Capitalism is...Slavery; Democracy is Not

[georgephillip]

I agree.

The internet makes it possible to convince the 30% to 40% of eligible voters in the US who don't usually see anything worth voting for to get involved and vote against the status quo.

If 100 incumbents (Democrats AND Republicans) were FLUSHED from DC in 2012, it could sound a lot like the second shot heard 'round the world.

 

[Steelplate]

I expect the top 20% to have a smaller share of national income than the bottom 80%.
What about you?

No, I wouldn't expect that in a capitalist system. the capital of this country is always going to be owned by a small percentage of people who are responsible and who know how to manage it. Capital will always disappear from the hands of the irresponsible and the incompetent.

Most "Greedy Geezers" spend more time trying to decide whether to pay for prescriptions or heating oil than they do on the golf course.

Horseshit. That's propaganda perpetrated by the Greedy Geezers. Their grandchildren are having to make that decision because all their income goes to pay for programs for the Greedy Geezers.

Propaganda by the Greedy Geezers.... most of whom would be totally fucked without Social Security... so yeah. I guess in the broadest sense, you could call it propaganda... but it's more of a plea for sanity.

Funny how you have no problem pointing out "Propaganda" when it's something you disagree with.

But you refuse to look at the Masterful Propaganda job that our wealthy elite is pulling on you guys. Nope, you turn a blind eye to that bullshit. Critical thinking, I believe that Glenn Beck calls it...as long as you don't turn that Critical thinking towards him or his benefactors.

 

[grunt11b]

Confused about the fundamental conflicts regarding proper distribution of power?

"Listen, for example, to liberal economist Lester Thurow who writes that 'democracy and capitalism have very different beliefs about the proper distribution of power.

"'One believes in a completely equal distribution of political power, "one man [sic] one vote," while the other believes that it is the duty of the economically fit to drive the unfit out of business and into extinction. "Survival of the fittest" and inequalities in purchasing power are what capitalist efficiency is all about.

"'Individual profit comes first and firms become efficient to be rich. To put it in its starkest form, capitalism is perfectly compatible with slavery. Democracy is not.'"

Capitalism and Democracy Don't Mix Very Well ::: International Endowment for Democracy

Democracy in it's purest form is MOB RULE...

You have very little concept of human nature and incentive, do you?

I think the OP has Democracy confused with the socialism he supports in this country right now. They are two very different things, and the left cannot hide Socialism behind the word Democracy anymore, we are all onto them and have been for quite some time.

 

[grunt11b]

Without competition, capitalism would not flourish.
It serves little to no purpose for "the economically fit to drive the unfit out of business and into extinction".

Since the days of the East India Company the most successful capitalists have crushed competitors in order to monopolize markets. Most of the successful corporations have bribed government for tax favors and laws that encourage monopolies and cartels coming into existence.

Capitalists need customers and clients far more than they need authentic competition, imho.

The best way to bust up a monopoly is to put a better product out then the company that has the monopoly, not through Government coercion. Government was never intended to be used to meddle in private corporations. It's not up to government to pick winners and losers, life's not fair, the sooner some people figure that out the better off they will be.

 

[georgephillip]

Confused about the fundamental conflicts regarding proper distribution of power?

"Listen, for example, to liberal economist Lester Thurow who writes that 'democracy and capitalism have very different beliefs about the proper distribution of power.

"'One believes in a completely equal distribution of political power, "one man [sic] one vote," while the other believes that it is the duty of the economically fit to drive the unfit out of business and into extinction. "Survival of the fittest" and inequalities in purchasing power are what capitalist efficiency is all about.

"'Individual profit comes first and firms become efficient to be rich. To put it in its starkest form, capitalism is perfectly compatible with slavery. Democracy is not.'"

Capitalism and Democracy Don't Mix Very Well ::: International Endowment for Democracy

Democracy in it's purest form is MOB RULE...

You have very little concept of human nature and incentive, do you?

