Unfettered Capitalism

[bripat9643]

Whatever he called it, it would still be a failure where everyone starved and wallowed in poverty.

How many died from capitalism since 1945?

Answer: none.

Meanwhile, communism has killed 120 million in the last century.

 

[bripat9643]

My God government schools are apparently as bad in New Zealand as they are here. Sorry, guy. Try reading my post again. Read slower and try to sound it out if you have to. Or maybe you're right and you're a moron. Companies have to compete with other companies for your business. Government eliminates its competition. And you think people work harder when they aren't accountable. You're not a functioning adult

And in unfettered capitalism you have a similar thing except monopolies are eliminating competition...Why do you think the Sherman Act came into being.

Name sustained monopolies where the competition was not eliminated by government. Go ...

Standard Oil if they had their way. But that is the point. The government stopped it from happening. Microsoft kinda, too...although that was an altogether different beast.

Irrelevant. Again, Standard Oil was nothing compared to oil today. Microsoft wasn't sustainable. So ...

... Let's try this again. Name sustained monopolies where the competition was not eliminated by government. Go ...

Standard Oil. You can play semantics if you like, but you don't get to change what Rockefeller was trying to do. Just because you compare it to today's conglomerates doesn't mean you get to change the rules. Without government interference Standard was going to be a leviathan that nobody could have stopped. Thank-you Sherman Act.

What was he trying to do? He lowered the price of Kerosene every year Standard Oil was in business. Standard Oil always had competitors.

 

[bripat9643]

They could raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour to generate around five times more in tax revenue than we do now with the current minimum wage.

When YOU start your own business, YOU should definitely do that.

Sure, no problem. I am not on the right wing and only know how to lose money with a Commerce Clause and a Central bank.

You are happy with the status quo of people being under-educated; I am not.

What are you talking about?

There is a glut of uneducated people who are the children of uneducated people.
These children wind up making minimum wage.
What mistake did the parents make to produce a next generation of uneducated children?

Means nothing. Why not come up with some economic arguments.

The closer a country gets to it, the faster its economy grows. That's the bottom line.

 

[bripat9643]

Socialists aren't rational, you are greedy

Socialists want to bring democracy to the workplace.
Does that scare you?

It sure as hell does. Most people I work with are not competent to run a corporation. They would all vote themselves larger paychecks and less work, and then wonder why the company went bankrupt.

 

[Dr Grump]

Whatever he called it, it would still be a failure where everyone starved and wallowed in poverty.

How many died from capitalism since 1945?

Answer: none.

Meanwhile, communism has killed 120 million in the last century.

BS

 

[danielpalos]

They could raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour to generate around five times more in tax revenue than we do now with the current minimum wage.

When YOU start your own business, YOU should definitely do that.

Sure, no problem. I am not on the right wing and only know how to lose money with a Commerce Clause and a Central bank.

You are happy with the status quo of people being under-educated; I am not.

What are you talking about?

There is a glut of uneducated people who are the children of uneducated people.
These children wind up making minimum wage.
What mistake did the parents make to produce a next generation of uneducated children?

Means nothing. Why not come up with some economic arguments.

The closer a country gets to it, the faster its economy grows. That's the bottom line.

Yet, WWII gets the credit for full employment; when no one trusted Capitalism to do the right thing.

 

[georgephillip]

The only place that has ever happened is on a Kibbutz.

And there aren't multiple definitions. Social is central economic planning.

Is US capitalism centrally planned by Wall Street banks?

I provided one of many examples where worker self-directed enterprises have already happened aside from the Zionist colonization of Palestine:

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia

"The Mondragon Corporation is a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. It was founded in the town of Mondragon in 1956 by graduates of a local technical college.

"Its first product was paraffin heaters. It is the tenth-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country."

Socialism is a theory of social organization which argues the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned and regulated by the community as a whole.

Government would have a role to play in that system, but it would be far less critical than the Federal Reserve's current contribution to the stock market.

 

[dblack]

Is US capitalism centrally planned by Wall Street banks?

No.

 

[georgephillip]

Alas, government is so wonderful, they only care about us. If we would only let them run every aspect of our life we would be sooo much better off, all of us.

