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

[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.

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.

You want to get rid of the capitalists, yet you claim under your fantasy system the people who aren't in the government would start businesses. Wouldn't they own these businesses? Wouldn't that make them capitalists?

If you don't have private property, you don't have a market. You can't exchange goods and services if they don't belong to you. If they don't belong to you, then what is your motive for exchanging them?

If everything is "shared" then why would you exchange it? You are already part owner of it.

Socialism and the free market are mutually exclusive. You keep trying to ignore that fact.

 

[Tehon]

You want to get rid of the capitalists, yet you claim under your fantasy system the people who aren't in the government would start businesses. Wouldn't they own these businesses? Wouldn't that make them capitalists?

Why can't you even grasp the most basic concept behind capitalism and socialism?
One is the private ownership of the means of production, the other is the shared ownership of the means of production.

If you don't have private property, you don't have a market. You can't exchange goods and services if they don't belong to you. If they don't belong to you, then what is your motive for exchanging them?

Here again you let your ignorance shine.
If one takes raw goods and produces something of value out of them then the one who produced the value owns it and may transfer his ownership of it thru the market.
In capitalism, the one who produced the value gives the value to the capitalist for a wage that is less than the value created.
In socialism (Marxism) the one that produced the value retains it and has to give nothing away but can do with it as he/she pleases. Freedom!
In Marxist theory personal property is not abolished. Only the ability to control the means of production is abolished.

If everything is "shared" then why would you exchange it? You are already part owner of it.

Socialism and the free market are mutually exclusive. You keep trying to ignore that fact.

You have no clue about Marxist theory. Just admit it and move on.

 

[francoHFW]

Socialism everywhere but ignorant America (thanks GOP) is recognized as always democratic, fair capitalism with some necessary industry nationalized perhaps, with a good safety net. Unrestrained capitalism seem to always give us a corrupt GOP bubble and a big recession or world depression...

 

[Tehon]

fair capitalism

?????
Capitalism exploits the wage earner. How do you make that fair without undoing it? By imposing on society the cost of the difference? Does that make sense to you?

 

[francoHFW]

fair capitalism

?????
Capitalism exploits the wage earner. How do you make that fair without undoing it? By imposing on society the cost of the difference? Does that make sense to you?

Look at all the laws and reg's that make it fair. "Socialism, where industry is owned or REGULATED by the community"...

 

[francoHFW]

fair capitalism

?????
Capitalism exploits the wage earner. How do you make that fair without undoing it? By imposing on society the cost of the difference? Does that make sense to you?

Look at all the laws and reg's that make it fair. "Socialism, where industry is owned or REGULATED by the community"...

 

[francoHFW]

fair capitalism

?????
Capitalism exploits the wage earner. How do you make that fair without undoing it? By imposing on society the cost of the difference? Does that make sense to you?

Look at all the laws and reg's that make it fair. "Socialism, where industry is owned or REGULATED by the community"...

 

[Tehon]

fair capitalism

?????
Capitalism exploits the wage earner. How do you make that fair without undoing it? By imposing on society the cost of the difference? Does that make sense to you?

Look at all the laws and reg's that make it fair. "Socialism, where industry is owned or REGULATED by the community"...

The community? As in the federal government? If so we have vastly differing ideas about what is a community.

How do you account for laws that allowed capitalists to flee to low wage countries. Is that fair? Do you have any perception of who dominates government policy making? Or why it is so?

 

[bripat9643]

You want to get rid of the capitalists, yet you claim under your fantasy system the people who aren't in the government would start businesses. Wouldn't they own these businesses? Wouldn't that make them capitalists?

Why can't you even grasp the most basic concept behind capitalism and socialism?
One is the private ownership of the means of production, the other is the shared ownership of the means of production.

Shared ownership means government ownership. If it doesn't, then explain how it would work. What you're doing is applying labels to things without explaining what the mean in practice. They are little more than meaningless political slogans.

If you don't have private property, you don't have a market. You can't exchange goods and services if they don't belong to you. If they don't belong to you, then what is your motive for exchanging them?

Here again you let your ignorance shine.
If one takes raw goods and produces something of value out of them then the one who produced the value owns it and may transfer his ownership of it thru the market.
In capitalism, the one who produced the value gives the value to the capitalist for a wage that is less than the value created.
In socialism (Marxism) the one that produced the value retains it and has to give nothing away but can do with it as he/she pleases. Freedom!
In Marxist theory personal property is not abolished. Only the ability to control the means of production is abolished.

If everything is "shared" then why would you exchange it? You are already part owner of it.

Socialism and the free market are mutually exclusive. You keep trying to ignore that fact.

