" and "exploitation".

When I think of capitalism, I think of something being made and that something being sold, hopefully for a profit.

Can what Romney does, indulging in predatory take over, firing people, selling the assets and making millions be called "capitalism"? I understand this Republican Party has a "make money no matter what the cost or who it screws" attitude. But can you still call that capitalism? If it's not capitalism, then what is it?

 

[bripat9643]

Not sure Republicans understand difference between "capitalism" and "exploitation".

One is an economic system and the other is a meaningless term of propaganda.

When I think of capitalism, I think of something being made and that something being sold, hopefully for a profit.

Can what Romney does, indulging in predatory take over, firing people, selling the assets and making millions be called "capitalism"? I understand this Republican Party has a "make money no matter what the cost or who it screws" attitude. But can you still call that capitalism? If it's not capitalism, then what is it?

Thanks for proving you don't know the meaning of the word "capitalism."

 

[bripat9643]

Not sure Republicans understand difference between "capitalism" and "exploitation".

One is an economic system and the other is a meaningless term of propaganda.

When I think of capitalism, I think of something being made and that something being sold, hopefully for a profit.

Can what Romney does, indulging in predatory take over, firing people, selling the assets and making millions be called "capitalism"? I understand this Republican Party has a "make money no matter what the cost or who it screws" attitude. But can you still call that capitalism? If it's not capitalism, then what is it?

Thanks for proving you don't know the meaning of the word "capitalism."

 

[DSGE]

What do you think is exploitation here?

 

[Mr. H.]

Not sure Republicans understand difference between "capitalism" and "exploitation".

When I think of capitalism, I think of something being made and that something being sold, hopefully for a profit.

Can what Romney does, indulging in predatory take over, firing people, selling the assets and making millions be called "capitalism"? I understand this Republican Party has a "make money no matter what the cost or who it screws" attitude. But can you still call that capitalism? If it's not capitalism, then what is it?

That's all you could ever hope to do- think of capitalism.

Plenty of liberal Democrats have "indulged" themselves. Think Hollywood as an example.
And Ted Turner.
Michael Moore- double

Republicans do the same thing as Democrats- but with class.

We may screw with attitude, but Democrats screw just the same- they just disguise it so their sheep belive they're being done a favor.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not sure Republicans understand difference between "capitalism" and "exploitation".

When I think of capitalism, I think of something being made and that something being sold, hopefully for a profit.

Can what Romney does, indulging in predatory take over, firing people, selling the assets and making millions be called "capitalism"? I understand this Republican Party has a "make money no matter what the cost or who it screws" attitude. But can you still call that capitalism? If it's not capitalism, then what is it?

Do you? Are you aware that a contract is a formalized agreement that allows two parties to exploit each other?

That said, what Romney did at Bain was invest in failing companies and make a profit for the people who were paying him. Quite often that resulted in the companies he bought being dismantled, but that was not the only result. When it was feasible he would bring in new management and restructure the company, not only saving it, but actually creating more jobs for other people. My understanding is that his work at Bain resulted in a net increase in jobs, unlike Obama's work at the job he has now.

 

[editec]

Not sure Republicans understand difference between "capitalism" and "exploitation".

Not sure any modern capitalist really does.

 

[expat_panama]

Not sure Republicans understand difference between "capitalism" and "exploitation".

Not sure any modern capitalist really does.

What we do know is that while Marxists say that the so-called 'capitalists' are bad for workers, the workers themselves flee Marxist states to go live with those mean old capitalists.

So who are we going to believe, Karl Marx or our own lying eyes?

 

[Wiseacre]

Capitalism is an economic system whereby two parties agree to exchange something for something else, presumeably at some benefit to both. Exploitation is or should be a crime, and is not restricted to capitalism.

 

[samjones]

Capitalism is an economic system whereby two parties agree to exchange something for something else, presumeably at some benefit to both. Exploitation is or should be a crime, and is not restricted to capitalism.

"Free Market Capitalism", aka "The American Way" means that the means of production is owned by private individuals and can be bought and sold without impediment.

2 parties aree to exhcange something for something else at some benefit to both in all economic systems.

 

[whitehall]

It wasn't long ago that democrats gained the majority in both houses of congress half way into Bush's 2nd term. This was before the economic collapse and what was the first issue democrats tackled? The economy? Fannie Mae? Democrats went after steroid use in Baseball. Barney Frank was the House banking chairperson when Fannie went under. What did he tell Americans when Fannie was in desperate trouble? "Fannie is doing fine". What do we make of such a lie? Was he stupid or did he intend for the economy to collapse just before the presidential election. Frank Raines is one of Obama's economic advisors. When he was CEO of Fannie Mae it is alleged that he cooked the books to show a fake profit tied to his bonus and walked away with 90 Million dollars for three years work. The point is that the economy collapsed while democrats were trying to indict a Hall-Of -Fame Baseball player for steroid use. Either democrats intended for Fannie to go under or they are fools you can't even trust to run a local post office because they would steal all the stamps.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

2 parties aree to exhcange something for something else at some benefit to both in all economic systems.

actually under socialism government owns and manages the commanding heights or major industries so that people are not free to own and exchange or manage. Under Obamacare the liberals control the system precisely so individuals will not be free. If BO approved of freedom to exchange he would not want BO care.

