Capitalism is NOT Democratic: Democracy is NOT Capitalist

[dblack]

One that factors in all social cost before distributing any profit$

Negative Externalities - Economics Help

"Social cost​

• Social cost is the total cost to society; it includes both private and external costs.
• With a negative externality the Social Cost > Private Cost

Negative production externality..."​

Does the "right price", under socialism, have anything to do with how much people value the good or service in question? Or is that just a secondary concern?

Wondering what a socialist "Price is Right" would be like.

 

[georgephillip]

America is a tapestry of multi decade eras. One intertwining with another. Give and take. The Constitution of the United States says nothing about Capitalism, Socialism, Communism and other ways. It says Freedom. And we are failing.

Who or what do you blame for our failing?

Negative Externalities - Economics Help

• "The personal cost of driving are buying car, petrol, your time
• The negative externalities are – pollution to other people, possible accident to other other people, and time other people sit in traffic jams"

I believe those who get rich by socializing cost in order to fund their obscene lifestyles are responsible for our slide into fascism.

 

[georgephillip]

The factions are in your mind, or rather Marx's mind. That was his principal mistake: it's NOT all about "class"

True only if poverty does NOT exist.

Class conflict - Wikipedia

"In his treatise Politics, Aristotle describes the basic dimensions of class war: 'Again, because the rich are generally few in number, while the poor are many, they appear to be antagonistic, and as the one or the other prevails they form the government.'[7].

"Aristotle also commented that 'poverty is the parent of revolution.'[8]

"However, he did not consider this its only cause. In a society where property is distributed equally across the community, 'the nobles will be dissatisfied because they think themselves worthy of more than an equal share of honours; and this is often found to be a cause of sedition and revolution.'[9]

"Aristotle thought it wrong for the poor to seize the wealth of the rich and divide it among themselves, but he also thought it wrong for the rich to impoverish the multitude.[10]"

 

[bripat9643]

Does the "right price", under socialism, have anything to do with how much people value the good or service in question? Or is that just a secondary concern?

Wondering what a socialist "Price is Right" would be like.

There is no such thing as a true price in economic terms under socialism.

 

[bripat9643]

True only if poverty does NOT exist.

Class con

True only if poverty does NOT exist.

Class conflict - Wikipedia

"In his treatise Politics, Aristotle describes the basic dimensions of class war: 'Again, because the rich are generally few in number, while the poor are many, they appear to be antagonistic, and as the one or the other prevails they form the government.'[7].

"Aristotle also commented that 'poverty is the parent of revolution.'[8]

"However, he did not consider this its only cause. In a society where property is distributed equally across the community, 'the nobles will be dissatisfied because they think themselves worthy of more than an equal share of honours; and this is often found to be a cause of sedition and revolution.'[9]

"Aristotle thought it wrong for the poor to seize the wealth of the rich and divide it among themselves, but he also thought it wrong for the rich to impoverish the multitude.[10]"

flict - Wikipedia

"In his treatise Politics, Aristotle describes the basic dimensions of class war: 'Again, because the rich are generally few in number, while the poor are many, they appear to be antagonistic, and as the one or the other prevails they form the government.'[7].

"Aristotle also commented that 'poverty is the parent of revolution.'[8]

"However, he did not consider this its only cause. In a society where property is distributed equally across the community, 'the nobles will be dissatisfied because they think themselves worthy of more than an equal share of honours; and this is often found to be a cause of sedition and revolution.'[9]

"Aristotle thought it wrong for the poor to seize the wealth of the rich and divide it among themselves, but he also thought it wrong for the rich to impoverish the multitude.[10]"

Are you actually proposing equality of incomes? You do know what the outcome was whenever that was tried, don't you? Answer: mass starvation.

 

[georgephillip]

Wrong. That's like saying math classes divide society into two opposing factions: those who can do math and those who can't.

I think you're ignoring the equality of opportunity aspect to the question of owning the means of production as compared to a math class. While some math students have the advantage of being born to college educated parents, the curriculum doesn't discriminate between those whose ancestors were given the opportunity to buy the houses they live in while capitalism very definitely rewards those who won the birth lottery.

 

[bripat9643]

I think you're ignoring the equality of opportunity aspect to the question of owning the means of production as compared to a math class. While some math students have the advantage of being born to college educated parents, the curriculum doesn't discriminate between those whose ancestors were given the opportunity to buy the houses they live in while capitalism very definitely rewards those who won the birth lottery.

