Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

People should vote for their one member of the House, because s/he is from their local area. Then they should vote for their state legislators from their local area and then perhaps vote for the state senators who represent their local district. That is where it should stop. The state legislators should appoint presidential electors from their state and the two US senators who will represent that state in the US Senate. Politics was intended to be local, and we should go back to that premise.

Wouldn't that provide the richest citizens (corporate and natural) in each local area with even more control over democracy than they currently enjoy? You really have problems with direct elections of US Senators?

Not at all! It would bypass the corrupt national elections situation.

It is difficult, if not impossible, for the common man to understand politics beyond his local area. National elections have little credibility. Just look at the elections since 1992, that should tell you something. Or maybe back all the way back to 1960, in which organized crime played a part in the selection process.

There were organized efforts to bury JFK because of religion, corruption at its worst.

Are you planning to bring back literacy tests and the poll tax?

 

[georgephillip]

I saw Michelle Alexander on Real Time. The question I wanted to ask her was how many non-violent criminals are convicted felons? Of the violent offenders, how many had been incarcerated on non-violent offenses before turning to violent crime? Specifically I am thinking of the War on Drugs and how enforcement of this new prohibition labels non-violent offenders on equal footing with violent offenders.

We cannot relent from the prosecution of violent crime. We can however take steps to mitigate the frequency of violent crime.

"Painting the war on drugs as mainly a backlash against the gains of the civil rights movement, Professor Forman writes, ignores the violent crime wave of the 1970s and minimizes the support among many African-Americans for get-tough measures.

"Furthermore, he argues, drug offenders make up less than 25 percent of the nation’s total prison population, while violent offenders — who receive little mention in 'The New Jim Crow' — make up a much larger share.

“'Even if every single one of these drug offenders were released tomorrow,' he writes, 'the United States would still have the world’s largest prison system.'

"To Professor Alexander, however, that argument neglects the full scope of the problem.

"Our criminal 'caste system,' as she calls it, affects not just the 2.3 million people behind bars, but also the 4.8 million others on probation or parole (predominately for nonviolent offenses), to say nothing of the millions more whose criminal records stigmatize them for life.

“'This system depends on the prison label, not just prison time,' she said."

If I understand her argument, all those convicted of felonies continue paying for their crimes long after they leave prison.

Personally, I don't think it was coincidence that the War on Drugs began about the same time capitalists began outsourcing millions of middle class jobs

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/books/michelle-alexanders-new-jim-crow-raises-drug-law-debates.html?pagewanted=all

I meant to respond to this earlier. A non-violent offender, to my mind, should be square with society after he pays his dues. Unfortunately, a conviction on their record may disqualify a non-violent offender from a number of jobs. I'm not sure it is conducive to rehabilitation of non-violent offenders to put scarlet letters around them for life.

A violent offender, on the hand, I am not so apt to forgive.

If I understand Alexander's point, there's a prison "brand" that follows all ex-cons throughout their lives. This "brand" makes many of them ineligible for food stamps, housing assistance, employment, schooling, and non-emergency medical care. If I was given to conspiracy theories, I would suspect these policies were designed to encourage recidivism and the private profits which flow from having the largest prison population in the world.

 

[georgephillip]

Understanding history is important, as is understanding human behavior important. Are you suggesting that during the first 100 years or so in American there was not a greater % of the population who were poor? Are you suggesting that during the period leading up to the settling of America there was not rampant serfdom and poverty in Europe or Asia?

Basically what he said is correct, Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system. Poverty was the common condition during the Age of Solomon and the Hellenic Age in Greece or in the Dynasties in Asia. That there was more wealth concentration with the leaders of those civilizations than there is now in every capitalistic system the world over.

I am not saying it was capitalism which relieved most people from poverty, but it sure does look like it from where I sit. I not only read a lot about ancient civilizations, I experienced one of the oldest. Of the 1 billion people in India, prior to capitalism 90% of the people lived in poverty. That has been reduced to about 50% now, and if the liberals with borders choose not to delay their labor evolution, that will drop drastically in the next generation.

Basically capitalism has good and bad. In the present moment staring into our computer screen appears good. But the present moment of our experience does not account for the realities of billions of people or how our own realities might change over time or the reality of how our planet will become less viable as corporations tear through our resources seeking to profit off our collective planet.

Of course there is good....and bad, about any economic system. But in my opinion it is better to start with the one which has historically more successful in elevating people from poverty. Maybe a better regulated capitalist economy? Certainly no type of Marxism which has historically made more people poor and done more harm to our ecosystems.

Effectively my entire time on this forum has been recognizing just how much better capitalism is than any other system known to mankind. Most of the infighting has been about degree and disagreement as to specific effects certain stimuli has had on the economy.

Capitalism delivers the goods: while no economic system yet devised delivers as many goods and services as capitalism, capitalism also does a ridiculously poor job of allocating those goods and services.

Since 2007 capitalism has proven unable to connect record levels of unemployed workers with roughly 30 percent of the economy's tools, equipment, factory, office, and store space, and raw materials which are currently standing idle.