If only the sheep would recognize the obvious: every government for the last four thousand years has been controlled by its richest citizens:

Democracy and Debt | Michael Hudson

"Book V of Aristotle’s Politics describes the eternal transition of oligarchies making themselves into hereditary aristocracies – which end up being overthrown by tyrants or develop internal rivalries as some families decide to 'take the multitude into their camp' and usher in democracy, within which an oligarchy emerges once again, followed by aristocracy, democracy, and so on throughout history.

"Debt has been the main dynamic driving these shifts – always with new twists and turns.

"It polarizes wealth to create a creditor class, whose oligarchic rule is ended as new leaders ('tyrants' to Aristotle) win popular support by cancelling the debts and redistributing property or taking its usufruct for the state."

Can you wrap your "mind" around the concept of a government run by fallible people who serve the interests of a majority of its citizens instead of the richest ten percent of its population?

 

[kaz]

Socialist programs are socialist programs. You're just playing games

Call them what you will. Who defines what a socialist program is anyway.
And my main plank is, a socialist program - or whatever you want to call it - in a functioning democracy doesn't make that democracy a socialist country. Most conservatives see any type of government program as socialism and therefore tries to vicariously tie that to being that the whole government, or system, is socialist. It's just stupid.

They make it a partial socialist country. They are not directly controlling the means of production, but by taking their profits and social engineering by redistributing money they are partially controlling the economy. That part is not capitalism

 

[georgephillip]

Standard oil lowered the price of Kerosene, its principle product, every year

For how many years?

 

[kaz]

My God government schools are apparently as bad in New Zealand as they are here. Sorry, guy. Try reading my post again. Read slower and try to sound it out if you have to. Or maybe you're right and you're a moron. Companies have to compete with other companies for your business. Government eliminates its competition. And you think people work harder when they aren't accountable. You're not a functioning adult

And in unfettered capitalism you have a similar thing except monopolies are eliminating competition...Why do you think the Sherman Act came into being.

Name sustained monopolies where the competition was not eliminated by government. Go ...

Standard Oil if they had their way. But that is the point. The government stopped it from happening. Microsoft kinda, too...although that was an altogether different beast.

Irrelevant. Again, Standard Oil was nothing compared to oil today. Microsoft wasn't sustainable. So ...

... Let's try this again. Name sustained monopolies where the competition was not eliminated by government. Go ...

Standard Oil. You can play semantics if you like, but you don't get to change what Rockefeller was trying to do. Just because you compare it to today's conglomerates doesn't mean you get to change the rules. Without government interference Standard was going to be a leviathan that nobody could have stopped. Thank-you Sherman Act.

Sssssaawwwwiiiiiissssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

I said Standard Oil was not a ... SUSTAINABLE ... monopoly. I did not say it wasn't effectively one at the time.

I also asked you to name monopolies that lasted without government shutting down their competition and you're still hiding

 

[georgephillip]

Microsoft's monopoly was never government protected and wasn't sustainable either.

Microsoft, like all corporations, would not exist without government charter and hard-pressed to profit without government patents:

Microsoft Patents | Intellectual Property

"While traditionally Microsoft has been among the top 10 companies in patents issued each year, we focus on the quality, rather than the quantity, of patents in our portfolio.

"This reflects an effort to focus on innovation worth patenting, and to ensure Microsoft’s portfolio is aligned closely to the future of the company and the industry."

 

[kaz]

Socialists aren't rational, you are greedy

Socialists want to bring democracy to the workplace.
Does that scare you?

It sure as hell does. Most people I work with are not competent to run a corporation. They would all vote themselves larger paychecks and less work, and then wonder why the company went bankrupt.

Sounds like they're the ones who go into politics

 

[kaz]

My God government schools are apparently as bad in New Zealand as they are here. Sorry, guy. Try reading my post again. Read slower and try to sound it out if you have to. Or maybe you're right and you're a moron. Companies have to compete with other companies for your business. Government eliminates its competition. And you think people work harder when they aren't accountable. You're not a functioning adult

And in unfettered capitalism you have a similar thing except monopolies are eliminating competition...Why do you think the Sherman Act came into being.

Name sustained monopolies where the competition was not eliminated by government. Go ...

Standard Oil if they had their way. But that is the point. The government stopped it from happening. Microsoft kinda, too...although that was an altogether different beast.

