Socialism vs capitalism... the grisly truth!

[tooAlive]

Time will tell the tale, CleverGirl. Out of curiosity, have you read Marx (on socialism) and Smith (on capitalism)? Those are interesting explorations of human economics--unfortunately, many folks resort to them as ideological texts. Both were sociologists/economists that were examining potential outcomes of economic models.

My simple contention is that our economy can only recover when activity increases; suppressed wages in the labor market means that activity remains suppressed; employers will resist increasing wages and will do whatever they can to decrease wages . . .

And the spiral continues downward. The only thing to stop the downward spiral is labor political power (basically absent since the Reagan years) or governmental policy (decreasing over time; compare current marginal tax rates with those of 1957).

Employers want to reduce wages because taxes imposed on them are so damn high.

 

[Uncensored2008]

{Laissez-faire capitalism is an economic system. Capitalism involves the ownership of property by individuals. The individual's goal is to use this property, or capital (buildings, machines, and other equipment used to produce goods and services), to create income. Individuals and companies compete with one another to earn money. This competition between companies determines the amount of goods produced and the prices company owners may demand for these goods. The French term laissez-faire literally means "to let people do as they wish." Thus, supporters of laissez-faire capitalism do not want the government to interfere in business matters, or if governments do involve themselves in business matters, to keep government influence to a minimum. Although the economies of the United States and many other industrialized nations are highly capitalistic, there is no pure capitalist system because national governments regulate business to some degree.} - James M. Buchanan; Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Employers want to reduce wages because taxes imposed on them are so damn high.

Employers don't want to "reduce wages;" employers want to realize a profit margin on goods produced. Generally a business will have a target margin, and seek to fit labor and material costs to that margin. Most often with labor this means a reduced labor force, rather than lower wages, as other costs eat into the gross margin.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If only it really worked that way!

The 'pathway' is also there for the unscrupulous to manipulate the system to secure gargantuan profits without wealth creation and run the economy into such a hole that the losses that made the profits must be collectivized to pay them off.

Bullshit.

"Too Big to Fail" is a lie told to the stupid to justify looting on behalf of the well connected.

 

[tooAlive]

Employers want to reduce wages because taxes imposed on them are so damn high.

Employers don't want to "reduce wages;" employers want to realize a profit margin on goods produced. Generally a business will have a target margin, and seek to fit labor and material costs to that margin. Most often with labor this means a reduced labor force, rather than lower wages, as other costs eat into the gross margin.

I stand corrected. I'll go with with your version.

 

[bripat9643]

Time will tell the tale, CleverGirl. Out of curiosity, have you read Marx (on socialism) and Smith (on capitalism)? Those are interesting explorations of human economics--unfortunately, many folks resort to them as ideological texts. Both were sociologists/economists that were examining potential outcomes of economic models.

Your attempt to equate Karl Marx and Adam Smith as both being "economists" is hilarious. Marx was a quack. All of his economic theories have been exploded.

My simple contention is that our economy can only recover when activity increases; suppressed wages in the labor market means that activity remains suppressed; employers will resist increasing wages and will do whatever they can to decrease wages . . .

In other words, the economy will recover when the economy recovers. What else does "when activity increases" if not "when the economy recovers?" Employers have always resisted increasing wages. Unfortunately for them, they have to raise wages if they want the best employees. Why do you imagine they are able to resist wage increase in some periods better than in other periods?

You think you have posted some kind of stunning insight into economics when all you've done is note results that everyone can see for themselves.

And the spiral continues downward. The only thing to stop the downward spiral is labor political power (basically absent since the Reagan years) or governmental policy (decreasing over time; compare current marginal tax rates with those of 1957).

What "spiral?" You haven't mentioned anything that can rightly be described as a "spiral?"

 

[there4eyeM]

If only it really worked that way!

The 'pathway' is also there for the unscrupulous to manipulate the system to secure gargantuan profits without wealth creation and run the economy into such a hole that the losses that made the profits must be collectivized to pay them off.

Bullshit.

"Too Big to Fail" is a lie told to the stupid to justify looting on behalf of the well connected.

The losses have not been collectivized?

 

[bripat9643]

tooAlive:

My statement that implies socialism is unworkable (given the condition of humanity today) should not be taken as an endorsement of capitalism. Capitalism is basically unworkable for the same reasons--selfishness, albeit fewer persons are able to abuse it (the capitalists).

Bullshit again! Capitalism in a Republic with checks and balances such as we have, allows the pathway for people to pull themselves up and change their lives for the good.

If only it really worked that way!

The 'pathway' is also there for the unscrupulous to manipulate the system to secure gargantuan profits without wealth creation and run the economy into such a hole that the losses that made the profits must be collectivized to pay them off.

Can you provide an example of a corporation securing gargantuan profits without wealth creation?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your attempt to equate Karl Marx and Adam Smith as both being "economists" is hilarious. Marx was a quack. All of his economic theories have been exploded.

I'm not sure I agree.

I've written at some length on Marx in these forums, most recently in the CDZ where that simpering coward Jakematters avoided being taken to task for his ignorant yammering.

I maintain that Marx offered many valid observations that should not be dismissed out of hand. Capital Vol. 1 (Das Kapital) provides a good look at the pseudo-feudal nature of 19th century Germany.

Further, Smith wrote from a perspective that also played heavily to feudal notions. The "Wealth of Nations" is at best a reference work, no one could sit down and actually read it.

In other words, the economy will recover when the economy recovers. What else does "when activity increases" if not "when the economy recovers?" Employers have always resisted increasing wages. Unfortunately for them, they have to raise wages if they want the best employees. Why do you imagine they are able to resist wage increase in some periods better than in other periods?