Capitalism delivers the "Bads" to a sizable segment of workers in the US today.
It threatens to accomplish far worse in the future.
Recovery for the few, austerity for the many guarantees hard times for generations.

What Capitalism Delivers | Professor Richard D. Wolff

"In the capitalist corporate enterprises that dominate economies today, their major shareholders and the boards of directors they select are in the undemocratic, exclusive position of making all the key decisions.

"Major shareholders and boards of directors constitute a small minority of those directly connected to capitalist enterprises.

"The majority are the enterprise's workers and the populations of communities dependent on those enterprises.

"Yet that minority's decisions (about what, how, and where to produce and what to do with profits) impact the majority -- including bringing crises -- without permitting that majority any direct role in making those decisions.

"It is hardly surprising then that the minority seeks and is in the position to take the lion's share of income and wealth for itself.

"It likewise buys control of politics to block the majority from using government to rectify its economic disadvantages and deprivations.

"That's why we now have government bailouts for the rich and austerity for the rest of us."

 

[dnsmith35]

I've taken the liberty of removing faulty formatting from the following quote.

ALL of my discussion is serious including when I agree with Androw, and recently when I agreed with George Phillip. Your assumptions about my posing or my use of economic studies on which I base my opinions show little understanding of my assertions and opinions. Try to read for understanding instead of skimming and making rash comments about my posts.There is little obvious logical error in Androw's posts concerning the fault of government in the housing crash. You are illogically incorrect.Studies are which prove the points, not your clamoring for quasi intellectual guff.

I am illogically incorrect? I don't think that's what you meant to say.
QUOTE]YES, YOU ARE ILLOGICAL AND YOU ARE INCORRECT. Face it, you are an elitist snob.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Basically capitalism has good and bad. In the present moment staring into our computer screen appears good. But the present moment of our experience does not account for the realities of billions of people or how our own realities might change over time or the reality of how our planet will become less viable as corporations tear through our resources seeking to profit off our collective planet.

Of course there is good....and bad, about any economic system. But in my opinion it is better to start with the one which has historically more successful in elevating people from poverty. Maybe a better regulated capitalist economy? Certainly no type of Marxism which has historically made more people poor and done more harm to our ecosystems.

Effectively my entire time on this forum has been recognizing just how much better capitalism is than any other system known to mankind. Most of the infighting has been about degree and disagreement as to specific effects certain stimuli has had on the economy.

Capitalism delivers the goods: while no economic system yet devised delivers as many goods and services as capitalism, capitalism also does a ridiculously poor job of allocating those goods and services.

Since 2007 capitalism has proven unable to connect record levels of unemployed workers with roughly 30 percent of the economy's tools, equipment, factory, office, and store space, and raw materials which are currently standing idle.

Capitalism delivers the "Bads" to a sizable segment of workers in the US today.
It threatens to accomplish far worse in the future.
Recovery for the few, austerity for the many guarantees hard times for generations.

What Capitalism Delivers | Professor Richard D. Wolff

"In the capitalist corporate enterprises that dominate economies today, their major shareholders and the boards of directors they select are in the undemocratic, exclusive position of making all the key decisions.

"Major shareholders and boards of directors constitute a small minority of those directly connected to capitalist enterprises.

"The majority are the enterprise's workers and the populations of communities dependent on those enterprises.

"Yet that minority's decisions (about what, how, and where to produce and what to do with profits) impact the majority -- including bringing crises -- without permitting that majority any direct role in making those decisions.

"It is hardly surprising then that the minority seeks and is in the position to take the lion's share of income and wealth for itself.

"It likewise buys control of politics to block the majority from using government to rectify its economic disadvantages and deprivations.

"That's why we now have government bailouts for the rich and austerity for the rest of us."

capitalism also does a ridiculously poor job of allocating those goods and services.

Venezuela does a much better job.

 

[georgephillip]

Of course there is good....and bad, about any economic system. But in my opinion it is better to start with the one which has historically more successful in elevating people from poverty. Maybe a better regulated capitalist economy? Certainly no type of Marxism which has historically made more people poor and done more harm to our ecosystems.

Effectively my entire time on this forum has been recognizing just how much better capitalism is than any other system known to mankind. Most of the infighting has been about degree and disagreement as to specific effects certain stimuli has had on the economy.

Capitalism delivers the goods: while no economic system yet devised delivers as many goods and services as capitalism, capitalism also does a ridiculously poor job of allocating those goods and services.

Since 2007 capitalism has proven unable to connect record levels of unemployed workers with roughly 30 percent of the economy's tools, equipment, factory, office, and store space, and raw materials which are currently standing idle.

Capitalism delivers the "Bads" to a sizable segment of workers in the US today.
It threatens to accomplish far worse in the future.
Recovery for the few, austerity for the many guarantees hard times for generations.

What Capitalism Delivers | Professor Richard D. Wolff

"In the capitalist corporate enterprises that dominate economies today, their major shareholders and the boards of directors they select are in the undemocratic, exclusive position of making all the key decisions.