I think the OP has Democracy confused with the socialism he supports in this country right now. They are two very different things, and the left cannot hide Socialism behind the word Democracy anymore, we are all onto them and have been for quite some time.

Welcome to the USSR (United States Socialist Republic)

"First of all let’s all get serious. Did anybody really believe that FNM and FRE would become anything other than de-facto nationalised???

"Was this a shock and surprise event?

"Has 'bazooka' Hank just saved the World????

"We are not credit people and we will leave the credit analysis of this to the experts but we struggle to see how translating the exposure of a major part of the U.S. mortgage industry to the U.S. consumer is something we should be jumping up and down for joy about.

"Neither is the fact that yet another financial institutions(s) has common stock effectively worth nothing and a realisation that preferred stock is not a risk free investment. Tell the guy who is part of Friday’s (Sept. 2008) 6.1% unemployment rate how a few basis points improvement in his mortgage (If that is actually what happens) makes everything o.k.

"Do we honestly believe that another sleight of hand from the Treasury/FED suddenly makes all the problems go away?

"Do U.S. consumers realise that they have just involuntarily doubled-down on the U.S. mortgage/housing market?-because if this bet does not work they will be 'carrying the can' for this.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/files/dowfed090808.pdf

The rich in this country have been playing fools like you "for quite some time."

When are you planning to do something about it?

 

[bripat9643]

My ideal system would begin by making subsistence a human right.
Homelessness and hunger could disappear in this country.
The money is already here.
It's hiding in hedge funds and Cayman Island retreats and private bond markets.

Social Credit is the best blueprint I've found.
It's a distributive philosophy which holds the best place for power is in many hands.
It believes the true purpose of production is consumption, not profit for a few.

Properly implemented in the US, Social Credit could provide every citizen with several thousand dollars per years as part of a National Dividend and Compensated Price Program, and this would be independent of any other income they earned.

Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, you're a communist. But we already knew that.

Communism has already been tried numerous times. I don't think you'll find many people lining up for another helping of that.

 

[georgephillip]

Without competition, capitalism would not flourish.
It serves little to no purpose for "the economically fit to drive the unfit out of business and into extinction".

Since the days of the East India Company the most successful capitalists have crushed competitors in order to monopolize markets. Most of the successful corporations have bribed government for tax favors and laws that encourage monopolies and cartels coming into existence.

Capitalists need customers and clients far more than they need authentic competition, imho.

The best way to bust up a monopoly is to put a better product out then the company that has the monopoly, not through Government coercion. Government was never intended to be used to meddle in private corporations. It's not up to government to pick winners and losers, life's not fair, the sooner some people figure that out the better off they will be.

Government creates private corporations.
Do you call that "meddling"?

How would you get superior product into the marketplace when your much larger competitor controls the price you could charge your customers?

Life is not fair and the sooner you people figure out why the better off you will be.

 

[bripat9643]

Government creates private corporations.
Do you call that "meddling"?

How would you get superior product into the marketplace when your much larger competitor controls the price you could charge your customers?

Life is not fair and the sooner you people figure out why the better off you will be.

No, government does not create private corporations. It simply gives them legal recognition. Competitors don't control anything. How can they control the price you charge for your product?

 

[georgephillip]

My ideal system would begin by making subsistence a human right.
Homelessness and hunger could disappear in this country.
The money is already here.
It's hiding in hedge funds and Cayman Island retreats and private bond markets.

Social Credit is the best blueprint I've found.
It's a distributive philosophy which holds the best place for power is in many hands.
It believes the true purpose of production is consumption, not profit for a few.

Properly implemented in the US, Social Credit could provide every citizen with several thousand dollars per years as part of a National Dividend and Compensated Price Program, and this would be independent of any other income they earned.

Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, you're a communist. But we already knew that.

Communism has already been tried numerous times. I don't think you'll find many people lining up for another helping of that.

Do you think the true purpose of production is consumption?

Is it safer if power is held in many hands?

 

[bripat9643]

Do you think the true purpose of production is consumption?

Of course it is, but what has that go to do with anything you have posted?

