Capitalism is NOT Democratic: Democracy is NOT Capitalist

[bripat9643]

The US government subsidized US agriculture, making food less expensive for all of us.

It makes food more expensive when you include the cost of the subsidies.

In Sweden, the government subsidized Volvo, so then they never have to lay off people during slow sales periods.

I'm not sure that's true. Can you prove the Swedish government subsidizes Volve?

With a good democratic republic, then government should be much more honest, open, and reliable than private enterprise.

It has never worked.

The only times private enterprise has some advantages are when you have people like Elon Musk, who is innovative, and faster than a bureacracy.

Name an industry where government produces better services and products than private enterprise.

 

[Rigby5]

This is total crap. I would say that that most people pursue self-interest rather than public duty no matter what gov't or economic system they live under. The difference is that in reality a capitalistic economy creates far more wealth than any other model or theory. You are in effect bitching about the fact that the benefits of capitalism far outweigh the alternatives. The fact that increased wealth creation also attracts greedy, unprincipled, and immoral people does not detract from it's net positives for everybody concerned. Capitalism creates wealth, but it does not regulate it; that is the function of gov't no matter what economic system is in play.

I would posit that any type of economic system that exists today, or ever existed, or ever will exist will attract greedy, unprincipled, and immoral people who will take any advantage they can to increase their own wealth, and the extent to which that economic system creates wealth correlates with the numbers of those people and the amount of their ill-gotten wealth. Our problem today is not that we create too much wealth, it's that we do a poor job of governing that creation and distribution.

Except that the pursuit of individual wealth can and does destroy whole societies.
That is how we went from primitive cooperative tribes of hunter/gatherers, to evil colonial empires with slavery, like the Greeks sacking Troy, the Romans decimating as far as Britain, Atilla the Hun, the Mongol Horde, Crusaders, Conquistadors, WWI, WWII, etc.

Going back to recent US history, think back to just the 1950s in the US, when we had the far more efficient trolley system.
GM, Std, Oil, and others went from city to city, lobbying to remove all the more efficient trollies and replace them with the far more deadly freeways system that polluted and isolated neighborhoods.
We never should have done that, and switched to the automobile economy.
It is wasteful, polluting, far more dangerous, expensive, and unsustainable in the long run.

 

[bripat9643]

Except that the pursuit of individual wealth can and does destroy whole societies.

How?

That is how we went from primitive cooperative tribes of hunter/gatherers, to evil colonial empires with slavery, like the Greeks sacking Troy, the Romans decimating as far as Britain, Atilla the Hun, the Mongol Horde, Crusaders, Conquistadors, WWI, WWII, etc.

So you see no difference between thugs who use force to take wealth and businessmen who create products and services to acquire wealth?

Going back to recent US history, think back to just the 1950s in the US, when we had the far more efficient trolley system.
GM, Std, Oil, and others went from city to city, lobbying to remove all the more efficient trollies and replace them with the far more deadly freeways system that polluted and isolated neighborhoods.
We never should have done that, and switched to the automobile economy.
It is wasteful, polluting, far more dangerous, expensive, and unsustainable in the long run.

The trolleys were gone long before the interstates were created.

 

[Rigby5]

That isn't government ownership.


What the **** is a "public ownership law?'


No they aren't. I lot of towns in WI have privately owned waste disposal. You're claiming that government regulation is the equivalent of socialism, and every prog in here will dispute that claim.

You're talking about private companies, but you're delusional if you believe government run enterprises are efficient.

Yes, that is the point, that socialism does NOT require public ownership if you can achieve the same goals just by legislating private enterprise adequately.

I have no idea what "public ownership law" means because I never wrote that.
But the point is that public ownership of any enterprise is always legal.
We can choose to allow private enterprise to supply our needs if we want, but as voters, we can also decide to engage in public enterprise any time we want, and we should, when private enterprise does it badly. And example of private enterprise doing badly is health care and insurance companies.

