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

[danielpalos]

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.

Wrong of course if we had allowed all the banks to fail and the entire financial system to collapse we would have Anarchy and depression and not capitalism

The better thing would have been for the filthy ass government to never have put pressure on the banks with the CRA to give credit to people that never had the means or inclination to pay back the money.

Typical stupid Liberal idea. Sounds great on paper but never works out in real life.

Just like the capital gains preference for the one percent, to create JobsBooms?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1607 - 1919.

what about the period 1607-1919?????

 

[usmbguest5318]

1607 - 1919.

what about the period 1607-1919?????

Did you forget the question I asked back at post #10?

What are your thoughts regarding the structural economic environment and the outcomes it yielded as a result of the interaction of the levers of production in America from 1607 to 1919?​

 

[ScienceRocks]

Unrestrained Capitalism would end up with market places being utterly controlled by one or two mega corporations.

These corporations could charge as much as they damn well please and there wouldn't be much invention or workers right.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1607 - 1919.

what about the period 1607-1919?????

Did you forget the question I asked back at post #10?

What are your thoughts regarding the structural economic environment and the outcomes it yielded as a result of the interaction of the levers of production in America from 1607 to 1919?​

very very stupid, vague, and hugely broad question about 1000 different economic environments that has absolutely nothing remotely to do with this threat.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Unrestrained Capitalism would end up with market places being utterly controlled by one or two mega corporations.

These corporations could charge as much as they damn well please and there wouldn't be much invention or workers right.

actually capitalism features competition, in this case unrestrained competition, not a lack of competition as with one or two mega corporations.

 

[dblack]

Unrestrained Capitalism would end up with market places being utterly controlled by one or two mega corporations.

These corporations could charge as much as they damn well please and there wouldn't be much invention or workers right.

What restraints do you see as the bulwark against such an outcome?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Unrestrained Capitalism would end up with market places being utterly controlled by one or two mega corporations.

These corporations could charge as much as they damn well please and there wouldn't be much invention or workers right.

What restraints do you see as the bulwark against such an outcome?

They see more and more restraints on health care, for example, from Medicaid to Medicare to VA to Schip to Tricare, to IMC, to community clinics, to ACA and finally to single payer communism!! Magical govt is the only liberal agenda because they lack the IQ to understand capitalism!!

 

[bripat9643]

We pretty much had unchecked capitalism in the early 1900s. It nearly destroyed the country.

Hardly. the economy grew at an astounding rate in those days.

Oh yeah good times! Until the monopolies developed . Workers treated like garbage, police beating striking union workers, pollution like you couldn't believe , politicians bought n paid for, dangerous workplaces , price fixing , zero middle class .

The great irony is that unchecked capitalism actually destroys itself .

Leftwing propaganda. in the early 1900s had it better than people had ever had it up until that time.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So there would be capitalists?

 

[bripat9643]

Seriously, Tehon - capitalists allocate labor and resources in a free market. That job still needs to get done in a state-run economy. Do you really think government officials can do a better job that private investors?

It is not going to be a state run economy.

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.

"Startups?" - meaning corporations that earn a profit?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

How do they do that?

 

[bripat9643]

... 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.

Dictators are people. The question is "which people?" You don't want to go into details about who these people are. In the Soviet Union "people" sent you off to the Gulag, but it was a narrow subset of all the people.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

None of these sources are controlled by the government. However, under your system, the only source would be controlled by the government.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Oh yeah good times! Until the monopolies developed . Workers treated like garbage, police beating striking union workers, pollution like you couldn't believe , politicians bought n paid for, dangerous workplaces , price fixing , zero middle class .

The great irony is that unchecked capitalism actually destroys itself .

thats the communist version of what happened in reality it was fastest period of economic growth in American history! There were union and worker problems but mostly caused by far too much immigration. People always took the jobs because they were far better than what they had here or in Europe! Do you understand!!



The Robber Barons: Republicans Greatest Shame!

From: The Myth of The Robber Barrons by Forest McDonald


Edward Collins $33,000 per Atlantic crossing (page 7)
Cornelius Vanderbilt (robber barron) $15,000 per Atlantic crossing

Collins $600 NY to California
Vanderbilt (robber barron) 150 NY to California( page 12)


"James J Hill cut freight costs from 90 cents to 44 cents a pound" (page 34) and still made a profit while the heavily subsidized Union Pacific and Central Pacific always lost money

"Coopers charged 2.50 per barrel Rockefeller cut his to $.96" (Page 86)

"From 1865 to 1870, the price of kerosene dropped from 58 to 26 cents per gallon,
Rockefeller made profits during everyone of these years" (page 87)

"Before 1870, only the rich could afford whale oil and candles, The rest had to go to bed to save money. By 1870 with the drop in the price of Kerosene, the middle and working class people all over the nation could afford the one cent an hour that it cost to light their homes at night".( page 87)

"When Andrew Carnegie entered steel production in 1872, England dominated world production and the price of steel production was $56 per ton. By 1900 Carnegie Steel was manufacturing steel for $11.00 per ton and out stripping the entire production of England!" (page 126)

 

[bripat9643]

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?

The people with the money are the capitalists, numskull. What you're saying is that you would get rid of all the capitalists and replace then with other capitalists.

 

[bripat9643]

our companies to fight to the death in order to survive by raising our standard of living at the fastest possible rate!!! Lets do it!!!

One picture is worth more than all words written by the kook above:

Picture of the Cuyahoga River on fire from pollutants dumped in the river by a failure to regulate capitalism.

Rivers are government property, so this pollution is an indictment of government, not capitalism

 

[bripat9643]

Unrestrained Capitalism would end up with market places being utterly controlled by one or two mega corporations.

These corporations could charge as much as they damn well please and there wouldn't be much invention or workers right.

Why didn't that happen in 1914?

 

[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?

The people with the money are the capitalists, numskull. What you're saying is that you would get rid of all the capitalists and replace then with other capitalists.

No, I am saying get rid of the capitalists and replace them with socialists. Do you understand that a capitalist privately owns the means of production? That part of the means of production that the capitalist owns is labor power. What I am saying is remove the capitalist and his ability to privately own the means of production, including labor, and create a new system where the means of production is shared (Socialism), and the profits shared. This would mean everyone would have some money to throw around in the free market. Or do with as they wished!

This idea does not imply that the government controls the means of production. It is based on free association and free markets. It is based solidly on Marxist theory.

 

[dblack]

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?

The people with the money are the capitalists, numskull. What you're saying is that you would get rid of all the capitalists and replace then with other capitalists.

No, I am saying get rid of the capitalists and replace them with socialists. Do you understand that a capitalist privately owns the means of production? That part of the means of production that the capitalist owns is labor power. What I am saying is remove the capitalist and his ability to privately own the means of production, including labor, and create a new system where the means of production is shared (Socialism), and the profits shared. This would mean everyone would have some money to throw around in the free market. Or do with as they wished!

This idea does not imply that the government controls the means of production. It is based on free association and free markets. It is based solidly on Marxist theory.

It's based solidly on delusion. I don't know whether your rambling here is based solidly on Marxist theory or not, and I certainly don't care. You want government up everyone's ass. I don't.