You think you have posted some kind of stunning insight into economics when all you've done is note results that everyone can see for themselves.

Manipulation of the business cycle is the primary goal of Keynesians. One can only note that in the most dramatic instances, the great depression, Nixon's price and wage freeze, and the Obama porkulus, the effect of Keynesian manipulation has been to dramatically increase the severity and duration of economic downturns.

Freemason9 knows literally nothing about economics and can offer no more insight on the subject than can Jake Starkey or my dingo.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The losses have not been collectivized?

The "losses" have been mitigated and then some by massive looting on behalf of the politically connected. Obama engaged in the most massive transfer of wealth in American history. Primarily from the middle class (the Bourgeoisie) to the looter class, such as the UAW, state government workers, and others who exist based on political pull rather than upon production.

 

[there4eyeM]

Bullshit again! Capitalism in a Republic with checks and balances such as we have, allows the pathway for people to pull themselves up and change their lives for the good.

If only it really worked that way!

The 'pathway' is also there for the unscrupulous to manipulate the system to secure gargantuan profits without wealth creation and run the economy into such a hole that the losses that made the profits must be collectivized to pay them off.

Can you provide an example of a corporation securing gargantuan profits without wealth creation?

There are many, but Goldman Sachs is one example.

 

[bripat9643]

If only it really worked that way!

The 'pathway' is also there for the unscrupulous to manipulate the system to secure gargantuan profits without wealth creation and run the economy into such a hole that the losses that made the profits must be collectivized to pay them off.

Can you provide an example of a corporation securing gargantuan profits without wealth creation?

There are many, but Goldman Sachs is one example.

So you believe financial corporations don't create wealth?

How about GM? Doesn't it consume more wealth than it produces?

 

[clevergirl]

The losses have not been collectivized?

The "losses" have been mitigated and then some by massive looting on behalf of the politically connected. Obama engaged in the most massive transfer of wealth in American history. Primarily from the middle class (the Bourgeoisie) to the looter class, such as the UAW, state government workers, and others who exist based on political pull rather than upon production.

Exactly

 

[there4eyeM]

Can you provide an example of a corporation securing gargantuan profits without wealth creation?

There are many, but Goldman Sachs is one example.

So you believe financial corporations don't create wealth?

How about GM? Doesn't it consume more wealth than it produces?

You have missed the difference between profit creation and wealth creation.

 

[Darkwind]

If only it really worked that way!

The 'pathway' is also there for the unscrupulous to manipulate the system to secure gargantuan profits without wealth creation and run the economy into such a hole that the losses that made the profits must be collectivized to pay them off.

Bullshit.

"Too Big to Fail" is a lie told to the stupid to justify looting on behalf of the well connected.

The losses have not been collectivized?

that is not a product of capitalism, but corrupt government.

 

[there4eyeM]

Government may well be corrupt, but all this happened in a context of unsavory, inhuman capitalism. Capitalism does not mean, nor does it have to be, that way. It just was this time.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Why do things always have to be so black & white?

Howzabout capitalism with efficient, effective, dependable, flexible, transparent regulation? That would get my vote, but we're nowhere near it. Markets absolutely must be carefully regulated, but let's minimize waste and corruption and maybe we'll like what remains.

.

 

[editec]

Contrary to the narrative advanced by our chums in the GOP, we are NOT facing a choice between capitalism v socialism.

We are being given a choice between one ELITIST GROUP controlling things versus anaother elitist group controlling things.


Neither group are authentically capitalists OR socialists.

 

[Old Rocks]

The article confuses capitalism with trade and demand/supply economic relationships. Capitalism, contrary to right wing American folklore, has nothing to do with those aspects.

Capitalism, instead, refers to how economic activity is controlled--in the case of capitalism, it is controlled by wealth. In fact, capitalism is nearly identical (in terms of power concentration and aristocracy) to feudalism.

Socialist countries, barter economies, and tribal communitarians all work within a supply/demand framework.

The person that wrote the article referred to in the original thread seems to lack background in economic education.

BULLSHIT! Unlike Feudalism, Capitalism in a free society, allows for the only real opportunity for the poor to change their circumstances. Do the rich get richer? Sure! But so fucking what! They also incur all the risk. The real lost fact on thinkers like you is that rich people like it when others get rich and invest in more growth. Our nation was built on this model FCOL!

Socialism assumes a person has no real fair chance of improving their lives on their own and so attempts to make everything "fair". What happens instead is a very top heavy few elitists (who are always very wealthy and living very well) making decisions on how to best distribute wealth and privilege. What you end up with is an oppressed society with mediocre lives and very little motivation to change them.

Bull...fucking....Shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have worked in industry for 50 years now. And have had freinds killed and maimed on the job. You may work in a nice office where the biggest danger is a papercut, but there are millions of us out here on the factory floor and construction sites that face dangers at work every day.

To state that the man with the money faces all the risk is simply a lie to perpetrate the dishonest efforts of the very wealthy to keep wages at a minimum.

 

[Old Rocks]

Capitalism and socialism are economic tools. Making a religion of either is equivelant to making a religion of a crescent wrench or socket set. A totally socialist idea is one of the crown jewels of our nation. Saving the best and most unique for the use of all citizens, our National Park System. And when the big corperations, which more resemble socialistic enterprises than capitalistic ones, are not in the way, our small business oppertunities in this nation are the envy of the world.

Capitalism and socialism are the yin and yang of economics, one cannot really exist without the other.