Yes, I should not have said ALL of WI, but I did not want to start getting city specific.
Government regulation IS socialism, and no one can dispute that.
Using Sweden as an example, their socialism is always a private and public partnership.

Government can be inefficient, but that is always when either the voters are doing a bad job, or when big business has interfered.
Private enterprise is always very inefficient because they always skim profits off instead of reinvesting, and you can never count on private enterprise.
If something needs expensive updating, like railroads, private enterprise will just drop the essential resource and move investments into something else, like transAtlantic cable.

 

[Rigby5]

It makes food more expensive when you include the cost of the subsidies.



I'm not sure that's true. Can you prove the Swedish government subsidizes Volve?

It has never worked.


Name an industry where government produces better services and products than private enterprise.

Agricultural subsidies do not make food more expensive even when you include the cost of the subsidies.
That is because agriculture has ups and downs that would otherwise put all the little farms under.
The subsidies maintain more stable prices and financing, allowing smaller farms to not go bankrupt.
And that allows for much lower prices over all.
Agricultural subsidies do not always cost anything.
They are mostly for weathering bad times, which can be infrequent.

How Volvo is socialist is complicated.
But here is an explanation of how the board of directors is regulated by law.
{...

Independence requirements​

The Board of Directors of AB Volvo must meet independence requirements pursuant to the Swedish Corporate Governance Code ("the Code"). Further, the Audit Committee must meet independence requirements pursuant to the Swedish Companies Act. Below follows a short description of the independence requirements.
The independence requirements mainly state that only one person from the company's management may be a member of the Board, that a majority of the Board members elected by the General Meeting shall be independent of the company and the company management and that at least two of the Board members elected by the General Meeting who are independent of the company and the company's management shall also be independent of the company's major shareholders.
In addition, the Code demands that a majority of the members in the Audit Committee shall be independent of the company and the company management and that at least one of the members who is independent of the company and the company management shall also be independent of the company's major shareholders.
According to the Swedish Companies Act, the members of the Audit Committee may not be employees of the company and at least one member of the Audit Committee shall be independent of the company, the company management and the company's largest shareholders and shall have accounting and auditing expertise.
With regard to the Remuneration Committee, the Code sets the requirement that members of the Remuneration Committee, with the exception of the Board Chairman if a member of the Remuneration Committee, shall be independent of the company and company management.
...}

Board of Directors

The Board of Directors at Volvo Group is charged with the organization of the company and management of the company's operations.

www.volvogroup.com

As far as government enterprises, they always work better.
Almost all historic achievements have been done by government.
From the Roman aqueducts to NASA, private enterprise would never take the risks or have the public interests at heart.

It is easy to show examples of public enterprise doing better than private.
The Internet is a good start,
Health care in the rest of the world is another.
Just imagine how terrible the society would be if roads and schools were all private?

 

[task0778]

task0778 said:
This is total crap. I would say that that most people pursue self-interest rather than public duty no matter what gov't or economic system they live under. The difference is that in reality a capitalistic economy creates far more wealth than any other model or theory. You are in effect bitching about the fact that the benefits of capitalism far outweigh the alternatives. The fact that increased wealth creation also attracts greedy, unprincipled, and immoral people does not detract from it's net positives for everybody concerned. Capitalism creates wealth, but it does not regulate it; that is the function of gov't no matter what economic system is in play.

I would posit that any type of economic system that exists today, or ever existed, or ever will exist will attract greedy, unprincipled, and immoral people who will take any advantage they can to increase their own wealth, and the extent to which that economic system creates wealth correlates with the numbers of those people and the amount of their ill-gotten wealth. Our problem today is not that we create too much wealth, it's that we do a poor job of governing that creation and distribution.

Rigby:

Except that the pursuit of individual wealth can and does destroy whole societies.
That is how we went from primitive cooperative tribes of hunter/gatherers, to evil colonial empires with slavery, like the Greeks sacking Troy, the Romans decimating as far as Britain, Atilla the Hun, the Mongol Horde, Crusaders, Conquistadors, WWI, WWII, etc.