"Major shareholders and boards of directors constitute a small minority of those directly connected to capitalist enterprises.

"The majority are the enterprise's workers and the populations of communities dependent on those enterprises.

"Yet that minority's decisions (about what, how, and where to produce and what to do with profits) impact the majority -- including bringing crises -- without permitting that majority any direct role in making those decisions.

"It is hardly surprising then that the minority seeks and is in the position to take the lion's share of income and wealth for itself.

"It likewise buys control of politics to block the majority from using government to rectify its economic disadvantages and deprivations.

"That's why we now have government bailouts for the rich and austerity for the rest of us."

capitalism also does a ridiculously poor job of allocating those goods and services.

Venezuela does a much better job.

Non sequitur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gnarlylove]

Again, I have taken the liberty of cleaning up the terrible formatting.

So, if I link to your posts in which you say something different then you say now, then the only possible explanation is that I have a reading comprehension problem because you could not possibly be wrong?

How many economic systems can turn a economic bust into a cyclic pattern that can be endured?

As for your first statement, dnsmith has consistently churned out terrible formats (not necessarily his fault--he's not a "techie" and USMB formatting is sub-par). Yet as a result of the poor formatting so that it appears who is saying what is false, he then accuses someone of malevolence. Odd approach. It leads into the second comment:

He may have been wrong in the past but his current thinking is preservation of beliefs at all costs. He is not wrong, so "you must be an idiot." You absolutely captured his approach in what I emboldened.

Thirdly, do you suspect a boom-bust pattern or the business cycle is sustainable? Hasn't government necessarily served as the safety valve for the normal processes of mass transfer of wealth upwards that capitalism succeeds in doing so well? The 40s-60s were egalitarian-ish but then free market ideology took over and we see the results. Wouldn't it make sense to investigate whether this boom-bust pattern is really beneficial for society in comparison to potential alternatives? I'm not advocating for anything in particular, merely an inquiry. I don't think regular crisis is appropriate for wealthiest and most free nation in history.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Capitalism delivers the goods: while no economic system yet devised delivers as many goods and services as capitalism, capitalism also does a ridiculously poor job of allocating those goods and services.

Since 2007 capitalism has proven unable to connect record levels of unemployed workers with roughly 30 percent of the economy's tools, equipment, factory, office, and store space, and raw materials which are currently standing idle.

Capitalism delivers the "Bads" to a sizable segment of workers in the US today.
It threatens to accomplish far worse in the future.
Recovery for the few, austerity for the many guarantees hard times for generations.

What Capitalism Delivers | Professor Richard D. Wolff

"In the capitalist corporate enterprises that dominate economies today, their major shareholders and the boards of directors they select are in the undemocratic, exclusive position of making all the key decisions.

"Major shareholders and boards of directors constitute a small minority of those directly connected to capitalist enterprises.

"The majority are the enterprise's workers and the populations of communities dependent on those enterprises.

"Yet that minority's decisions (about what, how, and where to produce and what to do with profits) impact the majority -- including bringing crises -- without permitting that majority any direct role in making those decisions.

"It is hardly surprising then that the minority seeks and is in the position to take the lion's share of income and wealth for itself.

"It likewise buys control of politics to block the majority from using government to rectify its economic disadvantages and deprivations.

"That's why we now have government bailouts for the rich and austerity for the rest of us."

capitalism also does a ridiculously poor job of allocating those goods and services.

Venezuela does a much better job.

Non sequitur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

capitalism also does a ridiculously poor job of allocating those goods and services.

What does a better job? Venezuela?

 

[dnsmith35]

dnsmith, what is your concept of logic?

A logical construct is a statement of assumption. Then a conclusion drawn fro that statement, which may or may not follow logically. EXAMPLE:

All girls wear panties. John wears panties. John is therefore a girl. That is not a logical conclusion.

If I said, all girls wear panties. Jean s a girl, therefore Jean wears panties, them it is a logical conclusion.

That's a syllogism. A syllogism based on the false premise that "all girls wear panties" and therefore a faulty syllogism.

Bullshit! That was a classic example at the beginning of logic study. They point was to use a statement, any statement, and determine if there followed a logical or illogical assertion based on the statement. It looks like you elitist bullshit continues to prove you are a flurb. A categorical syllogism and a logical deduction are synonymic.

Logic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

log·ic
noun \ˈlä-jik\

: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something

: a particular way of thinking about something

: the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning

Related to LOGIC

Synonyms: intellection, ratiocination, reason, reasoning, sense


Related Words: cogency, coherence, logicality, logicalness, rationality, rationalness; convincingness, persuasiveness; syllogism, synthesis; analysis, dissection; deduction, induction; argumentation, disputation​

Your argument is nothing more than the common ways different people pronounce tomato or Mayonnaise. Grow up and discuss like an adult.

 

[gnarlylove]

Meriam Webster offers rapid definitions. While you can get a very broad sense for what logic is, you cannot come to know the system of logic. Syllogisms are one part under the umbrella of logic, formal and informal logic, soundness and validity and how those interact are entirely missing from the definition.

