Unrestrained Capitalism Would Cause........

[dblack]

Huh? What's not going to be? How do you see capital getting distributed under socialism?

The same as it is done now.

Capitalists do it now. Who would do it in your system?

Start ups could go to the bank. Existing cooperatives could go to the bank or the members could invest in themselves. The money is still there, it's just not all going to the top of a hierarchy.

So it sounds like the state banks would take over the role of today's capitalists. What criteria should bank officials use when deciding where to allocate labor and resources? I've really never understood how a command economy could work. What is the current theory?

It is not a goddamned command economy. The state doesn't take on any role more than a private bank does now.

You said the state banks would be taking on the role of today's private investors. Am I missing something?

 

[Tehon]

The same as it is done now.

Capitalists do it now. Who would do it in your system?

Start ups could go to the bank. Existing cooperatives could go to the bank or the members could invest in themselves. The money is still there, it's just not all going to the top of a hierarchy.

So it sounds like the state banks would take over the role of today's capitalists. What criteria should bank officials use when deciding where to allocate labor and resources? I've really never understood how a command economy could work. What is the current theory?

It is not a goddamned command economy. The state doesn't take on any role more than a private bank does now.

You said the state banks would be taking on the role of today's private investors. Am I missing something?

You're missing the part where you explain how private investors set quotas and fix prices in a free market system as would be the equal to a command economy.

 

[dblack]

Capitalists do it now. Who would do it in your system?

Start ups could go to the bank. Existing cooperatives could go to the bank or the members could invest in themselves. The money is still there, it's just not all going to the top of a hierarchy.

So it sounds like the state banks would take over the role of today's capitalists. What criteria should bank officials use when deciding where to allocate labor and resources? I've really never understood how a command economy could work. What is the current theory?

It is not a goddamned command economy. The state doesn't take on any role more than a private bank does now.

You said the state banks would be taking on the role of today's private investors. Am I missing something?

You're missing the part where you explain how private investors set quotas and fix prices in a free market system as would be the equal to a command economy.

I'm not interested in arguing the meaning of 'command economy'. I'm just curious how you see government effectively replacing the job of the capitalists.

 

[Tehon]

Start ups could go to the bank. Existing cooperatives could go to the bank or the members could invest in themselves. The money is still there, it's just not all going to the top of a hierarchy.

So it sounds like the state banks would take over the role of today's capitalists. What criteria should bank officials use when deciding where to allocate labor and resources? I've really never understood how a command economy could work. What is the current theory?

It is not a goddamned command economy. The state doesn't take on any role more than a private bank does now.

You said the state banks would be taking on the role of today's private investors. Am I missing something?

You're missing the part where you explain how private investors set quotas and fix prices in a free market system as would be the equal to a command economy.

I'm not interested in arguing the meaning of 'command economy'. I'm just curious how you see government effectively replacing the job of the capitalists.

How does the capitalist acquire the means to produce? Savings, investors (other capitalists) and loans from lending institutions. Am I missing something? With the amount of capital required being a factor in the decision of which method or methods to use.

 

[dblack]

So it sounds like the state banks would take over the role of today's capitalists. What criteria should bank officials use when deciding where to allocate labor and resources? I've really never understood how a command economy could work. What is the current theory?

It is not a goddamned command economy. The state doesn't take on any role more than a private bank does now.

You said the state banks would be taking on the role of today's private investors. Am I missing something?

You're missing the part where you explain how private investors set quotas and fix prices in a free market system as would be the equal to a command economy.

I'm not interested in arguing the meaning of 'command economy'. I'm just curious how you see government effectively replacing the job of the capitalists.

How does the capitalist acquire the means to produce? Savings, investors (other capitalists) and loans from lending institutions. Am I missing something? With the amount of capital required being a factor in the decision of which method or methods to use.

It seems like you're missing quite a lot. When it comes to the way economic power is distributed in free society, banks are only a small part of the picture. Most of it depends on the decisions of private investors. In a free market, everyone with money to spend participates in the process of deciding what we do with our wealth.

Long ago I saw a presentation by someone who'd been an economic planner from the former Soviet Union. He claimed that no one understands how capitalism works better than those who've tried to do the job of capitalists in a socialist economy. It's virtually impossible to do this from any kind of central authority (eg. a state bank). Such officials don't have the knowledge, nor the incentive, to accurately predict what kinds of projects will be most appreciated by society.

 

[danielpalos]

The same as it is done now.

Capitalists do it now. Who would do it in your system?

Start ups could go to the bank. Existing cooperatives could go to the bank or the members could invest in themselves. The money is still there, it's just not all going to the top of a hierarchy.

So it sounds like the state banks would take over the role of today's capitalists. What criteria should bank officials use when deciding where to allocate labor and resources? I've really never understood how a command economy could work. What is the current theory?

It is not a goddamned command economy. The state doesn't take on any role more than a private bank does now.

You said the state banks would be taking on the role of today's private investors. Am I missing something?

for funding purposes. State capitalism can simply, concentrate wealth to solve problems more effectively.

 

[Tehon]

When it comes to the way economic power is distributed in free society, banks are only a small part of the picture.

Maybe. What is the relevance of the point anyway? I listed two other sources.

In a free market, everyone with money to spend participates in the process of deciding what we do with our wealth.

Exactly. And with the removal of the capitalists there will be more money spread around to spend. Or save. Or pool into the production of new commodities based on the idea of shared means of production.

Do you still not understand?

 

[dblack]

... with the removal of the capitalists there will be more money spread around to spend. Or save. Or pool into the production of new commodities based on the idea of shared means of production.