Me:
So, I take it you would rather have all of humanity living as primitive cooperative tribes of hunter/gatherers? I sometimes think that myself, but would people really be better off? Consider just the advances in medicine and healthcare that came to be under capitalistic systems, do you contend that those advances would have happened anyway? Is it a coincidence that longer lifespans and better birthrates have occurred since the implementation of capitalism? What about starvation, do you think that capitalism was a primary motivation that led to greater production of more nutritious food? What makes you think anything else could have been a major factor? You tell me, would you rather be alive pre-capitalism, i.e., prior to 1800 or thereabouts?

As you suggest, unbridled greed can be hugely destructive and of course existed long before capitalism came along. I do not believe that any form of human enterprise is going to change that, but I believe your problem is that you expect capitalism is at fault for the various forms of human vice, when in fact it is supposed to be the function of gov't to do that as effectively and efficiently as possible. The problem seems to be that democracy, particularly a representative democracy, is neither effective or efficient in doing that as long as human rights have to be honored.

Going back to recent US history, think back to just the 1950s in the US, when we had the far more efficient trolley system.
GM, Std, Oil, and others went from city to city, lobbying to remove all the more efficient trollies and replace them with the far more deadly freeways system that polluted and isolated neighborhoods.
We never should have done that, and switched to the automobile economy.
It is wasteful, polluting, far more dangerous, expensive, and unsustainable in the long run.


Me: So, no cars, no trucks, no buses, no airplanes? Have you ******* lost your mind? Newsflash: the creation of our freeway system was a gov't decision that had nothing to do with capitalism. It had to do with national defense, linking arsenals and supply depots so materiel could be quickly moved to wherever it needed to be within the US. in light of the current supply line problem, I wonder how things would be today without our freeways.

I'm sure you know that the switch to cars and trucks was a decision made by consumers, it was their choice. I can only surmise that you would rather have a central gov't that totally controls every choice you make and decides what is best for you. Trollies for God's sake; yeah, I'm having a heart attack so I guess I'll take the next ******* trolley to the hospital.

 

[Rigby5]

How?

So you see no difference between thugs who use force to take wealth and businessmen who create products and services to acquire wealth?



The trolleys were gone long before the interstates were created.

As I pointed out, all wars are actually over private individuals trying to maximize profits.
For example, we now know the WMD lies about Iraq were financed mostly by TX oil companies that wanted oil prices to increase by shutting down Iraqi oil for awhile.

The only difference between thugs using force and businessmen who produce products, is regulation from legislation.
If businessmen could get away with it, they would just invest in thugs if they were allowed, because that is cheaper.
If you want an example of harmful private enterprise, just look at tobacco.

I am older than you obviously, because I do remember the trollies of the 50's.
You are wrong about that.
Cars even did not really take off until the 50's.
There were very few freeways until the 50's.

 

[Rigby5]

Rigby:

Except that the pursuit of individual wealth can and does destroy whole societies.
That is how we went from primitive cooperative tribes of hunter/gatherers, to evil colonial empires with slavery, like the Greeks sacking Troy, the Romans decimating as far as Britain, Atilla the Hun, the Mongol Horde, Crusaders, Conquistadors, WWI, WWII, etc.


Me:
So, I take it you would rather have all of humanity living as primitive cooperative tribes of hunter/gatherers? I sometimes think that myself, but would people really be better off? Consider just the advances in medicine and healthcare that came to be under capitalistic systems, do you contend that those advances would have happened anyway? Is it a coincidence that longer lifespans and better birthrates have occurred since the implementation of capitalism? What about starvation, do you think that capitalism was a primary motivation that led to greater production of more nutritious food? What makes you think anything else could have been a major factor? You tell me, would you rather be alive pre-capitalism, i.e., prior to 1800 or thereabouts?

As you suggest, unbridled greed can be hugely destructive and of course existed long before capitalism came along. I do not believe that any form of human enterprise is going to change that, but I believe your problem is that you expect capitalism is at fault for the various forms of human vice, when in fact it is supposed to be the function of gov't to do that as effectively and efficiently as possible. The problem seems to be that democracy, particularly a representative democracy, is neither effective or efficient in doing that as long as human rights have to be honored.

