Unfettered Capitalism

[georgephillip]

If everyone else decides to give their money to Bill Gates, and use his software products exclusively - why should government overrule them?

Because Rich Bill wouldn't have his billion$ without government issuing him a patent; why should the vast majority of Microsoft users have to pay for that bit of meddling in the free market?

 

[DustyInfinity]

I want to give a shout out to the Masters of the Universe Duopoly think tank. Your idea of banning successful people will definitely cut down on corruption by successful people. Way to stay three steps ahead fellas, lol.

 

[dblack]

If everyone else decides to give their money to Bill Gates, and use his software products exclusively - why should government overrule them?

Because Rich Bill wouldn't have his billion$ without government issuing him a patent; why should the vast majority of Microsoft users have to pay for that bit of meddling in the free market?

If you have a beef with patents, then argue to get rid of them. Don't use it as an excuse to lord it over everyone who benefits from it.

That's a really shitty point of view, and I'm seeing it more and more often, from both liberals and conservatives. They cite the benefits of government as though we're supposed owe it our obedience in return. The only thing we owe government, in exchange for the benefits it provides, is taxes. If you don't like a benefit that government is providing, if you think patent laws are wrong, for example, work to get rid of the law/policy in question - don't use it as an excuse to persecute those who benefit from it.

 

[georgephillip]

We can't change the laws of economics anymore than we can abolish the law of gravity.

Economic is NOT Physics; it is a social science subject to widely divergent opinions. For example does economics manage scarcity or abundance. Are there economic systems to don't prioritize private profits over public welfare?

We can't change the laws of economics anymore than we can abolish the law of gravity.

Economics is NOT a physical science; it is a social science, at best.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For example does economics manage scarcity or abundance.

Capitalism manages abundance.
Marxism mismanages scarcity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If everyone else decides to give their money to Bill Gates, and use his software products exclusively - why should government overrule them?

Because Rich Bill wouldn't have his billion$ without government issuing him a patent; why should the vast majority of Microsoft users have to pay for that bit of meddling in the free market?

You want to use Microsoft products without paying for them?

 

[bripat9643]

Help me out here. I'm just a simple guy from the Midwest who believes in basic stuff like don't spend more than you have and work your ass off.

So, who are you voting for?

Can you duopoly guys do me a favor and explain why voting for more pervasive government control is an answer and to be sought after?

I'm not a duopoly guy.

The takeover of the energy sector sounds like a profoundly expensive mistake, and I seriously doubt getting rid of private health insurance is going to lead to anything good for us simple people. I've asked democrats I know why they want any of that, and they tell me because they don't think after the election that the democrats will do any of the things they say they want. Which is probably true. I'm not sure the answer is saying everyone is corrupt and we should just give up.

Agreed.

I'm going to vote for Trump, which all of you guys patting yourselves on the back say makes me a moron. I don't want to be ruled by King Bill Gates or Queen Nancy Pelosi. I'd hope to God there is some way people could make a fractional difference on their behalf. I see cutting red tape as a plus, and not the same thing as dumping toxins in a river. I'm fond of the police making sure I'm safe. I see excessive taxation as buying Bernie Sanders another house. I don't think we need to destroy the fossil fuel industry to 'save' the planet. I like being able to say what I want, I like being able to defend myself through the 2nd amendment. I don't think of the United States as inherently evil. All the back slappers are saying I'm stupid for thinking I have a choice. I guess being stupid and thinking I have some chance at all of winning is something.

Trumps record is huge deficits, giant bailouts, recession, riots, increasing crime, the most pandemic death...

I was hoping some of the people who were actually talking about economics were going to answer. Yes, Trump had huge deficits, and no I'm not a fan. The duopoly guys can have that one, however I'd like to point out that the democrats wanted to add zeroes and spend more, so there is that. The riots are completely on you guys, and if you had any honesty you'd admit it. Same with the crime. What did you think would happen when you demonize the police and allow the riots? Last I could tell, the pandemic was an act of nature, and a worldwide problem. Again, I was hoping for one of the posters who was discussing economics. I was hoping someone who believes voting is a waste of time, and that people are screwed no matter how they vote would respond.

Good to have a new member with some common sense. I get tired of arguing with these bozos. They just repeat the same shit over and over an over.

 

[bripat9643]

If everyone else decides to give their money to Bill Gates, and use his software products exclusively - why should government overrule them?

Because Rich Bill wouldn't have his billion$ without government issuing him a patent; why should the vast majority of Microsoft users have to pay for that bit of meddling in the free market?

Ask the former citizens of the Soviet Union if they would be willing to pay for that "bit of meddling."

 

[bripat9643]

If everyone else decides to give their money to Bill Gates, and use his software products exclusively - why should government overrule them?