You have no clue about Marxist theory. Just admit it and move on.[/QUOTE]

Who is the "one" taking the goods and producing something of value? Under capitalism, the firm does it, and the firm is owned and controlled by share holders. Firms are private property and they own the products they produce and can therefor exchange them in the market.

How does this work under your system? What is the entity that produces a product for sale? You claim it's the worker, but that's obvious bullshit because it takes more than pure labor to create products. It takes plant, equipment and material. Who owns these? Not in any real sense. The government is the true owner. Under socialism, the community (government) makes all the decisions that an owner would make in a capitalist society. If the community (government) controls all productive enterprises, then who is it going to sell its products and services to?

The reason I'm discussing this with you is that I have a very good clue how Marxism works: it doesn't. It's all bullshit slogans that sound good until you start analyzing exactly what is being proposed (or not proposed).

You really don't have a clue how your system would work. You just make all the problems magically disappear with the wave of your Marxist propaganda wand.

I'm not fooled.

 

[bripat9643]

You want to get rid of the capitalists, yet you claim under your fantasy system the people who aren't in the government would start businesses. Wouldn't they own these businesses? Wouldn't that make them capitalists?

Why can't you even grasp the most basic concept behind capitalism and socialism?
One is the private ownership of the means of production, the other is the shared ownership of the means of production.

Shared ownership means government ownership. If it doesn't, then explain how it would work. What you're doing is applying labels to things without explaining what the mean in practice. They are little more than meaningless political slogans.

If you don't have private property, you don't have a market. You can't exchange goods and services if they don't belong to you. If they don't belong to you, then what is your motive for exchanging them?

Here again you let your ignorance shine.
If one takes raw goods and produces something of value out of them then the one who produced the value owns it and may transfer his ownership of it thru the market.
In capitalism, the one who produced the value gives the value to the capitalist for a wage that is less than the value created.
In socialism (Marxism) the one that produced the value retains it and has to give nothing away but can do with it as he/she pleases. Freedom!
In Marxist theory personal property is not abolished. Only the ability to control the means of production is abolished.

If everything is "shared" then why would you exchange it? You are already part owner of it.

Socialism and the free market are mutually exclusive. You keep trying to ignore that fact.

You have no clue about Marxist theory. Just admit it and move on.

Who is the "one" taking the goods and producing something of value? Under capitalism, the firm does it, and the firm is owned and controlled by share holders. Firms are private property and they own the products they produce and can therefor exchange them in the market.

How does this work under your system? What is the entity that produces a product for sale? You claim it's the worker, but that's obvious bullshit because it takes more than pure labor to create products. It takes plant, equipment and material. Who owns these? Not in any real sense. The government is the true owner. Under socialism, the community (government) makes all the decisions that an owner would make in a capitalist society. If the community (government) controls all productive enterprises, then who is it going to sell its products and services to?

The reason I'm discussing this with you is that I have a very good clue how Marxism works: it doesn't. It's all bullshit slogans that sound good until you start analyzing exactly what is being proposed (or not proposed).

You really don't have a clue how your system would work. You just make all the problems magically disappear with the wave of your Marxist propaganda wand.

I'm not fooled.

 

[Tehon]

Shared ownership means government ownership.

No it does not mean that.

If it doesn't, then explain how it would work.

I have already explained it in this thread multiple times. Time to move on.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Unrestrained capitalism enables slavery.

/---- So unrestrained Capitalism causes present day slavery in the Sudan?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Unrestrained capitalism enables slavery.

/---- So unrestrained Capitalism causes present day slavery in the Sudan?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Unrestrained capitalism enables slavery.

/---- So unrestrained Capitalism causes present day slavery in the Sudan?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Unrestrained capitalism enables slavery.

/---- So unrestrained Capitalism causes present day slavery in the Sudan?

 

[Mac1958]

It looks to me like those (like the OP) who refuse to acknowledge that capitalism requires careful and efficient regulation are leaving the intellectual door open to people who want to push Marxist theory. That's what happens when we allow ourselves to fall into binary thinking patterns.

The fact that the anti-regulation zealots can look at the Meltdown of a few years ago and still push their ideology speaks to the overwhelming power of ideology.

We would be far better off having an honest discussion about how to most effectively and efficiently regulate capitalism than debating over some dreamy utopian theory that flies in the face of human nature, one that will simply never exist.

But those who simplistically knee-jerk against regulation because they are intellectual slaves to their ideology just won't have any of that.

So here we are, talking about Marx.


.

 

[bripat9643]

Shared ownership means government ownership.

No it does not mean that.

If it doesn't, then explain how it would work.

I have already explained it in this thread multiple times. Time to move on.

You haven't explained jack shit, dumbass. You've done nothing more than spout political slogans.