Sam, try college before you post.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Can what Romney does, indulging in predatory take over,

actually when you buy at the price asked its 100% normal, takes place millions of times each day, and is an integral part of the capitalist system that made us the richest in human history

firing people,

actually if you cant fire people then businesses cant go bankrupt to be replaced by more modern businesses. We'd be back in the stone age.

selling the assets

shall we make selling assets illegal. A liberal operates from pure ignorance

can making millions be called "capitalism"?

shall we be communists wherein it is illegal to make money??

I understand this Republican Party has a "make money no matter what the cost or who it screws" attitude. But can you still call that capitalism? If it's not capitalism, then what is it?

it's pure capitalism, you simple lack the education to understand it.

 

[samjones]

2 parties aree to exhcange something for something else at some benefit to both in all economic systems.

actually under socialism government owns and manages the commanding heights or major industries so that people are not free to own and exchange or manage. Under Obamacare the liberals control the system precisely so individuals will not be free. If BO approved of freedom to exchange he would not want BO care.

Sam, try college before you post.

Try reading slowly and for comprehension, my friend. Under Socialism the government owned corporation is free to exchange something for something else with another party (perhaps an individual) at some benefit to both. This is a basic law of economic theory. "There is no such thing as a losing trade." That in any exchange each party will at least perceive a benefit to surrendering what it has for what it is to receive.... excepting slavery, imprisonment, duress, etc.

The Capitalist metaphor simply allows people to exchange thing of value to them for an ownership stake in the companies that produce them. Power to the people!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

2 parties aree to exhcange something for something else at some benefit to both in all economic systems.

actually under socialism government owns and manages the commanding heights or major industries so that people are not free to own and exchange or manage. Under Obamacare the liberals control the system precisely so individuals will not be free. If BO approved of freedom to exchange he would not want BO care.

Sam, try college before you post.

Try reading slowly and for comprehension, my friend. Under Socialism the government owned corporation is free to exchange something for something else with another party (perhaps an individual) at some benefit to both. This is a basic law of economic theory. "There is no such thing as a losing trade." That in any exchange each party will at least perceive a benefit to surrendering what it has for what it is to receive.... excepting slavery, imprisonment, duress, etc.

The Capitalist metaphor simply allows people to exchange thing of value to them for an ownership stake in the companies that produce them. Power to the people!

Try reading your own words and explaining how, in a planned socialistic system, anyone is free to exchange value. The companies are told what, and how much, to produce, and it is then distributed regardless of need, value, or even benefit to either party.

 

[Wiseacre]

Any economic system other than capitalism has less choice and therefore less freedom. Unfortunately, the gov't has intervened so much that what we've got now is a perverted system based on political decisions rather than what's just and equitable.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Under Socialism the government owned corporation is free to exchange something for something else with another party (perhaps an individual) at some benefit to both.

so what???? a man on death row is free to scratch his head but he is not free. A socialist corporation is free do what government wants, not to do what it would have done under its founders management.

"There is no such thing as a losing trade."

of course thats perfectly idiotic. Waiting in line for 3 days to buy a loaf of expensive stale socialist bread does save you life but by Republican standards it is a losing trade.

That in any exchange each party will at least perceive a benefit to surrendering what it has for what it is to receive.... excepting slavery, imprisonment, duress, etc.

great, the loaf of stale bread is a winning trade in your insane world

The Capitalist metaphor simply allows people to exchange thing of value to them for an ownership stake in the companies that produce them. Power to the people!

you mean it "simply allows" tremendous wealth the likes of which the world has never seen before. China just did the experiment and instantly saved 20 million from en masse slow liberal starvation.

 

[samjones]

Try reading your own words and explaining how, in a planned socialistic system, anyone is free to exchange value. The companies are told what, and how much, to produce, and it is then distributed regardless of need, value, or even benefit to either party.

I think maybe you should try reading your own words an attempt to explain how goods and services could be "distributed regardless of need, value, or even benefit to either party."

It's a Dadaesque statement, wouldn't you say? I think that it's fair to say that it is the most basic definition of an economic system is that things of value are created and then distributed to those in need to benefit both parties.

Sometimes I wonder what people here are thinking.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Try reading your own words and explaining how, in a planned socialistic system, anyone is free to exchange value. The companies are told what, and how much, to produce, and it is then distributed regardless of need, value, or even benefit to either party.

I think maybe you should try reading your own words an attempt to explain how goods and services could be "distributed regardless of need, value, or even benefit to either party."

It's a Dadaesque statement, wouldn't you say? I think that it's fair to say that it is the most basic definition of an economic system is that things of value are created and then distributed to those in need to benefit both parties.

Sometimes I wonder what people here are thinking.

Sometimes I think people here cannot think.

Socialism is a political and economic system. If you go back and read what I wrote carefully you will see that I specified a planned socialistic system, not a market socialistic system. There is nothing dadaist in the slightest in pointing out that a system that plans every thing does not exchange value, or anything else. Your attempt to turn my question into a discussion about art is entertaining, but hardly relevant.

 

[samjones]

of course thats perfectly idiotic. Waiting in line for 3 days to buy a loaf of expensive stale socialist bread does save you life but by Republican standards it is a losing trade.

By Republican standards dying of starvation is a winning proposition. This is the mentality that we deal with.