Is it safer if power is held in many hands?

Of course. That's why any rational person should be opposed to socialism.

 

[georgephillip]

Government creates private corporations.
Do you call that "meddling"?

How would you get superior product into the marketplace when your much larger competitor controls the price you could charge your customers?

Life is not fair and the sooner you people figure out why the better off you will be.

No, government does not create private corporations. It simply gives them legal recognition. Competitors don't control anything. How can they control the price you charge for your product?

Corporations don't exist without government; corporations are creatures of government.

Larger business can undercut their upstart competitors by selling their product for less even if that means temporarily sacrificing profits.

Since today's biggest corporations have effectively captured state regulators, who's going to stop them?

The Tea Party?

 

[georgephillip]

Do you think the true purpose of production is consumption?

Of course it is, but what has that go to do with anything you have posted?

Is it safer if power is held in many hands?

Of course. That's why any rational person should be opposed to socialism.

According to the founder of Social Credit, if the true purpose of production is consumption that requires removing the policy of production from banking institutions, government and industry.

"...Social Credit envisages an 'aristocracy' of producers, serving and accredited by a democracy of consumers."

"Consumers, fully provided with adequate purchasing power, will establish the policy of production through exercise of their monetary vote."

Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it's rational in your mind to oppose public ownership of the means of production because "the only safe place for power is in many hands"?

 

[westwall]

Human existence has no political orientation?
Who knew?

A system that rewards the biggest crooks with a bigger and bigger share of wealth is suicidal.
Apparently you've made your peace with that.
Some of us have not.

For the last 5000 years human existence has been determined by those willing to do anything to enhance their personal fortunes. It isn't possible to work within that system without becoming corrupted by it. Conservatives base their morality on obedience to a higher authority; hence they have no problem supporting tyrants and the world they create.

You can yell and scream all you want but until you stop your knee-jerk obedience to the rich, human existence will continue to decline for over 90% of human beings.

And when that killing starts many of those left alive will envy the dead.

Tell me what political affiliation you had when you were ten. Politics becomes a factor when you enter the work force. Until then human beings are concerned with playing and eating.

A system that allows the crooks to get bigger and bigger will eventually fail of that there is no doubt but the more they make it possible for wealth to be earned by the lower classes the longer they can continue to reap the spoils so it is in their best interests to keep the poor happy.

I am an anarchist but i realise that to do what i want I had to play the game. I played it well and have had an enjoyable life that is now drawing to a close. Your problem is you are so filled with hate you can't see straight. You may be alive when the revolution finally comes, i probably won't be. You can talk political dogma all you wish and whine about conservatives bowing to the master but the case is they are living happy lives and you're not.

That's your fault, not the "mans" fault.

I am curious though what is your "ideal" system?

My ideal system would begin by making subsistence a human right.
Homelessness and hunger could disappear in this country.
The money is already here.
It's hiding in hedge funds and Cayman Island retreats and private bond markets.

Social Credit is the best blueprint I've found.
It's a distributive philosophy which holds the best place for power is in many hands.
It believes the true purpose of production is consumption, not profit for a few.

Properly implemented in the US, Social Credit could provide every citizen with several thousand dollars per years as part of a National Dividend and Compensated Price Program, and this would be independent of any other income they earned.

Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you favour a collectivist society where all people work toward a common good. Then when the good is created they all get to share equally in its profit. Sounds great. What do you do about the people who refuse to work? I have no problem taking care of people who can't work, but there are a ton of people who refuse to work. How do you deal with them?

 

[dblack]

George,

Your position seems to be centered on the conviction that there is no meaningful distinction between economic power and political power. But I do see a rather fundamental distinction between them, and that's why I think they should be handled differently.

The difference is that economic power is expressed via voluntary exchange, and political power is express through violent force. It's that element of force that makes it crucial to limit political power. Conversely, limiting economic power would require limiting the freedom of voluntary exchange, which to me is at least as important as any other basic freedom, maybe moreso.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Capitalism without any restrictions is very "liberal" and is a core aspect of classical liberalism which Republitards have hijacked and rfenamed "conservative."