While your syllogism may be a textbook example, it's truly faulty. Though it has formal valid deductions, the content of the premise that all girls wear panties is simply factually false. They can wear items other than panties or not wear anything at all thus demonstrating this textbook example is faulty.

Your agitation is so rapid that it prevents you from understanding the simple points being made.

 

[dnsmith35]

.......

Of course there is good....and bad, about any economic system. But in my opinion it is better to start with the one which has historically more successful in elevating people from poverty. Maybe a better regulated capitalist economy? Certainly no type of Marxism which has historically made more people poor and done more harm to our ecosystems.

Effectively my entire time on this forum has been recognizing just how much better capitalism is than any other system known to mankind. Most of the infighting has been about degree and disagreement as to specific effects certain stimuli has had on the economy.

You have consistently exonerated capitalism when you admit misdeeds have occurred. In the case of Haiti you said:

"Whether the US chose to interfere in Haiti's affairs indicts the government, not capitalism."

You've made at least 2 very similar exonerations regarding other misdeeds. I find it puzzling you insist capitalism is innocent in cases of wrongdoing while also agreeing it is not innocent, not perfect and has bad parts, but, as you would surely add: is the best damn economic system we have currently--which may be true.

I have never, not once said Capitalism is fault free. My contention has been, "capitalism is the best system known to man." That is not exoneration of capitalism, it is simply a comparative analysis based on history relative to the % of the population which is relatively well off compared to the less well off.

But if you conclude from that that there are no viable alternatives, you are mistaken. It is a logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot envision or don't want to imagine another way of organizing an economy does not mean that they do not exist. It only means you are unaware of better alternatives. I'm not advocating for alternatives at present, I'm merely identifying your ambivalence about capitalism and invalid logic that you seem to regularly deploy in support of capitalism.

Actually, since there has never been a system which has elevated more people from poverty and since every system previously experimented with has been less successful it is logical to presume that of all we have experienced, capitalism is the one which gives us the most liberty and prosperity. It is within that comparative situation that my conclusion is, "capitalism is the system which produced the most prosperity for the most people.

Can you identify an instance where capitalism is the engine, the cause of wrongdoing? Apparently you don't think so in Haiti but understanding Woodrow Wilson's thinking which lead to the invasion of Haiti during his Presidency is helpful. So let's just read what he wrote:

"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."

What you consistently over look in this discussion is, there are always people who are evil, and who do evil things. Wilson may have been a bit gung ho with his suggestion that we force ourselves on others, but again, that is not capitalist, that is government doing the wrong thing. Doing the wrong thing is quite different from the basic value of the system, and capitalism's basic value is the creation of prosperity.

I think this leaves no question as to the fact that increasing market share drives governments to deploy force to expand markets. Is the desire to expand market share of US corporations a motivating factor in Haiti? Yes. It may not be the only motivation but certainly among the key motivations that resulted in the decimation of Haitian society, from which is has not recovered to this day. The massive presence of US corporations in Haiti's economy is a sure sign that the motivation to increase market share paid off for wealthy investors and corporations. Not surprisingly it has had the opposite effect on Haitians.

You have yet to tie capitalism to the motivation of individuals. No matter how good the system is, there can be people who use it improperly.

Do you assert Haitians are mostly at fault?

No!

Or is the desire to expand markets at fault?

Capitalism has no "desire." Only humans have desire, and human desire can corrupt and specific localized situation. So no, capitalism is just capitalism, and it offers prosperity no other known system offers.

ya know, the profit motive? Does the desire to expand markets potentially threaten human rights and freedom?

The system will not potentially threaten human rights and freedoms, only the way some evil people who do evil things do that.

The issue is benevolence. At any given time in any given place a benevolent dictator may give his/her people freedom. But that boils down to specific behavior of specific people. Capitalism as a system is not inherently evil. Individual capitalists can be evil, yet those individuals don't live forever and the SYSTEM will eventually do for the people what the evil capitalist did not.

 

[dnsmith35]

Again, I have taken the liberty of cleaning up the terrible formatting.

That sort of comment isn't going to help things.

I don't need help. I have proved my points concretely. So when you come up with accusations I said, or meant something other than what I asserted, I note either the unwillingness to read or the inability to understand.

Now you're just being obtuse and obstinate. So, if I link to your posts in which you say something different then you say now, then the only possible explanation is that I have a reading comprehension problem because you could not possibly be wrong?



I'm getting tired of cleaning up your bad formatting, and you've already stated plainly that you can never admit when you've made an error, but here ya go:

Exhibit A) Notice the defendant claims that only the CRA is responsible. The defendant makes a reference to the 1995 amendment to the CRA. This is the defendant's entire post. Follow the link.