When you use the term "shared ownership," it means government ownership. The only other way it can work is called "corporate ownership." You have failed to explain any conceivable third way. You simply grunt and insist it isn't one of those two things.

 

[bripat9643]

Shared ownership means government ownership.

No it does not mean that.

If it doesn't, then explain how it would work.

I have already explained it in this thread multiple times. Time to move on.

You haven't explained jack shit, dumbass. You've done nothing more than spout political slogans.

When you use the term "shared ownership," it means government ownership. The only other way it can work is called "corporate ownership." You have

It looks to me like those (like the OP) who refuse to acknowledge that capitalism requires careful and efficient regulation are leaving the intellectual door open to people who want to push Marxist theory. That's what happens when we allow ourselves to fall into binary thinking patterns.

The fact that the anti-regulation zealots can look at the Meltdown of a few years ago and still push their ideology speaks to the overwhelming power of ideology.

We would be far better off having an honest discussion about how to most effectively and efficiently regulate capitalism than debating over some dreamy utopian theory that flies in the face of human nature, one that will simply never exist.

But those who simplistically knee-jerk against regulation because they are intellectual slaves to their ideology just won't have any of that.

So here we are, talking about Marx.


.

The meltdown wasn't caused by a lack of regulation. The government has tens of thousands of pages of regulations to control the financial system. That control is precisely what caused the meltdown. Government forced banks to make unwise mortgage decisions. government ruled standard lending practices to be illegal to promote some political goal.

The claim that lack of regulation caused the meltdown is pure propaganda. It has no conceivable basis in fact.

 

[Tehon]

So here we are, talking about Marx.

And I enjoy it. It's a fun topic.

 

[Mac1958]

The meltdown wasn't caused by a lack of regulation.

Of course it was.

• There was no regulation of how CMO's were constructed
• There was no regulation of how CDO's were constructed
• There was no regulation of how CMO's and CDO's were sold
  
• There was no regulation of derivatives (Greenspan refused)
  
• There was no regulation of how the ratings agencies gave AAA ratings to absolute shit securities
• There was no regulation to stop the banks from betting AGAINST the very derivatives they were SELLING
  
• There were no reserve requirements for AIG to write $500 BILLION in credit default swaps, which transferred risk and were a primary driver of the speculation

There are books and documentaries on the Meltdown. They're not hard to find.
.

 

[bripat9643]

The meltdown wasn't caused by a lack of regulation.

Of course it was.

• There was no regulation of how CMO's were constructed
• There was no regulation of how CDO's were constructed
• There was no regulation of how CMO's and CDO's were sold
  
• There was no regulation of derivatives (Greenspan refused)
  
• There was no regulation of how the ratings agencies gave AAA ratings to absolute shit securities
• There were no reserve requirements for AIG to write $500 BILLION in credit default swaps, which transferred risk drove the speculation

There are books and documentaries on the Meltdown. They're not hard to find.
.

One can always point after the fact by not allowing this or that some problem could have been prevented. Of course, the regulations always come after the fact. If it wasn't for bad mortgages, none of the regulations you want would be necessary. The bottom line is that bad mortgages caused the problem, and government regulations were the cause of those mortgages.

 

[Mac1958]

The meltdown wasn't caused by a lack of regulation.

Of course it was.

• There was no regulation of how CMO's were constructed
• There was no regulation of how CDO's were constructed
• There was no regulation of how CMO's and CDO's were sold
  
• There was no regulation of derivatives (Greenspan refused)
  
• There was no regulation of how the ratings agencies gave AAA ratings to absolute shit securities
• There were no reserve requirements for AIG to write $500 BILLION in credit default swaps, which transferred risk drove the speculation

There are books and documentaries on the Meltdown. They're not hard to find.
.

One can always point after the fact by not allowing this or that some problem could have been prevented. Of course, the regulations always come after the fact. If it wasn't for bad mortgages, none of the regulations you want would be necessary. The bottom line is that bad mortgages caused the problem, and government regulations were the cause of those mortgages.

I don't think you understand what happened.
.

 

[Tehon]

Shared ownership means government ownership.

No it does not mean that.

If it doesn't, then explain how it would work.

I have already explained it in this thread multiple times. Time to move on.

You haven't explained jack shit, dumbass. You've done nothing more than spout political slogans.

When you use the term "shared ownership," it means government ownership. The only other way it can work is called "corporate ownership." You have failed to explain any conceivable third way. You simply grunt and insist it isn't one of those two things.

I don't think you have the intellect to understand anything besides slogans.

Do you understand what the means of production are? Land, labor and capital. Where, in Marxist theory, capital is money used only to buy something with the express intent to resell it at a profit.