Because Rich Bill wouldn't have his billion$ without government issuing him a patent; why should the vast majority of Microsoft users have to pay for that bit of meddling in the free market?

Are consumers better off if Windows exists or if it doesn't exist? The latter proposition is clearly idiotic.

 

[bripat9643]

Define "large scale agriculture." The fact is agriculture has been around for 12,000 years, most of that time without irrigation.

Agriculture on a scale with centralized organization to feed cities containing thousands of individuals.

Ancient Mesopotamian civilizations (article) | Khan Academy

You mean agriculture run by government. You're begging the question again.

 

[bripat9643]

We can't change the laws of economics anymore than we can abolish the law of gravity.

Economic is NOT Physics; it is a social science subject to widely divergent opinions. For example does economics manage scarcity or abundance. Are there economic systems to don't prioritize private profits over public welfare?

We can't change the laws of economics anymore than we can abolish the law of gravity.

Economics is NOT a physical science; it is a social science, at best.

The fact that some people have ignorant opinions about it doesn't mean it isn't science. People have opinions about the theory of evolution. Are you going to complain that evolution isn't science?

Subjects like sociology are not science at all, at least the way they are currently practiced, but economics is science. The law of marginal return is as immutable as the theory of gravity.

Economic laws are laws. They aren't mere opinions. If you believe you can abolish the law of diminishing returns, you are in for a sad education.

 

[georgephillip]

No, since your definition of "civilized" is that it has a government. However, prior to government people farmed, traded their goods and built towns and even cities, all without government intervention.

What makes you believe those people who farmed, traded, and built towns didn't have a group of people that set up and administer public policy?

Do you see any way to have a society with an advanced cultural and social development without government?

 

[georgephillip]

How could they abuse their power with their private fortunes absent government?

I don't see how they could "earn" their private fortunes without bribing government. If the first "western" fortunes came from agricultural surpluses in the fertile crescent, they didn't happen without help from the palace and temple.

 

[georgephillip]

Yeah, government creates rich people by allowing them to keep their money and preventing the mob from looting it.

Is this a definition of government you could support?

"A group of people that governs a community or unit. It sets and administers public policy and exercises executive, political and sovereign power through customs, institutions, and laws within a state.

"A government can be classified into many types--democracy, republic, monarchy, aristocracy, and dictatorship are just a few."

"Read more: Do you know this term?"

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, government creates rich people by allowing them to keep their money and preventing the mob from looting it.

Is this a definition of government you could support?

"A group of people that governs a community or unit. It sets and administers public policy and exercises executive, political and sovereign power through customs, institutions, and laws within a state.

"A government can be classified into many types--democracy, republic, monarchy, aristocracy, and dictatorship are just a few."

"Read more: Do you know this term?"

your definition contains the word it is defining.

Government is the monopoly on the use of force, period.

 

[georgephillip]

Government doesn't create rich people or corporations. That's idiotic.

Only morons believe the distribution of income is determined by an invisible hand's objective appraisal of each worker's marginal utility when it's actually the politically constructed laws and institutions that structure all economic activity in a given society.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How could they abuse their power with their private fortunes absent government?

I don't see how they could "earn" their private fortunes without bribing government. If the first "western" fortunes came from agricultural surpluses in the fertile crescent, they didn't happen without help from the palace and temple.

You might be right, to some degree. Jeff Bezos, for example, would be much poorer if not for Amazon's government contracts, but he'd still likely be very rich. You could argue he also got rich off the back of the Postal Service, I suppose, and there's something to that as well. However, in a free market, absent the Postal Service and government interference, services like FedEx and UPS and other delivery services would likely be cheaper as they would not be legally barred from being competitive, and as prices tend to go down the freer the market.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Unfettered capitalism is kids up chimneys. Government put a stop to that.

 

[bripat9643]

Government doesn't create rich people or corporations. That's idiotic.

Only morons believe the distribution of income is determined by an invisible hand's objective appraisal of each worker's marginal utility when it's actually the politically constructed laws and institutions that structure all economic activity in a given society.

Wrong. Politically constructed laws interfere with the distribution of income. That's all they do.

 

[georgephillip]

and many of those rich people and corporations have learned that manipulating regulations is very effective way of protecting their wealth. Which is why, every time you morons pass more "regulation", they smile and bend it their way, further entrenching their power and control. Yet you remain convinced that

I'm convinced the manipulation you mention takes place because of the existence of vast private fortunes and not because of government.

Oligarchs seize control of government in order to maintain their wealth and the power it brings in a capitalist society. The solution is to exterminate oligarchs and not government.

The idiocy of those who imagine the power of 21st century oligarchs will shrink proportionally to a reduction in governmental authority is truly Trumpian.