Save, spend, produce more - in your system-who makes the call? Because that's what capitalists do. You can take all their money and give it to state banks, but that just makes the state banks the new 'capitalists'. Your state banks will be deciding what society does with its wealth, rather than investors.

 

[Tehon]

... with the removal of the capitalists there will be more money spread around to spend. Or save. Or pool into the production of new commodities based on the idea of shared means of production.

Save, spend, produce more - in your system-who makes the call? Because that's what capitalists do. You can take all their money and give it to state banks, but that just makes the state banks the new 'capitalists'. Your state banks will be deciding what society does with its wealth, rather than investors.

People make the decisions. If I have an idea, I seek others willing to collaborate in the production of my Idea and we get it done.

 

[dblack]

... with the removal of the capitalists there will be more money spread around to spend. Or save. Or pool into the production of new commodities based on the idea of shared means of production.

Save, spend, produce more - in your system-who makes the call? Because that's what capitalists do. You can take all their money and give it to state banks, but that just makes the state banks the new 'capitalists'. Your state banks will be deciding what society does with its wealth, rather than investors.

People make the decisions. If I have an idea, I seek others willing to collaborate in the production of my Idea and we get it done.

That's an awesome idea. But you'll need operating capital. I'm assuming your state bank supplies that, right? How do the state bankers decide which projects to fund?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Do you still not understand?

we understand that communism killed 120 million. Whats different about it now??

 

[Tehon]

... with the removal of the capitalists there will be more money spread around to spend. Or save. Or pool into the production of new commodities based on the idea of shared means of production.

Save, spend, produce more - in your system-who makes the call? Because that's what capitalists do. You can take all their money and give it to state banks, but that just makes the state banks the new 'capitalists'. Your state banks will be deciding what society does with its wealth, rather than investors.

People make the decisions. If I have an idea, I seek others willing to collaborate in the production of my Idea and we get it done.

That's an awesome idea. But you'll need operating capital. I'm assuming your state bank supplies that, right? How do the state bankers decide which projects to fund?

Some type of risk assessment I suppose.

How do private banks decide what projects to fund?

 

[dblack]

... with the removal of the capitalists there will be more money spread around to spend. Or save. Or pool into the production of new commodities based on the idea of shared means of production.

Save, spend, produce more - in your system-who makes the call? Because that's what capitalists do. You can take all their money and give it to state banks, but that just makes the state banks the new 'capitalists'. Your state banks will be deciding what society does with its wealth, rather than investors.

People make the decisions. If I have an idea, I seek others willing to collaborate in the production of my Idea and we get it done.

That's an awesome idea. But you'll need operating capital. I'm assuming your state bank supplies that, right? How do the state bankers decide which projects to fund?

Some type of risk assessment I suppose.

How do private banks decide what projects to fund?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How do private banks decide what projects to fund?

very carefully because they go bankrupt if they are wrong!! Not so under communism.

 

[Tehon]

very carefully because they go bankrupt if they are wrong!!

Yes of course, this was the point I was making. Banks choose which projects to fund now in a capitalist system. Why should it be different in a socialist system?

Not so under communism.

The banks crashed the system in '08 and they got bailed out. Have you already forgotten?

 

[dblack]

very carefully because they go bankrupt if they are wrong!!

Yes of course, this was the point I was making. Banks choose which projects to fund now in a capitalist system. Why should it be different in a socialist system?

You don't seem to have an accurate picture of how things work, but you are at least acknowledging my point: currently these decisions are made by capitalists, individuals and business investing their money in the projects they think will be valuable to society. If they're right, society will give them even more money to work with in the form of profits. If they're wrong, if they squander their money on something stupid, they'll lose their wealth and someone else will have a chance to do the job better.

The system you're advocating puts wealth under the control of government. Your state bankers won't be investing their own money, they won't be working for a company demanding that they create profits. Their only accountability will be to those who appointed them ( or elected them, not sure what you had in mind). They'll be operating with a completely different set of incentives. They'll be under pressure to approve, or deny, loans based on political concerns.

As an example, lets say we have a pharmaceutical company looking for a loan to develop a new "morning after" birth control pill. Do you think a banker appointed by right-wing conservative will be more likely to approve that loan, or less?

 

[Tehon]

As an example, lets say we have a pharmaceutical company looking for a loan to develop a new "morning after" birth control pill. Do you think a banker appointed by right-wing conservative will be more likely to approve that loan, or less?

I'm not under the illusion that the conservative in charge of processing the loan request in a private bank wouldn't be inclined to deny the loan just the same.

 

[dblack]

As an example, lets say we have a pharmaceutical company looking for a loan to develop a new "morning after" birth control pill. Do you think a banker appointed by right-wing conservative will be more likely to approve that loan, or less?

I'm not under the illusion that the conservative in charge of processing the loan request in a private bank wouldn't be inclined to deny the loan just the same.

It's possible. But, capitalists never steer far away from profits as the bottom line. If one bank turns down an opportunity for profit as a statement of principle, others will happily take their place.

 

[Flash]

This unrestrained government has screwed us all pretty much with increased poverty, decreased family income, increased welfare, tremendous debt, greater income disparity, high taxation and dismal economic growth.

It is time to let capitalism bring back the wealth of this country.

The old adage that "the rich gets richer and the poor get poorer" is because of big government.

In a more capitalistic economy then the richer will get richer and the poorer will also get richer. That is what we saw decades ago after WWII when the cost of government was half of what it is now and the government interfered much less in our lives.

Socialism sucks.

 

[dblack]

In a more capitalistic economy then the richer will get richer and the poorer will also get richer.

Some of them will. Some of them will fail, and lose their wealth. For example, with 'unrestrained capitalism', the banks behind the subprime mortgage clusterfuck would all be out of business.