Exhibit B)


This post is quite lengthy and I have snipped it. A link to the original post is provided.
I replied to this post with:

Again the post is snipped for brevity. A link to the original post is provided.
I have presented evidence demonstrating that dnsmith did in fact, on several occasions, write a post that claimed only the CRA as responsible for the housing bubble bust. Now comes the part where dnsmith claims I have misinterpreted his posts because he could not possibly be wrong, or requires more examples. This cycle of evidence and denial will go on for pages, as things do on the internet. However, I choose a different path. I choose CASE CLOSED​

Evidently, I did. The evidence is shown above. I have countered several of your assertions. I have countered your assertion that you never wrote a post claiming only the CRA was responsible for the housing bubble burst, however inadvertent that claim was on your part. I have countered your assertion that Androw's argument from incredulity was logical. I have countered your assertion that you don't need help by helping you with your erroneous post formatting. I have countered your assertion that we should ignore concerns over foreign working conditions by pointing out that, while you are correct about labor conditions improving by way of free trade, there are limits to the amount of cruelty we as a nation will tolerate from our trading partners specifically citing Sudanese slavery as a case in point.
These examples all took place in different exchanges between us.

But none of that is why I am satisfied. I am satisfied because you abandoned the fallacy of the single cause. That's all I wanted in the first place.

How about we just move on.

If we are to move on, I suggest you don't jump to conclusions after I have spent days saying the government's artificial interest rates were the primary culprit. CRA falls somewhere beyond that, along with sub prime loans.

I believe you have spent days on this subject. There are over 200 pages of posts in this thread. I wish you wouldn't keep this up. This is a thread, I thought, on the virtues of capitalism.
So let me guess... Someone brought up the most recent bust in the business cycle as a means of pointing out flaws in Capitalism.
You and your buddy jumped down their throat claiming it wasn't Capitalism's fault, it was the big bad government, and in doing so you dove headlong into the famous "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Is that what happened... for days on end?
Did it ever occur to you that the true strength of Capitalism is that Capitalism survives busts? How many economic systems can turn a economic bust into a cyclic pattern that can be endured?

I have never changed my convictions. The theme of all my posts is, Capitalism is the BEST ECONOMIC KNOWN TO MAN. Is it perfect? Only to the extent the PEOPLE who control capital are good, or bad.

I have further made the claim, and I stick to it, that government fiscal/monetary policy was THE MOST OBVIOUS cause of the housing balloon and burst.

Have I in other posts discussed why CRA was part of that cause while not discussing the other causes? Of course, but then you try to make a judgment of my assertions out of context of ALL of the posts I have made.

In so far as my claiming infallibility, that is bullshit of the worst kind. I have said that I have made concretely correct assertions based on studies. I have never claimed infallibility based on simple opinion.

So let me reiterate! You have taken a few of my posts of which you are familiar and tried to use them out of context of the whole to form an incorrect conclusion about which my assertions are. In that context, you are LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH WHEN YOU SAY I HAVE MADE THE ASSERTION THAT CRA IS THE ONLY CAUSE OF THE HOUSING BALLOON AND SUBSEQUENT.

If you don't want to accept that, climb back under your rock and stew about it.

 

[dnsmith35]

Again, I have taken the liberty of cleaning up the terrible formatting.

That sort of comment isn't going to help things.

I don't need help. I have proved my points concretely. So when you come up with accusations I said, or meant something other than what I asserted, I note either the unwillingness to read or the inability to understand.

Now you're just being obtuse and obstinate. So, if I link to your posts in which you say something different then you say now, then the only possible explanation is that I have a reading comprehension problem because you could not possibly be wrong?



I'm getting tired of cleaning up your bad formatting, and you've already stated plainly that you can never admit when you've made an error, but here ya go:

Exhibit A) Notice the defendant claims that only the CRA is responsible. The defendant makes a reference to the 1995 amendment to the CRA. This is the defendant's entire post. Follow the link.​

Where is the link? Lying again does not help your cause.

Exhibit B)


This post is quite lengthy and I have snipped it. A link to the original post is provided.
I replied to this post with:

Again the post is snipped for brevity. A link to the original post is provided.
I have presented evidence demonstrating that dnsmith did in fact, on several occasions, write a post that claimed only the CRA as responsible for the housing bubble bust. Now comes the part where dnsmith claims I have misinterpreted his posts because he could not possibly be wrong, or requires more examples. This cycle of evidence and denial will go on for pages, as things do on the internet. However, I choose a different path. I choose CASE CLOSED

Evidently, I did. The evidence is shown above. I have countered several of your assertions. I have countered your assertion that you never wrote a post claiming only the CRA was responsible for the housing bubble burst, however inadvertent that claim was on your part. I have countered your assertion that Androw's argument from incredulity was logical. I have countered your assertion that you don't need help by helping you with your erroneous post formatting. I have countered your assertion that we should ignore concerns over foreign working conditions by pointing out that, while you are correct about labor conditions improving by way of free trade, there are limits to the amount of cruelty we as a nation will tolerate from our trading partners specifically citing Sudanese slavery as a case in point.
These examples all took place in different exchanges between us.

But none of that is why I am satisfied. I am satisfied because you abandoned the fallacy of the single cause. That's all I wanted in the first place.

How about we just move on.