Going back to recent US history, think back to just the 1950s in the US, when we had the far more efficient trolley system.
GM, Std, Oil, and others went from city to city, lobbying to remove all the more efficient trollies and replace them with the far more deadly freeways system that polluted and isolated neighborhoods.
We never should have done that, and switched to the automobile economy.
It is wasteful, polluting, far more dangerous, expensive, and unsustainable in the long run.


Me: So, no cars, no trucks, no buses, no airplanes? Have you ******* lost your mind? Newsflash: the creation of our freeway system was a gov't decision that had nothing to do with capitalism. It had to do with national defense, linking arsenals and supply depots so materiel could be quickly moved to wherever it needed to be within the US. in light of the current supply line problem, I wonder how things would be today without our freeways.

I'm sure you know that the switch to cars and trucks was a decision made by consumers, it was their choice. I can only surmise that you would rather have a central gov't that totally controls every choice you make and decides what is best for you. Trollies for God's sake; yeah, I'm having a heart attack so I guess I'll take the next ******* trolley to the hospital.

Remembering that humans ARE primitive hunter/gatherers by instinct, does not mean we can not invent technology.
It just means we should be careful at to what technology we create, and keep it appropriate.
Agriculture is not inherently bad, because it is similar to gathering, and does make food sources much more reliable.
However, is is agriculture that provided the excess production that resulted in currency, mercenaries, land ownership claims, wars, etc.
If we can regulate the good in order to minimize the bad, that would be best.
And I think it is clear socialism does that best.
For example, ancient Egypt used the priesthood to keep the whole society under efficient socialist regulation.
From what we know of ancient Egypt, there was no slavery or abuses, as the movies like to claim.

Technology does NOT come from capitalism.
Capitalists never risk money on basic research.
All technological advances have come from public investment.
That is true with all vaccines, airplanes, physics, space travel, internet, radio, computers, bridges, the arch, aqueducts, etc.

Mass transit includes trucks, buses, planes, etc.
It is just the individual cars that would go away.
They are too inefficient and dangerous.
Obviously you would not worry about the minor pollution and accident concerns with ambulances.
I would go so far as to suggest that we should make mass transit free.
I like Elon Musk's Hyperloop, all underground and 200 mph for long distance travel.
But it could never happen under private funding.
Has to be done publicly.

 

[Rigby5]

I was calling them "trolleys", but the more common name is "streetcar".
As in "Streetcar Named Desire".

The real story behind the demise of America’s once-mighty streetcars

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

{...

The real story behind the demise of America's once-mighty streetcars​

By Joseph Stromberg May 7, 2015, 9:20am EDT

Back in the 1920s, most American city-dwellers took public transportation to work every day.

There were 17,000 miles of streetcar lines across the country, running through virtually every major American city. That included cities we don't think of as hubs for mass transit today: Atlanta, Raleigh, and Los Angeles.

Nowadays, by contrast, just 5 percent or so of workers commute via public transit, and they're disproportionately clustered in a handful of dense cities like New York, Boston, and Chicago. Just a handful of cities still have extensive streetcar systems — and several others are now spending millions trying to build new, smaller ones.

So whatever happened to all those streetcars?

"There's this widespread conspiracy theory that the streetcars were bought up by a company National City Lines, which was effectively controlled by GM, so that they could be torn up and converted into bus lines," says Peter Norton, a historian at the University of Virginia and author of Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City.

But that's not actually the full story, he says. "By the time National City Lines was buying up these streetcar companies, they were already in bankruptcy."

Surprisingly, though, streetcars didn't solely go bankrupt because people chose cars over rail. The real reasons for the streetcar's demise are much less nefarious than a GM-driven conspiracy — they include gridlock and city rules that kept fares artificially low — but they're fascinating in their own right, and if you're a transit fan, they're even more frustrating.
...}

 

[georgephillip]

But those happy little pockets of “democracy” will not be happy for long without America to protect them

Which country do you imagine Norway and Denmark need protection from? Which country has sent its military half-way around the world and maimed, murdered, and displaced millions of innocent civilians for the greater glory of Wall Street?

