Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Solyndra failed. I guess you have to admit your fallacy now.In capitalism, businesses fail if there's not enough demand for their service. The government preventing a business from failing is not capitalism.Doesn't mean it is not capitalism. Solyndra was a private corporation run for profit that received a loan guarantee from the government.The capitalist's sole purpose is to profit on his/her capital investment. Lobbying the government for favors would be considered a capital investment. There is no such prohibition on the use of capital in the capitalist handbook. And no law that forbids it.They are mutually exclusive, because Capitalism can't exist within Corporatism. If Corporations are using the government for their gain, then that means the private industry and the government are not separate, as Capitalism requires them to be.
The government should not be picking winners and losers. Remember Solyndra?
I won't hold my breath.
Risk is inherent in the market. The government took a risk in extending credit to Solyndra and lost. It happens everyday in the private sector. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me.Solyndra failed. I guess you have to admit your fallacy now.In capitalism, businesses fail if there's not enough demand for their service. The government preventing a business from failing is not capitalism.Doesn't mean it is not capitalism. Solyndra was a private corporation run for profit that received a loan guarantee from the government.The capitalist's sole purpose is to profit on his/her capital investment. Lobbying the government for favors would be considered a capital investment. There is no such prohibition on the use of capital in the capitalist handbook. And no law that forbids it.
The government should not be picking winners and losers. Remember Solyndra?
I won't hold my breath.
Yes it did, proving the government is not good at picking winners and losers. When our companies are making decisions based on the government rather than the free market, failure will eventually happen. Our companies become less competitive on a world scale.
No they aren't. They might tip the playing field but Solyndra shows the fallacy in your argument. Solyndra failed because they couldn't compete in the market. Which is exactly how you defined a capitalist system.the government is currently choosing which businesses win and which businesses lose
Risk is inherent in the market. The government took a risk in extending credit to Solyndra and lost. It happens everyday in the private sector. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me.Solyndra failed. I guess you have to admit your fallacy now.In capitalism, businesses fail if there's not enough demand for their service. The government preventing a business from failing is not capitalism.Doesn't mean it is not capitalism. Solyndra was a private corporation run for profit that received a loan guarantee from the government.The government should not be picking winners and losers. Remember Solyndra?
I won't hold my breath.
Yes it did, proving the government is not good at picking winners and losers. When our companies are making decisions based on the government rather than the free market, failure will eventually happen. Our companies become less competitive on a world scale.
No they aren't. They might tip the playing field but Solyndra shows the fallacy in your argument. Solyndra failed because they couldn't compete in the market. Which is exactly how you defined a capitalist system.the government is currently choosing which businesses win and which businesses lose
The government is also preventing other businesses from competing, and you also just admitted that the government is tipping the playing field, in other words, helping businesses win and lose, which is not consumer choice-driven. It is not capitalism, the regulations from the government prevent it from being so.No they aren't. They might tip the playing field but Solyndra shows the fallacy in your argument. Solyndra failed because they couldn't compete in the market. Which is exactly how you defined a capitalist system.the government is currently choosing which businesses win and which businesses lose
What do you think?So you are ok with going against capitalism
Hindsight.No they aren't. They might tip the playing field but Solyndra shows the fallacy in your argument. Solyndra failed because they couldn't compete in the market. Which is exactly how you defined a capitalist system.the government is currently choosing which businesses win and which businesses lose
So didn't government just waste tax dollars to stall the inevitable? I don't see what is good about that. We could have saved tax dollars for the same result.
It isn't laissez faire capitalism. But even with government interference in the market commodities continue to be produced using private capital and for profit. It is still capitalism.The government is also preventing other businesses from competing, and you also just admitted that the government is tipping the playing field, in other words, helping businesses win and lose, which is not consumer choice-driven. It is not capitalism, the regulations from the government prevent it from being so.No they aren't. They might tip the playing field but Solyndra shows the fallacy in your argument. Solyndra failed because they couldn't compete in the market. Which is exactly how you defined a capitalist system.the government is currently choosing which businesses win and which businesses lose
After Solyndra Loss, U.S. Energy Loan Program Turning A Profit.No they aren't. They might tip the playing field but Solyndra shows the fallacy in your argument. Solyndra failed because they couldn't compete in the market. Which is exactly how you defined a capitalist system.the government is currently choosing which businesses win and which businesses lose
So didn't government just waste tax dollars to stall the inevitable? I don't see what is good about that. We could have saved tax dollars for the same result.
Hindsight.No they aren't. They might tip the playing field but Solyndra shows the fallacy in your argument. Solyndra failed because they couldn't compete in the market. Which is exactly how you defined a capitalist system.the government is currently choosing which businesses win and which businesses lose
So didn't government just waste tax dollars to stall the inevitable? I don't see what is good about that. We could have saved tax dollars for the same result.
And I never said the outcome was good.
After Solyndra Loss, U.S. Energy Loan Program Turning A Profit.No they aren't. They might tip the playing field but Solyndra shows the fallacy in your argument. Solyndra failed because they couldn't compete in the market. Which is exactly how you defined a capitalist system.the government is currently choosing which businesses win and which businesses lose
So didn't government just waste tax dollars to stall the inevitable? I don't see what is good about that. We could have saved tax dollars for the same result.
Also keep in mind that renewables get 25x less subsidies.
