Hey lefties, prove that capitalism got us into this mess.

[TakeAStepBack]

Capitalism is a broad catagory with many flavors within the heading.

WRONG.

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Free market: an economic market operating by free competition

We don't have these things. By definition, there is only one "flavor" of capitalism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

will continue to equate corporatism and cronyism, as capitalism..

yes, if the government helps you make a sale that is corporatism , if you make it on your own based on free market results that is capitalism. Some of the liberals have the IQ to understand. Sadly, the subject comes up because most don't.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Some. But it certainly doesn't stop there.

Capitalism requires a free market by definition. The government, in our case, has their hands in the labor pool, currency manipulation and industry subsidy.

Which means very few make any sales free of government intervention. We have a very different system. Capitalism is the solution, not the problem.

 

[HUGGY]

Capitalism is a broad catagory with many flavors within the heading.

WRONG.

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Free market: an economic market operating by free competition

We don't have these things. By definition, there is only one "flavor" of capitalism.

That is one idealic definition of Capitalism. The problem with it is as you elluded..there is no such thing as a free market. So as an ideal your definition has merit. In reality the attempt to acheive pure capitalism is impossible because there is no such thing as an even playing field so all systems, including Capitalism, must adapt to "what is".

I think it is fair to say that those that aspire to an economy driven and guided by a preference of and for private capital are Capitalists. Of course that isn't possible in this world because some problems are too big for any private party to manage. Some problems will never be solved because they don't offer enough profit for private capital to get involved also. Our military ...space program..and many others would never have emerged as they now exist .. with the most powerful military in history and all of the accomplishments of space exploration..like the Hubble. As stunning revelations as the Hubble has given us they would not exist if it were only up to private capital.

So are we just playing word games or defining the world as it is in terms we can all agree to?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That is one idealic definition of Capitalism.

Find me another definition out of a dictionary. I used webster's online.

I think it is fair to say that those that aspire to an economy driven and guided by a preference of and for private capital are Capitalists. Of course that isn't possible..

Yes, it is. We wouldn't know though, since we haven't had capitalism in a very, very long time.

So are we just playing word games or defining the world as it is in terms we can all agree to?

No, we are playing word games in regard to what words MEAN and what they stand for in reality. Not some personally twisted up version that isn't reality.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

prove that capitalism got us into this mess

That isn't possible. We don't have capitalism here.

so then why would a liberal think capitalism got us into this mess unless he was brainwashed?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

prove that capitalism got us into this mess

That isn't possible. We don't have capitalism here.

so then why would a liberal think capitalism got us into this mess unless he was brainwashed?

Ignorance of economics. You could call it brainwash, I suppose.

 

[Liberty]

Huggy, what economics books and authors do you read? I am curious who has taught you this because it is quite absurd.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That isn't possible. We don't have capitalism here.

so then why would a liberal think capitalism got us into this mess unless he was brainwashed?

Ignorance of economics. You could call it brainwash, I suppose.

the liberals have a problem. They are taught to love government so they must assume their government officials will be angels and not crony capitalists. But in human history has this happened?

Why does the liberal think most of the world just switched to capitalism; most notable China where 15 million now buy cars each years rather than slowly starve to death at the hand of liberal government regulators.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

the liberals have a problem. They are taught to love government so they must assume their government officials will be angels and not crony capitalists. But in human history has this happened?

Well, we gave it our best run in defense in 1776. But I know what you mean. This mixing emotions with logic and reality creates these types of misunderstandings. It's certainly unfortunate it is fostered rather than shunned.

 

[HUGGY]

Huggy, what economics books and authors do you read? I am curious who has taught you this because it is quite absurd.

As usual your take on a conversation is irrelevant. A more important inquiry would be what purpose did all of the higher economic learning in the world serve to prevent "the mess we are in"?.... Which by the way is the OP if you have not forgotten.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

"Higher economic learning." This should read, "popular and convenient economic indoctrination".

Are you familiar with praxeology, by chance? Get your google machine out.

 

[Sallow]

What mess?

This is exactly what the free marketeer, low tax, low regulations environment types wanted to happen.

-A Labor glut domestically, due to cheap overseas hires and tax incentives to hire overseas.
-Private profit, public risk.
-No cap on wealth extraction.
-Weak labor unions.
-Friendly and paid for politicians.
-Multi-tiered/Multi-national conglomorates (de-facto monopolies)
-Low regulatory environment with underfunded regulatory agencies.
-Corporations considered people and money is considered speech.

There have been record profits made over the last 20 or so years. And massive government deficits.

This is working as conservatives want it to work. The only thing left is the smash to social safety net to allow old people to die at a proper age. Like they did before the New Deal.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What mess?

This is exactly what the free marketeer, low tax, low regulations environment types wanted to happen.

-A Labor glut domestically, due to cheap overseas hires and tax incentives to hire overseas.
-Private profit, public risk.
-No cap on wealth extraction.
-Weak labor unions.
-Friendly and paid for politicians.
-Multi-tiered/Multi-national conglomorates (de-facto monopolies)
-Low regulatory environment with underfunded regulatory agencies.
-Corporations considered people and money is considered speech.

There have been record profits made over the last 20 or so years. And massive government deficits.

This is working as conservatives want it to work. The only thing left is the smash to social safety net to allow old people to die at a proper age. Like they did before the New Deal.

You're off topic and also wrong.

 

[Liberty]

Huggy, what economics books and authors do you read? I am curious who has taught you this because it is quite absurd.