If we are to move on, I suggest you don't jump to conclusions after I have spent days saying the government's artificial interest rates were the primary culprit. CRA falls somewhere beyond that, along with sub prime loans.

I believe you have spent days on this subject. There are over 200 pages of posts in this thread. I wish you wouldn't keep this up. This is a thread, I thought, on the virtues of capitalism.
So let me guess... Someone brought up the most recent bust in the business cycle as a means of pointing out flaws in Capitalism.
You and your buddy jumped down their throat claiming it wasn't Capitalism's fault, it was the big bad government, and in doing so you dove headlong into the famous "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Is that what happened... for days on end?
Did it ever occur to you that the true strength of Capitalism is that Capitalism survives busts? How many economic systems can turn a economic bust into a cyclic pattern that can be endured?

I have never changed my convictions. The theme of all my posts is, Capitalism is the BEST ECONOMIC KNOWN TO MAN. Is it perfect? Only to the extent the PEOPLE who control capital are good, or bad.

I have further made the claim, and I stick to it, that government fiscal/monetary policy was THE MOST OBVIOUS cause of the housing balloon and burst.

Have I in other posts discussed why CRA was part of that cause while not discussing the other causes? Of course, but then you try to make a judgment of my assertions out of context of ALL of the posts I have made.

In so far as my claiming infallibility, that is bullshit of the worst kind. I have said that I have made concretely correct assertions based on studies. I have never claimed infallibility based on simple opinion.

So let me reiterate! You have taken a few of my posts of which you are familiar and tried to use them out of context of the whole to form an incorrect conclusion about which my assertions are. In that context, you are LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH WHEN YOU SAY I HAVE MADE THE ASSERTION THAT CRA IS THE ONLY CAUSE OF THE HOUSING BALLOON AND SUBSEQUENT CRASH..

If you don't want to accept that, climb back under your rock and stew about it.

 

[gnarlylove]

Actually, since there has never been a system which has elevated more people from poverty and since every system previously experimented with has been less successful it is logical to presume that of all we have experienced, capitalism is the one which gives us the most liberty and prosperity.

Is capitalism the only bringer of liberty and prosperity? It's a complicated matter as to how we arrived at where we are. Technology has been instrumental in creating prosperity but technology is not something new; relative prosperity has been advanced throughout history. Technology is not just the result of capitalism.

So to assert prosperity is the result of capitalism is only partially true with many other factors that may interact but are not effects of capitalism. I suspect your loose definition of capitalism plays into the generalization that capitalism is the best thing ever.

Capitalism has no "desire." Only humans have desire, and human desire can corrupt and specific localized situation. So no, capitalism is just capitalism, and it offers prosperity no other known system offers.

So you say capitalism isn't perfect yet at every opportunity you defend it like an innocent child. I'm beginning to wonder if you are engaged in doublespeak.

The issue is benevolence. At any given time in any given place a benevolent dictator may give his/her people freedom. But that boils down to specific behavior of specific people. Capitalism as a system is not inherently evil. Individual capitalists can be evil, yet those individuals don't live forever and the SYSTEM will eventually do for the people what the evil capitalist did not.

The massive scale of wars over markets can been seen a result of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic arrangement where society sustains itself or not through generating constant profit. Profit is often generated by expanding markets. Wars expand markets and so does genocide as has been a regular occurrence. Paying a penny a day for a sick child is not profitable under capitalism (except maybe for PR campaigns) so in most cases malaria and other diseases, malnutrition etc. are ignored. These pockets of neglect exist in every country including the US. Some smaller or larger but never before has it been on such a massive scale where most of the world's prosperity is narrowly injected to 1 percent of the global population. That's a lot of concentrated benevolence/prosperity leaving billions across the world wondering where it is for them. While many areas are simply sacrifice zones where no benevolence is seen.

To assume capitalism is the most prosperous system because it sustains the largest population of humans is ignoring how it treats specific people in order to do that. Often times ruthless deals are made. Furthermore population has grown as a result of agricultural innovation thus creating more prosperity. To say because more numbers of people are living under prosperity is still a relative comparison. Just because sheer numbers have been increased does not mean we are better off in real terms.

It is easily imaginable that an alternative economic arrangement can view that creating wealth is not a matter of individuals but wealth should bring prosperity for all people. So that individual profit takes a backseat to the view that what is humanly profitable (crime reduction, less need for war, unnecessary suffering and death) is far more prosperous then leaving profit up to a few individuals.

 

[dnsmith35]

.....

Actually, since there has never been a system which has elevated more people from poverty and since every system previously experimented with has been less successful, it is logical to presume that of all we have experienced, capitalism is the one which gives us the most liberty and prosperity.

Is capitalism the only bringer of liberty and prosperity?

I have n never claimed it was. It is simply the one which has proved to do so most frequently. A benevolent dictatorship and be good; but what about the next dictator? It is not a concrete issue, it is a comparable issue.

It's a complicated matter as to how we arrived at where we are. Technology has been instrumental in creating prosperity but technology is not something new; relative prosperity has been advanced throughout history. Technology is not just the result of capitalism.