No, because the government's interference prevents consumer choice, by giving money back to select businesses and preventing others from thriving with their regulations. Regulations only make things more difficult for businesses. Government interference in the market is preventing it from being Capitalism. It is not Capitalism, it is Corporatism, the two are mutually exclusive because the other promotes government interference against their competitors, artificially forcing businesses to succeed and fail, regardless of consumer choice.It isn't laissez faire capitalism. But even with government interference in the market commodities continue to be produced using private capital and for profit. It is still capitalism.The government is also preventing other businesses from competing, and you also just admitted that the government is tipping the playing field, in other words, helping businesses win and lose, which is not consumer choice-driven. It is not capitalism, the regulations from the government prevent it from being so.No they aren't. They might tip the playing field but Solyndra shows the fallacy in your argument. Solyndra failed because they couldn't compete in the market. Which is exactly how you defined a capitalist system.the government is currently choosing which businesses win and which businesses lose
They like to think they understand it, but they really don't.
Think about the consequences of leaving the free market unregulated and letting the high powered corporate lobbyists make all the rules. This is what's resulted and ...
The capitalist's sole purpose is to profit on his/her capital investment. Lobbying the government for favors would be considered a capital investment. There is no such prohibition on the use of capital in the capitalist handbook. And no law that forbids it.They are mutually exclusive, because Capitalism can't exist within Corporatism. If Corporations are using the government for their gain, then that means the private industry and the government are not separate, as Capitalism requires them to be.You are comparing apples to oranges. Corporatism, as your definition professes, is a sociopolitical organization. Capitalism is an economic system. They are not mutually exclusive. Fascist Italy produced commodities by way of a capitalist mode of production. Ditto for Nazi Germany.Capitalism is inherently separate from the government, and is driven by competition and consumer choice. What we have right now is a fascistic corporatist state. What I said, I did so because the Republicans and the Democrats get into office and both expand the government more. As of right now, both parties are nearly entirely populated by shills.Is capitalism some secret utopian shit that only you can understand or something? Of course America is capitalist. The means of production is owned privately by owners who employ wage labor for the purpose of capital accumulation. That is capitalism.You are right about one thing, though. Republicans don't understand Capitalism. Neither do Democrats, Socialists, Liberals, or anyone else that believes America is capitalist.
Funny how that describes exactly what's going on, and isn't capitalism. It's not hard to understand, but a lot of people seem to think that because politicians and news media state it over and over, it must be true. Like calling America a Democracy, or calling Donald Trump a racist. Likewise, they refer to America as Capitalist, yet the market has not been free for decades.
What about that constitutional right to petition government? Doesn't lobbying fit under that umbrella?The capitalist's sole purpose is to profit on his/her capital investment. Lobbying the government for favors would be considered a capital investment. There is no such prohibition on the use of capital in the capitalist handbook. And no law that forbids it.They are mutually exclusive, because Capitalism can't exist within Corporatism. If Corporations are using the government for their gain, then that means the private industry and the government are not separate, as Capitalism requires them to be.You are comparing apples to oranges. Corporatism, as your definition professes, is a sociopolitical organization. Capitalism is an economic system. They are not mutually exclusive. Fascist Italy produced commodities by way of a capitalist mode of production. Ditto for Nazi Germany.Capitalism is inherently separate from the government, and is driven by competition and consumer choice. What we have right now is a fascistic corporatist state. What I said, I did so because the Republicans and the Democrats get into office and both expand the government more. As of right now, both parties are nearly entirely populated by shills.Is capitalism some secret utopian shit that only you can understand or something? Of course America is capitalist. The means of production is owned privately by owners who employ wage labor for the purpose of capital accumulation. That is capitalism.
Funny how that describes exactly what's going on, and isn't capitalism. It's not hard to understand, but a lot of people seem to think that because politicians and news media state it over and over, it must be true. Like calling America a Democracy, or calling Donald Trump a racist. Likewise, they refer to America as Capitalist, yet the market has not been free for decades.
We need one, to be sure. A free market depends on a government prohibited from manipulating economic decisions.
They like to think they understand it, but they really don't.
Think about the consequences of leaving the free market unregulated and letting the high powered corporate lobbyists make all the rules. This is what's resulted and these are all FACTS:
1) A shockingly huge wealth disparity between the mega rich and the middle class and poor has grown over the course of a few decades. Wages for the poor are way behind on the rise of inflation despite productivity soaring in most sectors. Most income gains have gone to the top earners in this country for the last few decades.
2) Wall Street corruption directly resulted in the Great Recession of 2008.
3) Corporate crime largely goes unpunished, and when it is punished, the results are petty fines.
4) Our for-profit healthcare system has resulted in many basic, critical healthcare services being unavailable to the poor and in some cases the middle class. Prescription drug prices, specifically, in this country are astronomically high in comparison to other countries providing the exact same drugs. If you dumbasses actually think our healthcare system was even remotely affordable prior to ACA then you might as well relinquish your voting rights because you aren't smart enough for the right.
5) Cutting taxes for corporations and top earners does NOTHING to stimulate the overall economy. Why? Because it's easier to keep the money they save rather than invest it. They are already wealthier than ever before. There is no incentive for them to invest in a stronger labor force.
Now am I suggesting we get rid of capitalism? Absolutely not. I just want a system that guarantees more capital to the poor and shrinking middle class. The basics of the free market system are what helped make this country a super power. It's just gone awry over the last couple of decades.
Here's a bonus task: name ANY republican economic policy that has benefited the middle class. Go ahead. I'll wait.
What about that constitutional right to petition government? Doesn't lobbying fit under that umbrella?
My mistake. I thought you just told me we needed a law forbidding lobbying.What about that constitutional right to petition government? Doesn't lobbying fit under that umbrella?
Sure. The lobbying isn't the problem. The problem is what government does on behalf of the lobbyists.