The Middle East Isn’t Worth It Anymore

 

[dblack]

If we can regulate the good in order to minimize the bad, that would be best. And I think it is clear socialism does that best.

That's an odd perspective. Care to elaborate? What does "regulate the good" mean?

 

[georgephillip]

And we need a booming capitalist economy to do that

Booming for whom?

If your "booming" economy depends on killing innocent civilians, you are not one of the "good guys."

Causes of income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[Rigby5]

Which country do you imagine Norway and Denmark need protection from? Which country has sent its military half-way around the world and maimed, murdered, and displaced millions of innocent civilians for the greater glory of Wall Street?

The Middle East Isn’t Worth It Anymore

Add to that Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, Vietnam, etc.

 

[georgephillip]

You're a liar, that's what conservatives want. It's your side that is focused on equality of results, lying racist pig

My side never supported Jim Crow.

Conservative crackers did.
And you still do.

 

[Rigby5]

That's an odd perspective. Care to elaborate? What does "regulate the good" mean?

Regulate the good means to prevent entrepreneurs from doing abusive things like dumping, monopolies, buying up shelf space, etc.
For example, we legislate (or used to), things like headlight shape and size, tire sizes, etc., so that there is not an expensive and difficult lack of standards, as there use to be at one time.

 

[georgephillip]

A shit-ton more than you.

Prove it.
Turd.

 

[dblack]

Regulate the good means to prevent entrepreneurs from doing abusive things like dumping, monopolies, buying up shelf space, etc.

How is someone doing abusive things good? It seems like that would be regulating the bad.

For example, we legislate (or used to), things like headlight shape and size, tire sizes, etc., so that there is not an expensive and difficult lack or standards, as there use to be at one time.

Oh, so you mean conformity just for convenience sake? I'm ok with that when there's a clear need for it, when there's a large degree of consensus, and when the limitation on rights is minimal (stop signs, for example). Outside of that, such regulation should be kept at a minimum. If there's not a clear consensus, and the imposition is significant, the majority should not be allowed to force the minority to conform merely for their convenience.

Still not sure what you mean by "regulate the good" - you clearly mean more than just punishing those who cause harm.

 

[georgephillip]

Marx was funny. Especially when he talks about economics.

Where did you study Economics?
How many books on the subject have you written?
Are you arrogant or stupid enough to believe anyone will ever confuse your insights with those of Marx?
Why don't you swallow a shit-ton of Trump's sperm and die?

 

[Rigby5]

How is someone doing abusive things good? It seems like that would be regulating the bad.

Oh, so you mean conformity just for convenience sake? I'm ok with that when there's a clear need for it, when there's a large degree of consensus, and when the limitation on rights is minimal (stop signs, for example). Outside of that, such regulation should be kept at a minimum. If there's not a clear consensus, and the imposition is significant, the majority should not be allowed to force the minority to conform merely for their convenience.

Still not sure what you mean by "regulate the good" - you clearly mean more than just punishing those who cause harm.

The greater good is the private entrepreneur making some thing innovative and marketable.
But if he then employs abusive minor bad, while producing this greater good, that can still be a problem.
The word "regulate" does not mean to prevent, but to keep within certain parameters.
You do not want to regulate the bad but prevent it all together.
Regulating the good means to prevent it from becoming bad, by ensuring it conforms to within acceptable procedures.

I did not mean confomity just for convenience sake, but how manufacturers can deliberately try to be harmful to competition, but end up harming every one in the process.

For example, consider how much cheaper and easier it would be to do Electronic Vehicles if there was a single battery form factor?

 

[georgephillip]

Democracy is the majority forcing its will on everyone else. That should only be allowed when it's absolutely necessary for everyone to be on the same page. In most cases, it's not.

So which segment of society controls the monopoly of violence, oligarchs or the majority?