Irrelevant. Again, Standard Oil was nothing compared to oil today. Microsoft wasn't sustainable. So ...

... Let's try this again. Name sustained monopolies where the competition was not eliminated by government. Go ...

Standard Oil. You can play semantics if you like, but you don't get to change what Rockefeller was trying to do. Just because you compare it to today's conglomerates doesn't mean you get to change the rules. Without government interference Standard was going to be a leviathan that nobody could have stopped. Thank-you Sherman Act.

What was he trying to do? He lowered the price of Kerosene every year Standard Oil was in business. Standard Oil always had competitors.

Exactly. Standard Oil had a massive market share, but they never actually eliminated competition. Only government can do that. And that competition always finds a way to build a better mouse trap and take out the dominant competitor

 

[georgephillip]

Truth is always "out of style" with socialists. The reality is, whenever you look at their agenda, what you see is government control of the economy.

How many times does capitalism have to fail before you hold it to the same standards as socialism?

Criticism of capitalism - Wikipedia

"Socialists argue that the accumulation of capital generates waste through externalities that require costly corrective regulatory measures.

"They also point out that this process generates wasteful industries and practices that exist only to generate sufficient demand for products to be sold at a profit (such as high-pressure advertisement), thereby creating rather than satisfying economic demand.[4"

 

[georgephillip]

No paid vacation in the US?? Really?

Obviously, that is wrong, although. I don't believe many Americans qualify for 8 weeks a year of paid vacation.

 

[kaz]

The only place that has ever happened is on a Kibbutz.

And there aren't multiple definitions. Social is central economic planning.

Is US capitalism centrally planned by Wall Street banks?

I provided one of many examples where worker self-directed enterprises have already happened aside from the Zionist colonization of Palestine:

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia

"The Mondragon Corporation is a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. It was founded in the town of Mondragon in 1956 by graduates of a local technical college.

"Its first product was paraffin heaters. It is the tenth-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country."

Socialism is a theory of social organization which argues the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned and regulated by the community as a whole.

Government would have a role to play in that system, but it would be far less critical than the Federal Reserve's current contribution to the stock market.

So worker controlled companies could be started anywhere in the world and since you claim they are superior they would win in the market place. Capitalism is just economic freedom. You're free to structure a company however the hell you want. But the best and first example you come up with is paraffin heaters in Spain, LOL.

Your honor, I rest my case

 

[kaz]

Alas, government is so wonderful, they only care about us. If we would only let them run every aspect of our life we would be sooo much better off, all of us.

If only the sheep would recognize the obvious: every government for the last four thousand years has been controlled by its richest citizens:

Democracy and Debt | Michael Hudson

"Book V of Aristotle’s Politics describes the eternal transition of oligarchies making themselves into hereditary aristocracies – which end up being overthrown by tyrants or develop internal rivalries as some families decide to 'take the multitude into their camp' and usher in democracy, within which an oligarchy emerges once again, followed by aristocracy, democracy, and so on throughout history.

"Debt has been the main dynamic driving these shifts – always with new twists and turns.

"It polarizes wealth to create a creditor class, whose oligarchic rule is ended as new leaders ('tyrants' to Aristotle) win popular support by cancelling the debts and redistributing property or taking its usufruct for the state."

Can you wrap your "mind" around the concept of a government run by fallible people who serve the interests of a majority of its citizens instead of the richest ten percent of its population?

Now you're lying again. So government is controlled by its richest citizens, and you want all powerful government. Yeah, right.

If you believed that, you'd be a libertarian like me and want small government so it can do less harm.

Then there's that you believe self organizing teams are more efficient, but you want government which would control businesses instead of capitalism where you would be able to operate as you wanted.

You're just a boy who read the Communist Manifesto and didn't reality check it

 

[kaz]

Microsoft's monopoly was never government protected and wasn't sustainable either.

Microsoft, like all corporations, would not exist without government charter and hard-pressed to profit without government patents:

Microsoft Patents | Intellectual Property

"While traditionally Microsoft has been among the top 10 companies in patents issued each year, we focus on the quality, rather than the quantity, of patents in our portfolio.

"This reflects an effort to focus on innovation worth patenting, and to ensure Microsoft’s portfolio is aligned closely to the future of the company and the industry."

And?