As usual your take on a conversation is irrelevant. A more important inquiry would be what purpose did all of the higher economic learning in the world serve to prevent "the mess we are in"?.... Which by the way is the OP if you have not forgotten.

translation: I don't read.

 

[Old_Liberal]

What mess?

This is exactly what the free marketeer, low tax, low regulations environment types wanted to happen.

-A Labor glut domestically, due to cheap overseas hires and tax incentives to hire overseas.
-Private profit, public risk.
-No cap on wealth extraction.
-Weak labor unions.
-Friendly and paid for politicians.
-Multi-tiered/Multi-national conglomorates (de-facto monopolies)
-Low regulatory environment with underfunded regulatory agencies.
-Corporations considered people and money is considered speech.

There have been record profits made over the last 20 or so years. And massive government deficits.

This is working as conservatives want it to work. The only thing left is the smash to social safety net to allow old people to die at a proper age. Like they did before the New Deal.

Welcome to the conservative economic model! When the social safety nets are gutted, and all of the unemployment runs out, and average folks join in with the OWS crowd, the Great Depression unrest is gonna look like child's play.

We cannot recover from this recession, because of the bleeding of jobs, with nothing here that can replace those jobs. These people, millions of them, will literally have to die out for this problem to go away. And those people are from whence the future great social unrest will come from. It is inevitable.

This conservative economic model is insanity. It cannot be substained, because it has a deep inherit flaw. WE ARE A CONSUMPTION BASED ECONOMY. YET WE NO LONGER MAKE WHAT WE CONSUME. And this fact is why this economic model we have now cannot be substained, and a middle class to exist. We did much better when americans made most of what america consumed. That was a winning model, and had much to do with our middle expanding.

Consumption drives our economy. In order for average americans to benefit from this economy they have to make what is consumed. If they do not, millions will end up in poverty and we move closer to what history has loved, two class societies.

Capitalism can create a large middle class, by fettering it, regulating it. Capitalism will not create large middle classes left to its own devices. Capitalism can send most of the wealth to the top, and human nature being what it is, this is predictable. But you cannot create large middle classes and max out owner profits simultaneously. It is one, or the other.

The labor costs it takes to build a middle class negates the owner maxing out profits. To escape building a middle class and therefore maxing out profits requires the owner to move production to places like communist china.

This is the big picture of what capitalism can do. And has done.

 

[Sallow]

What mess?

This is exactly what the free marketeer, low tax, low regulations environment types wanted to happen.

-A Labor glut domestically, due to cheap overseas hires and tax incentives to hire overseas.
-Private profit, public risk.
-No cap on wealth extraction.
-Weak labor unions.
-Friendly and paid for politicians.
-Multi-tiered/Multi-national conglomorates (de-facto monopolies)
-Low regulatory environment with underfunded regulatory agencies.
-Corporations considered people and money is considered speech.

There have been record profits made over the last 20 or so years. And massive government deficits.

This is working as conservatives want it to work. The only thing left is the smash to social safety net to allow old people to die at a proper age. Like they did before the New Deal.

You're off topic and also wrong.

Actually..no.

You're wrong.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Oh, my mistake.

 

[Sallow]

Oh, my mistake.

No problem.

Have a infowebs beer on me.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What mess?

This is exactly what the free marketeer, low tax, low regulations environment types wanted to happen.

-A Labor glut domestically, due to cheap overseas hires and tax incentives to hire overseas.
-Private profit, public risk.
-No cap on wealth extraction.
-Weak labor unions.
-Friendly and paid for politicians.
-Multi-tiered/Multi-national conglomorates (de-facto monopolies)
-Low regulatory environment with underfunded regulatory agencies.
-Corporations considered people and money is considered speech.

There have been record profits made over the last 20 or so years. And massive government deficits.

This is working as conservatives want it to work. The only thing left is the smash to social safety net to allow old people to die at a proper age. Like they did before the New Deal.

Welcome to the conservative economic model! When the social safety nets are gutted, and all of the unemployment runs out, and average folks join in with the OWS crowd, the Great Depression unrest is gonna look like child's play.

We cannot recover from this recession, because of the bleeding of jobs, with nothing here that can replace those jobs. These people, millions of them, will literally have to die out for this problem to go away. And those people are from whence the future great social unrest will come from. It is inevitable.

This conservative economic model is insanity. It cannot be substained, because it has a deep inherit flaw. WE ARE A CONSUMPTION BASED ECONOMY. YET WE NO LONGER MAKE WHAT WE CONSUME. And this fact is why this economic model we have now cannot be substained, and a middle class to exist. We did much better when americans made most of what america consumed. That was a winning model, and had much to do with our middle expanding.

Consumption drives our economy. In order for average americans to benefit from this economy they have to make what is consumed. If they do not, millions will end up in poverty and we move closer to what history has loved, two class societies.

Capitalism can create a large middle class, by fettering it, regulating it. Capitalism will not create large middle classes left to its own devices. Capitalism can send most of the wealth to the top, and human nature being what it is, this is predictable. But you cannot create large middle classes and max out owner profits simultaneously. It is one, or the other.

The labor costs it takes to build a middle class negates the owner maxing out profits. To escape building a middle class and therefore maxing out profits requires the owner to move production to places like communist china.

This is the big picture of what capitalism can do. And has done.

Yup. Not sure of your definitions or economics. Round and round Is a great Bob Weir tune.