Right, but under capitalism technology has been exploited to bring prosperity than any other system.

So to assert prosperity is the result of capitalism is only partially true with many other factors that may interact but are not effects of capitalism. I suspect your loose definition of capitalism plays into the generalization that capitalism is the best thing ever.

1. Capitalism has created more prosperity than any other system.

2. I have not asserted that there has never been prosperity in other systems.

3. I use the common definition of Capitalism, that being the primary engines of production and distribution are in the hands of private enterprise. Regulation by government to level the playing field and social programs do not detract from the basic capitalist system. Examples are the Scandinavian countries. They are capitalist economically with more social programs than other capitalist systems.

Capitalism has no "desire." Only humans have desire, and human desire can corrupt any specific localized situation. So no, capitalism is just capitalism, and it offers prosperity no other known system offers.

So you say capitalism isn't perfect yet at every opportunity you defend it like an innocent child. I'm beginning to wonder if you are engaged in doublespeak.

I defend capitalism only to the point that no other system has proven to be better. I have lived under socialism, one being benevolent, the other being dictatorial.

The issue is benevolence. At any given time in any given place a benevolent dictator may give his/her people freedom. But that boils down to specific behavior of specific people. Capitalism as a system is not inherently evil. Individual capitalists can be evil, yet those individuals don't live forever and the SYSTEM will eventually do for the people what the evil capitalist did not.

The massive scale of wars over markets can been seen a result of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic arrangement where society sustains itself or not through generating constant profit. Profit is often generated by expanding markets. Wars expand markets and so does genocide as has been a regular occurrence.

Capitalism does not start the wars nor do they cause genocide. Evil people, in the name of capitalism, or in the name of religion, or simply because the evil individuals want to expand the territory they "own."

Paying a penny a day for a sick child is not profitable under capitalism (except maybe for PR campaigns) so in most cases malaria and other diseases, malnutrition etc. are ignored.

With that I totally disagree. Social ills such as bad health care systems detract from the value of the capitalist state based on lower productivity.

These pockets of neglect exist in every country including the US.

Of course they do. I have never once suggested they don't. But as a % of the population capitalism tends to increase the prosperity even of those pockets of neglect.

Some smaller or larger but never before has it been on such a massive scale where most of the world's prosperity is narrowly injected to 1 percent of the global population. That's a lot of concentrated benevolence/prosperity leaving billions across the world wondering where it is for them. While many areas are simply sacrifice zones where no benevolence is seen.

The fact is, the 1% does not cause the ill fate of the 99%, as discussed on this site:

and this site: Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

Socially and politically, there are plenty of reasons to worry about the growing income gap. But rage against the 1% is misplaced. Income is not a zero-sum game: The rich aren't getting wealthier at the expense of the poor. Harvard's Lawrence Katz has calculated that even if all the gains of the top 1% were redistributed to the 99%, household incomes would go up by less than half of what they would if everyone had a college degree. In other words, the financial rewards of higher education are a big contributor to the income gap.​

To assume capitalism is the most prosperous system because it sustains the largest population of humans is ignoring how it treats specific people in order to do that.

Blaming the system for the ill acts of people within the system is ridiculous. The system ALLOWS FOR MORE WEALTH AND PROSPERITY. It is not the fault of the system for the ills of the world. That fault goes straight to the shoulders of individuals.

Often times ruthless deals are made. Furthermore population has grown as a result of agricultural innovation thus creating more prosperity. To say because more numbers of people are living under prosperity is still a relative comparison. Just because sheer numbers have been increased does not mean we are better off in real terms.

Of course it is relative. In some countries capitalism has not had the labor evolution such that the people can take advantage of capitalism.

It is easily imaginable that an alternative economic arrangement can view that creating wealth is not a matter of individuals but wealth should bring prosperity for all people. So that individual profit takes a backseat to the view that what is humanly profitable (crime reduction, less need for war, unnecessary suffering and death) is far more prosperous then leaving profit up to a few individuals.

Yet, there has never been a system which has a better way to increase individual prosperity than capitalism. Dream, and hope, but the utopia you dream about has never and likely will never happen and if it should happen, it will likely be a form of capitalism. It is not that attempts have not been tried. You know, the "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need." Every attempt to institute such a philosophy has failed miserably, BECAUSE of human behavior. It is not the trait of a human to forever high achieve such that the low or no achievers reap the benefits of his achievements. In relative short order an autocratic/dictatorial government takes over to keep the high achievers in the system. As the achievement continues those high achievers reduce their achievement because they are no longer willing to carry everyone in the system. That is basic human behavior.

To reiterate, certainly, we must recognize that capitalism is not perfect but only to the inability of government to regulate the greed out of the system. NO SYSTEM can regulate greed. In Marxist states the greed is usually detected in the leaders of the state, the commissars if you will; and in Marxist states only the leaders and their favorites gain any measurable prosperity.

 

[georgephillip]

Of course there is good....and bad, about any economic system. But in my opinion it is better to start with the one which has historically more successful in elevating people from poverty. Maybe a better regulated capitalist economy? Certainly no type of Marxism which has historically made more people poor and done more harm to our ecosystems.

Effectively my entire time on this forum has been recognizing just how much better capitalism is than any other system known to mankind. Most of the infighting has been about degree and disagreement as to specific effects certain stimuli has had on the economy.

You have consistently exonerated capitalism when you admit misdeeds have occurred. In the case of Haiti you said:

"Whether the US chose to interfere in Haiti's affairs indicts the government, not capitalism."

You've made at least 2 very similar exonerations regarding other misdeeds. I find it puzzling you insist capitalism is innocent in cases of wrongdoing while also agreeing it is not innocent, not perfect and has bad parts, but, as you would surely add: is the best damn economic system we have currently--which may be true. But if you conclude from that that there are no viable alternatives, you are mistaken. It is a logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot envision or don't want to imagine another way of organizing an economy does not mean that they do not exist. It only means you are unaware of better alternatives. I'm not advocating for alternatives at present, I'm merely identifying your ambivalence about capitalism and invalid logic that you seem to regularly deploy in support of capitalism.

Can you identify an instance where capitalism is the engine, the cause of wrongdoing? Apparently you don't think so in Haiti but understanding Woodrow Wilson's thinking which lead to the invasion of Haiti during his Presidency is helpful. So let's just read what he wrote:

"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."

I think this leaves no question as to the fact that increasing market share drives governments to deploy force to expand markets. Is the desire to expand market share of US corporations a motivating factor in Haiti? Yes. It may not be the only motivation but certainly among the key motivations that resulted in the decimation of Haitian society, from which is has not recovered to this day. The massive presence of US corporations in Haiti's economy is a sure sign that the motivation to increase market share paid off for wealthy investors and corporations. Not surprisingly it has had the opposite effect on Haitians.

Do you assert Haitians are mostly at fault? Or is the desire to expand markets at fault? ya know, the profit motive? Does the desire to expand markets potentially threaten human rights and freedom?

Here's a left-wing view written in 1920 about Wall Street's influence in Haiti:

"To know the reasons for the present political situation in Haiti, to understand why the United States landed and has for five years maintained military forces in that country, why some three thousand Haitian men, women, and children have been shot down by American rifles and machine guns, it is necessary, among other things, to know that the National City Bank of New York is very much interested in Haiti.

"It is necessary to know that the National City Bank controls the National Bank of Haiti and is the depository for all of the Haitian national funds that are being collected by American officials, and that Mr. R. L. Farnham, vice-president of the National City Bank, is virtually the representative of the State Department in matters relating to the island republic."

Windows on Haiti

Today, US banks continue the plunder from Palestine to Ukraine.
Socialize the cost and privatize the profit.
American voters who think "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican in the voting booth changes the looting only confirm what Einstein said about insanity.

 

[bedowin62]

left-wing nutjob guarantees stupid; useless posts

 

[bedowin62]

the fact that people aren't equal guarantees inequality


FAILED PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGY making things WORSE guarantees it will rise when they're in power

they are and it IS

idiots and hypocrites

 

[georgephillip]

Yet the failure and losses in the derivatives market was a result of the housing crash, not the cause.

"It is not just mortgages that provide the underlying value for derivatives. Other types of loans and assets can, too.

"For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a Collateralized Debt Obligations. A type of CDO is Asset-backed Commercial Paper, which is debt that is due within a year.

"If it is insurance for debt, the derivative is called a Credit Default Swap.

"Not only is this market extremely complicated and difficult to value, it is unregulated by the SEC. That means that there are no rules or oversights to help instill trust in the market participants.

"When one went bankrupt, like Lehman Brothers did, it started a panic among hedge funds and banks that the world's governments are still trying to fully resolve.(2008)

Role of Derivatives in Creating Mortgage Crisis

For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a Collateralized Debt Obligations. A type of CDO is Asset-backed Commercial Paper, which is debt that is due within a year.

CDOs are bonds, not derivatives.

CDOs are securities backed by a pool of bonds, loans, or other assets.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"It is not just mortgages that provide the underlying value for derivatives. Other types of loans and assets can, too.

"For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a Collateralized Debt Obligations. A type of CDO is Asset-backed Commercial Paper, which is debt that is due within a year.

"If it is insurance for debt, the derivative is called a Credit Default Swap.

"Not only is this market extremely complicated and difficult to value, it is unregulated by the SEC. That means that there are no rules or oversights to help instill trust in the market participants.

"When one went bankrupt, like Lehman Brothers did, it started a panic among hedge funds and banks that the world's governments are still trying to fully resolve.(2008)

Role of Derivatives in Creating Mortgage Crisis

For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a Collateralized Debt Obligations. A type of CDO is Asset-backed Commercial Paper, which is debt that is due within a year.

CDOs are bonds, not derivatives.

CDOs are securities backed by a pool of bonds, loans, or other assets.

Yes, when you slice up a bond, you have bonds.