 

[bripat9643]

According to the founder of Social Credit, if the true purpose of production is consumption that requires removing the policy of production from banking institutions, government and industry.

"...Social Credit envisages an 'aristocracy' of producers, serving and accredited by a democracy of consumers."

"Consumers, fully provided with adequate purchasing power, will establish the policy of production through exercise of their monetary vote."

Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Social Credit" is just another leftwing scam. There is no consumption without production. the idea that you can divorce the two is simply absurd.

Of course, everything you post is absurd.

What the hell is "the policy of production?" Does that mean loaning money to people who can actually pay it back? Is this "Social Credit" scheme you favor the policy where banks loan money who can't pay it back? We've already seen how that works: It collapsed the world economy.

God help the world if numskulls like you ever get in charge.

Whoops! They already are.

So it's rational in your mind to oppose public ownership of the means of production because "the only safe place for power is in many hands"?

"Public ownership" always means government ownership. That means giving all control to a single entity, the government.

No sane person would ever support giving the government that much power.

 

[georgephillip]

Tell me what political affiliation you had when you were ten. Politics becomes a factor when you enter the work force. Until then human beings are concerned with playing and eating.

A system that allows the crooks to get bigger and bigger will eventually fail of that there is no doubt but the more they make it possible for wealth to be earned by the lower classes the longer they can continue to reap the spoils so it is in their best interests to keep the poor happy.

I am an anarchist but i realise that to do what i want I had to play the game. I played it well and have had an enjoyable life that is now drawing to a close. Your problem is you are so filled with hate you can't see straight. You may be alive when the revolution finally comes, i probably won't be. You can talk political dogma all you wish and whine about conservatives bowing to the master but the case is they are living happy lives and you're not.

That's your fault, not the "mans" fault.

I am curious though what is your "ideal" system?

My ideal system would begin by making subsistence a human right.
Homelessness and hunger could disappear in this country.
The money is already here.
It's hiding in hedge funds and Cayman Island retreats and private bond markets.

Social Credit is the best blueprint I've found.
It's a distributive philosophy which holds the best place for power is in many hands.
It believes the true purpose of production is consumption, not profit for a few.

Properly implemented in the US, Social Credit could provide every citizen with several thousand dollars per years as part of a National Dividend and Compensated Price Program, and this would be independent of any other income they earned.

Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you favour a collectivist society where all people work toward a common good. Then when the good is created they all get to share equally in its profit. Sounds great. What do you do about the people who refuse to work? I have no problem taking care of people who can't work, but there are a ton of people who refuse to work. How do you deal with them?

When the Industrial Revolution began many believed humanity would eventually be freed from the need to work for its basic subsistence. I think we've reached that point for many Americans.

A Guaranteed Annual Wage for all US citizens would be independent of any income earned from other sources, and for those who refuse to work would allow them a roof over their heads and regular meals.

The money for such a program already exists, imho.
It's locked away in hedge funds and tax shelters and Government Sachs.
For thousands of years government has redistributed wealth upwards.
That could easily be reversed.

 

[westwall]

My ideal system would begin by making subsistence a human right.
Homelessness and hunger could disappear in this country.
The money is already here.
It's hiding in hedge funds and Cayman Island retreats and private bond markets.

Social Credit is the best blueprint I've found.
It's a distributive philosophy which holds the best place for power is in many hands.
It believes the true purpose of production is consumption, not profit for a few.

Properly implemented in the US, Social Credit could provide every citizen with several thousand dollars per years as part of a National Dividend and Compensated Price Program, and this would be independent of any other income they earned.

Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you favour a collectivist society where all people work toward a common good. Then when the good is created they all get to share equally in its profit. Sounds great. What do you do about the people who refuse to work? I have no problem taking care of people who can't work, but there are a ton of people who refuse to work. How do you deal with them?

When the Industrial Revolution began many believed humanity would eventually be freed from the need to work for its basic subsistence. I think we've reached that point for many Americans.