Nature rewards those who won the birth lottery. If my parents are smart, there's nothing government can do to erase that advantage, and it commits a grave injustice by trying to erase it.

Capitalism simply accepts an historical fact. It doesn't "give" anyone anything.

 

[georgephillip]

That argument is meaningless. Anyone who wants to own property under capitalism can do so by buying property.

That claim ignores the fact white Americans have a far greater amount of wealth than other Americans; why do you ignore the reality of white supremacy in this country?

Infographic: Racial Wealth Inequality Is Rampant In The U.S.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That claim ignores the fact white Americans have a far greater amount of wealth than other Americans; why do you ignore the reality of white supremacy in this country?

Infographic: Racial Wealth Inequality Is Rampant In The U.S.

That claim ignores the fact white Americans have a far greater amount of wealth than other Americans; why do you ignore the reality of white supremacy in this country?

Fewer out of wedlock births, fewer dropouts, fewer felonies.

Is it any wonder they have more wealth?

 

[georgephillip]

The term "exploitation" is meaningless.

Only if your skin is white.

The Historical Reasons Behind the U.S. Racial Wealth Gap

"The average White household in the U.S. today has amassed about seven times more wealth than the average Black household.

"The disparity widened in the half-century since the civil rights movement, despite a wave of laws protecting against racial discrimination at work, in housing and other economic realms."

 

[bripat9643]

Only if your skin is white.

The Historical Reasons Behind the U.S. Racial Wealth Gap

"The average White household in the U.S. today has amassed about seven times more wealth than the average Black household.

"The disparity widened in the half-century since the civil rights movement, despite a wave of laws protecting against racial discrimination at work, in housing and other economic realms."

So how did the average white person "exploit" black people?

 

[dblack]

So how did the average white person "exploit" black people?

"Exploit" is one of those vague euphemisms that socialists like to use. They pretend it's something bad, without ever really identifying what is bad about it. It's just a wedge to sell more state control. Of everything.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"The average White household in the U.S. today has amassed about seven times more wealth than the average Black household.

Even with you dragging down the white average?

 

[bripat9643]

"Exploit" is one of those vague euphemisms that socialists like to use. They pretend it's something bad, without ever really identifying what is bad about it. It's just a wedge to sell more state control. Of everything.

Marx actually believed that "exploit" was some kind of meaningful economic term, and all these prog dumbasses believe him.

 

[bripat9643]

Who or what controls the monopoly of violence?

The government does, moron.

 

[dblack]

The government does, moron.

Socialists have this odd contradiction that they really won't let themselves confront: They insist that government is controlled by greedy capitalists, and in the same breath that the economy should be controlled by government.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only if your skin is white.

The Historical Reasons Behind the U.S. Racial Wealth Gap

"The average White household in the U.S. today has amassed about seven times more wealth than the average Black household.

"The disparity widened in the half-century since the civil rights movement, despite a wave of laws protecting against racial discrimination at work, in housing and other economic realms."

The chasm begins with slavery, which was a huge generator of wealth for White Americans. Slavery drove the cotton economy, which enriched not just the growers but everyone from banks to shopkeepers to insurers. In 2000, economist Robert S. Browne calculated that the income produced by enslaved people for their White owners prior to 1860 was between $1.4 trillion and $4.7 trillion in modern money. In 1865, at the conclusion of the Civil War that ended slavery, freed slaves were promised 40 acres (16 hectares) of land to build an economic future for themselves. But the government reneged on the deal, and Black Americans started their freed lives empty-handed. By some estimates that land would have been worth as much as $3.1 trillion today.

Who promised freed slaves 40 acres?

 

[georgephillip]

The idiots we elect. Some of them lust for power and riches. How do you imagine socialism would prevent them from gaining power?

I suppose it's possible that collective ownership of the means of production would significantly reduce the number of millionaires and billionaires which many of our current elected officials depend on to fund their campaigns, but how SCOTUS would interpret any new "Clean Election" laws is way above my pay grade.

Campaign finance reform in the United States - Wikipedia

When I first began posting online 12 years ago, my first thread was a call to Flush the DC Toilet by voting against every single incumbent running for reelection in POTUS and off-year elections.

The devils and details convinced me the idea wasn't viable, but I still wonder how a vast majority of US voters would feel if they woke up after a major national election to discover 90% of incumbents were no longer on the public payroll?

 

[georgephillip]

Government controls the monopoly on the use of force. That's pretty much the definition of government, dumbass.

Do you see any other alternatives?

 

[georgephillip]

How about no one runs our society? That's called freedom.

I agree.