A Guaranteed Annual Wage for all US citizens would be independent of any income earned from other sources, and for those who refuse to work would allow them a roof over their heads and regular meals.

The money for such a program already exists, imho.
It's locked away in hedge funds and tax shelters and Government Sachs.
For thousands of years government has redistributed wealth upwards.
That could easily be reversed.

Here's the problem with your utopian ideal. It's those people who don't work. You see eventually the people who do work resent the slackers and they stop working too. That's called human nature.

What will you do to compel the workers to continue slaving away to support those who choose not to work. Because that is what you advocate.

I do find it amusing how you claim governments for thousands of years have distributed wealth upwards. That is patently ridiculous by anyone who has read history. Most of the time there was no government only strong men who were either benevolent or not who were able to fight for territory and defend it from the other wolves out there. Most of them died violent deaths. Sometimes they were nice and protected those who lived in their domain and most were merely content to ignore the serfs till tax time. Some were beasts and were horrible to their serfs. But there was no government.

Government as you identify it has existed for a very short time.

 

[georgephillip]

George,

Your position seems to be centered on the conviction that there is no meaningful distinction between economic power and political power. But I do see a rather fundamental distinction between them, and that's why I think they should be handled differently.

The difference is that economic power is expressed via voluntary exchange, and political power is express through violent force. It's that element of force that makes it crucial to limit political power. Conversely, limiting economic power would require limiting the freedom of voluntary exchange, which to me is at least as important as any other basic freedom, maybe moreso.

I see your logic about a voluntary exchange between customers and small businesses, for example.

At the national level however,large corporations have had much greater influence on the monopoly of violence provided by the state than workers/consumers have. I'm not sure that limiting the capitalist influence on state violence in any way inhibits your freedom of voluntary exchange?

Or maybe I'm missing your point???

 

[georgephillip]

So you favour a collectivist society where all people work toward a common good. Then when the good is created they all get to share equally in its profit. Sounds great. What do you do about the people who refuse to work? I have no problem taking care of people who can't work, but there are a ton of people who refuse to work. How do you deal with them?

When the Industrial Revolution began many believed humanity would eventually be freed from the need to work for its basic subsistence. I think we've reached that point for many Americans.

A Guaranteed Annual Wage for all US citizens would be independent of any income earned from other sources, and for those who refuse to work would allow them a roof over their heads and regular meals.

The money for such a program already exists, imho.
It's locked away in hedge funds and tax shelters and Government Sachs.
For thousands of years government has redistributed wealth upwards.
That could easily be reversed.

Here's the problem with your utopian ideal. It's those people who don't work. You see eventually the people who do work resent the slackers and they stop working too. That's called human nature.

What will you do to compel the workers to continue slaving away to support those who choose not to work. Because that is what you advocate.

I do find it amusing how you claim governments for thousands of years have distributed wealth upwards. That is patently ridiculous by anyone who has read history. Most of the time there was no government only strong men who were either benevolent or not who were able to fight for territory and defend it from the other wolves out there. Most of them died violent deaths. Sometimes they were nice and protected those who lived in their domain and most were merely content to ignore the serfs till tax time. Some were beasts and were horrible to their serfs. But there was no government.

Government as you identify it has existed for a very short time.

CH Douglas, the originator of Social Credit, agreed with the classical economists' assessments of land, labor and capital as factors of production. Douglas added one more that he thought was primary: the cultural inheritance of society which he defined as "the knowledge, technique and processes that have been handed down to us incrementally from the origins of civilization."

If Douglas is correct that cultural inheritance is the property of all of us, without exception, and not solely the property of those who control the means of production, then it's the "knowledge, technique and processes" handed down since the dawn of civilization that provides the guaranteed annual wage to all citizens.

Some citizens will choose to work and add to their inheritance.
Others will choose not to work.
The former will in no way support the latter since both will share equally in "the fruits of industry assured by the National Dividend and Compensated Price."

Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia