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

[Lucy Hamilton]

Hmm, whenmis unrestrained anything a good idea?

When you have unrestrained capitalism that's a very good idea because you don't want to restrain capitalists from fighting to please their customers and employees

If you have unrestrained Capitalism then what's to stop Big Corporations from just cannibalising smaller businesses, there would be no way smaller or even medium sized businesses would be able to compete.

"you don't want to restrain capitalists from fighting to please their customers and employees"

The main focus for them to please are their shareholders.

I support Capitalism, I wouldn't support unrestrained Capitalism.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Unrestrained capitalism enables slavery.

Worse than stupid but 100% liberal under capitalism workers are free to quit and work for whoever pays the most anywhere in the world even a monkey would know that just not a treasonous liberal with no pride and no brains

Your idea of unrestrained Capitalism would lead to anarchy, it would be a dog eat dog free for all.

You need some rules and regulations, to dump rules and regulations would be reckless and ultimately lead to complete disaster.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Hmm, whenmis unrestrained anything a good idea?

When you have unrestrained capitalism that's a very good idea because you don't want to restrain capitalists from fighting to please their customers and employees

If you have unrestrained Capitalism then what's to stop Big Corporations from just cannibalising smaller businesses, there would be no way smaller or even medium sized businesses would be able to compete.

"you don't want to restrain capitalists from fighting to please their customers and employees"

The main focus for them to please are their shareholders.

I support Capitalism, I wouldn't support unrestrained Capitalism.

You wouldn't support unrestrained capitalism because you don't want corporations to fight with each other to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate?

 

[my2¢]

When I think of unrestrained capitalism my thought wanders back to the age of the Robber Barons in the era after the Civil War and ending with Teddy Roosevelt's progressive reforms which broke up monopolies and offered business and labor a Square Deal.

I believe in a balance between business, labor, consumers and environmentalist and when any one of those becomes too powerful or too weak, the public suffers.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Hmm, whenmis unrestrained anything a good idea?

When you have unrestrained capitalism that's a very good idea because you don't want to restrain capitalists from fighting to please their customers and employees

If you have unrestrained Capitalism then what's to stop Big Corporations from just cannibalising smaller businesses, there would be no way smaller or even medium sized businesses would be able to compete.

"you don't want to restrain capitalists from fighting to please their customers and employees"

The main focus for them to please are their shareholders.

I support Capitalism, I wouldn't support unrestrained Capitalism.

You wouldn't support unrestrained capitalism because you don't want corporations to fight with each other to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate?

"You wouldn't support unrestrained capitalism because you don't want corporations to fight with each other to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate?"

I don't want unrestrained Capitalism because the opposite would happen, the standard of living would fall at the fastest possible rate.

The way it already is tens of millions of people have lost their jobs because of outsourcing and offshoring their jobs to India and China because it's cheaper for big corporations to employ Indians and Chinese to produce the products in place of keeping those jobs at home where they have to pay employees higher wages.

Unrestrained Capitalism would further lower wages and as a result there would be even more dramatic job losses, an increased drop in living standards and therefore widespread misery across the Western world.

Unrestrained Capitalism would result in a slave wages type of market, the only people who would benefit would be the Unrestrained Capitalists and their shareholders.

 

[sartre play]

Relate this topic to what's happening today, not happy about GOP starting to cut the stricter Wall Street regulations that went in effect after the Wall Street financial crisis.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Relate this topic to what's happening today, not happy about GOP starting to cut the stricter Wall Street regulations that went in effect after the Wall Street financial crisis.

I don't think this has anything to do with political persuasion, in this thread we have both Left and Right being against unrestrained Capitalism.

 

[Iceweasel]

There's no such thing as unrestrained capitalism. That would be anarchy, a Mad Max movie. Free market capitalism needs rules and regulations so we can all agree on what a dollar is and some tyrant doesn't use government to stomp competitors out. There's too much cronyism in our system now, corporations like Google and Microsoft are very much in bed with government and have more of a monopoly that the land barons did in the 1800s.

Unrestrained capitalism is anarchy?? Anarchy is not capitalism 1+1 = 2 capitalism is when you shop with your own money for the best price and quality and when you compete for customers against other suppliers on the basis of price and quality.

Capitalism is an economic system with the private ownership of goods. Unrestrained is no system. That's anarchy.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The purpose of capitalism is to allow the interaction of supply and demand to determine the allocation of resources in an economy. The behaviors Majewski noted are among the observed outcomes of having had few no limitations on the economic environment, the laissez faire "playing field," in which the owners/users of the levers of production create or pursue economic profits/gains and opportunity.

Knowing that is important, but one's views after obtaining an in-depth knowledge of what can and cannot happen under capitalism and about those outcomes' happening is what makes for political positions.

Build a good product..............people buy it........make money.........charge too much and another company puts you under...........simple to understand and is Capitalism................screw over your workers until they want to Tar and Feather you is just a simple explanation on how rules are eventually set by countries.......

Not all rules are bad.......Not all rules are good..........

My position of a Caveman still stands......Barter REAL GOODS in Exchange for REAL goods and services is a great example of Capitalism. Currency was to set a real value to products and services to exchange for real products and services.

The 1920's comparisons showed massive growth............but underscore the massive fraud of market manipulation from individuals who BET VAST amounts of capital without the assets to back it up should it fail..........They manipulated the products to insanity..........and brought the whole dang country and world down with the Insanity.............has nothing to do with the underlying true purpose of Capitalism..........the other point is what happens when companies screw over people long enough..........they get mad and burn the house down.........

simple explanations.........KISS principle.............keep it simple stupid...........principle.

The 1920's comparisons showed massive growth

This is the second time you've mentioned the 1920s. There's a reason my question to the other member explicitly stated "pre-1920s" and not "1920s" or a later time period. So would you please stop responding to me about the 1920s? Or, at least please make clear why you've chosen to address the 1920s rather than the pre-1920s.

It was brought up as example in earlier post. Lazie faire.......examples..............growth...........

I thought it was important to point out that much of the growth was on stupidity that had nothing to do with REAL SUPPLY VERSUS DEMAND............and ended in screwing over the world..........in an economic depression that had NOTHING TO DO WITH SUPPLY AND DEMAND...................

and in the end this Stupidity helped cause the world to go to War.....and 10's of millions died as a result.................

My Caveman explanation stands.............my pointing out history stands..............if you don't like my views then ignore it or skip over.........doesn't change the price of rice in China for me.

It was brought up as example in earlier post. Lazie faire.......examples..............growth...........

The earliest reference to the date "1920" in this thread is in post #10. Who wrote that post? I did. What did I write? "pre-1920s." So, again, why do you keep mentioning the 1920s when the prior temporal reference was to earlier times?

You posted articles that included the time frame I stated opinions on............Did you post articles not to be commented on.

If you bothered to read the content I posted, you'll have noted that they also discuss things after the 1920s. The point of posting the articles was for their content pertaining to the pre-1920s years, not the 1920s or subsequent years.

One need not read the whole of the documents I posted to obtain that information; however, the key purpose of posting the content I did was to provide a frame of reference, rife with specific examples, for folks who may not have learned about or remember in detail the economics, economic landscape and economic behaviors and outcomes of pre-1920s America which was the period in history in which, in the U.S., capitalism was most unrestrained, and the impact(s) of laissez faire is the topic of the thread.

 

[usmbguest5318]

My Caveman explanation stands

Oh, and BTW, as for "caveman" proxy for barter -- something that seems, by dint of how much you keep mentioning it, strikes you as a stroke of genius -- it "stands" in your mind only (one hopes) because you've made no rigorous effort to understand (rigorously analyze, compare and contrast) the development of money, and therefore also its attendant banking system, as a medium of exchange.

Even economic scholars who are not apologists for and adherents to the orthodox story of the evolution of a fixed medium of exchange, money, recognize that regardless of one's POV about the merits and demerits of money and a central banking system it's vastly more efficient, thus economically better, than a barter based system used for exchange both inside a given political economy and with parties in external economic entities.

Money was not injected into a well-functioning barter economy; instead, money and the market developed together. This helps to explain why production in a market economy is always monetary production: money now for more money later. It also means that the money supply in a monetary economy is necessarily endogenously determined. Monetary economies have not, and cannot, operate with exogenous money supplies. Finally, while a monetary economy with an endogenous money supply can operate with a commodity money reserve system, such a system is subject to periodic debt deflations.

Thus, in all developed capitalist economies, this has been replaced by an accommodative central bank reserve system. The Monetarist policy prescription (close control over the quantity of reserves) represents a giant step backward, to an unstable system in which accumulation suffers occasional reversals during debt deflations. Furthermore, Monetarist policy would not lead to greater control of the money supply--the supply of reserves (whether of wheat, of gold, or of central bank liabilities) has never determined the quantity of money. Rather, rigid control over reserves would eliminate the primary advantage bank liabilities have over other types of liabilities and would lead to greater use of alternative money-denominated liabilities. This, however, comes at the expense of the revival of debt deflations.

While a commodity reserve system is possible, it is far more unstable than a central bank reserve system. Rather than attempting to constrain the central bank so that its liabilities are supplied as if we had a commodity money reserve system, it is far better to maintain the current accommodative reserve system.​

Truly, I had no desire to address barter, as it really doesn't factor materially into the American economy's manifestation of unrestrained capitalism, but you proudly (?) mentioned it so damned many times, I figured I'd be courteous enough to remark upon it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

standard

The standard of living would fall at the fastest possible right under capitalism??This is what is so beautiful about liberals they operate in complete and total ignorance they have never heard of east west Germany, Cuba Florida, Taiwan Communist China, Hong Kong Communist China, and 132 other examples where you had capitalism and liberalism side by side.communist liberal Chyna just switched to Republican capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of the entire planets poverty.This would mean capitalism made the Chinese standard of living Rise at the fastest possible rate while when they were under liberal socialism 60 million human souls starved to death. Liberals are 100% illiterate and thus have no idea whatsoever that liberal socialism slowly starved )*120 million human beings to death. Imagine how dangerous it is to have liberals participate in our democracy .

 

[Mr Natural]

If we humanoids weren't such dishonest greedy pigs, unrestrained capitalism might actually work.

 

[usmbguest5318]

• A SHORT HISTORY OF AMERICAN CAPITALISM
  
• The Political Economy of Capitalism
  
• The Dynamics of Capitalism
• The Industrial Revolution: Working Class Poverty or Prosperity?

Actually we can all post 1 million links do you have a point that you can make on your own? How will you learn if you are afraid to try

Ed, you don't, and that is your problem. All that you have written online, all of it, is bombast without critical thinking evidence and objective argumentation.

...And, I'd add for the sake of amplification and clarification of my own take on JakeStarkey's comment, without a comprehensive understanding of -- or without giving due notice to -- the body of facts and information/analysis about the matter he opts to discuss, at least with regard to his posts in this thread.

Though my own knowledge of economics and economic history is imperfect, my undergrad econ degree, along with a handful of graduate-level economics courses, is enough for me to tell when someone else either (1) doesn't know what they are talking about or (2) is offering dubious/specious, if not roundly discredited, ideas. That doesn't necessarily make the person stupid, but rather willfully ignorant by dint of their thinking whatever they think and making no effort, or only meager effort, to actually confirm the merit -- practical and theoretical -- of their ideas. Were they to make such an effort, and be not in fact stupid, prior to publicly broaching their thoughts, they'd come upon information that would lead them to realize theirs isn't quite the "masterstroke" of prescience and innovation they thought it was.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Hmm, whenmis unrestrained anything a good idea?

When you have unrestrained capitalism that's a very good idea because you don't want to restrain capitalists from fighting to please their customers and employees

If you have unrestrained Capitalism then what's to stop Big Corporations from just cannibalising smaller businesses, there would be no way smaller or even medium sized businesses would be able to compete.

"you don't want to restrain capitalists from fighting to please their customers and employees"

The main focus for them to please are their shareholders.

I support Capitalism, I wouldn't support unrestrained Capitalism.

You wouldn't support unrestrained capitalism because you don't want corporations to fight with each other to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate?

"You wouldn't support unrestrained capitalism because you don't want corporations to fight with each other to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate?"

I don't want unrestrained Capitalism because the opposite would happen, the standard of living would fall at the fastest possible rate.

The way it already is tens of millions of people have lost their jobs because of outsourcing and offshoring their jobs to India and China because it's cheaper for big corporations to employ Indians and Chinese to produce the products in place of keeping those jobs at home where they have to pay employees higher wages.

Unrestrained Capitalism would further lower wages and as a result there would be even more dramatic job losses, an increased drop in living standards and therefore widespread misery across the Western world.

Unrestrained Capitalism would result in a slave wages type of market, the only people who would benefit would be the Unrestrained Capitalists and their shareholders.

so as a liberal you would want an economic system where businesses are required to seek out a higher wages and higher costs of production in general?? In Venezuela they solved the problem on Monday by raising the minimum wage 60% we could do that here and in fact liberals would love it this is a subject that you need to know a little about economics before you can discuss it with any value at alldo you understand?

 

[Mac1958]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If we humanoids weren't such dishonest greedy pigs, unrestrained capitalism might actually work.

Capitalism is the perfect system given human nature it features 330 million policeman regulators as opposed to only a fewliberal regulators in Washington DC this is the fundamental benefit of capitalism. Do you understand

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Translation:has a typical liberal I lack the IQ to participate substantively

 

[Mac1958]

Translation:has a typical liberal I lack the IQ to participate substantively

Hey, I'm just here to learn from the expert.
.

 

[eagle1462010]

The purpose of capitalism is to allow the interaction of supply and demand to determine the allocation of resources in an economy. The behaviors Majewski noted are among the observed outcomes of having had few no limitations on the economic environment, the laissez faire "playing field," in which the owners/users of the levers of production create or pursue economic profits/gains and opportunity.

Knowing that is important, but one's views after obtaining an in-depth knowledge of what can and cannot happen under capitalism and about those outcomes' happening is what makes for political positions.

Build a good product..............people buy it........make money.........charge too much and another company puts you under...........simple to understand and is Capitalism................screw over your workers until they want to Tar and Feather you is just a simple explanation on how rules are eventually set by countries.......

Not all rules are bad.......Not all rules are good..........

My position of a Caveman still stands......Barter REAL GOODS in Exchange for REAL goods and services is a great example of Capitalism. Currency was to set a real value to products and services to exchange for real products and services.

The 1920's comparisons showed massive growth............but underscore the massive fraud of market manipulation from individuals who BET VAST amounts of capital without the assets to back it up should it fail..........They manipulated the products to insanity..........and brought the whole dang country and world down with the Insanity.............has nothing to do with the underlying true purpose of Capitalism..........the other point is what happens when companies screw over people long enough..........they get mad and burn the house down.........

simple explanations.........KISS principle.............keep it simple stupid...........principle.

The 1920's comparisons showed massive growth

This is the second time you've mentioned the 1920s. There's a reason my question to the other member explicitly stated "pre-1920s" and not "1920s" or a later time period. So would you please stop responding to me about the 1920s? Or, at least please make clear why you've chosen to address the 1920s rather than the pre-1920s.

It was brought up as example in earlier post. Lazie faire.......examples..............growth...........

I thought it was important to point out that much of the growth was on stupidity that had nothing to do with REAL SUPPLY VERSUS DEMAND............and ended in screwing over the world..........in an economic depression that had NOTHING TO DO WITH SUPPLY AND DEMAND...................

and in the end this Stupidity helped cause the world to go to War.....and 10's of millions died as a result.................

My Caveman explanation stands.............my pointing out history stands..............if you don't like my views then ignore it or skip over.........doesn't change the price of rice in China for me.

It was brought up as example in earlier post. Lazie faire.......examples..............growth...........

The earliest reference to the date "1920" in this thread is in post #10. Who wrote that post? I did. What did I write? "pre-1920s." So, again, why do you keep mentioning the 1920s when the prior temporal reference was to earlier times?

You posted articles that included the time frame I stated opinions on............Did you post articles not to be commented on.

If you bothered to read the content I posted, you'll have noted that they also discuss things after the 1920s. The point of posting the articles was for their content pertaining to the pre-1920s years, not the 1920s or subsequent years.

One need not read the whole of the documents I posted to obtain that information; however, the key purpose of posting the content I did was to provide a frame of reference, rife with specific examples, for folks who may not have learned about or remember in detail the economics, economic landscape and economic behaviors and outcomes of pre-1920s America which was the period in history in which, in the U.S., capitalism was most unrestrained, and the impact(s) of laissez faire is the topic of the thread.

You threw up articles and made no comments. I have ESPN not ESP

 

[eagle1462010]

My Caveman explanation stands

Oh, and BTW, as for "caveman" proxy for barter -- something that seems, by dint of how much you keep mentioning it, strikes you as a stroke of genius -- it "stands" in your mind only (one hopes) because you've made no rigorous effort to understand (rigorously analyze, compare and contrast) the development of money, and therefore also its attendant banking system, as a medium of exchange.

Even economic scholars who are not apologists for and adherents to the orthodox story of the evolution of a fixed medium of exchange, money, recognize that regardless of one's POV about the merits and demerits of money and a central banking system it's vastly more efficient, thus economically better, than a barter based system used for exchange both inside a given political economy and with parties in external economic entities.

Money was not injected into a well-functioning barter economy; instead, money and the market developed together. This helps to explain why production in a market economy is always monetary production: money now for more money later. It also means that the money supply in a monetary economy is necessarily endogenously determined. Monetary economies have not, and cannot, operate with exogenous money supplies. Finally, while a monetary economy with an endogenous money supply can operate with a commodity money reserve system, such a system is subject to periodic debt deflations.

Thus, in all developed capitalist economies, this has been replaced by an accommodative central bank reserve system. The Monetarist policy prescription (close control over the quantity of reserves) represents a giant step backward, to an unstable system in which accumulation suffers occasional reversals during debt deflations. Furthermore, Monetarist policy would not lead to greater control of the money supply--the supply of reserves (whether of wheat, of gold, or of central bank liabilities) has never determined the quantity of money. Rather, rigid control over reserves would eliminate the primary advantage bank liabilities have over other types of liabilities and would lead to greater use of alternative money-denominated liabilities. This, however, comes at the expense of the revival of debt deflations.

While a commodity reserve system is possible, it is far more unstable than a central bank reserve system. Rather than attempting to constrain the central bank so that its liabilities are supplied as if we had a commodity money reserve system, it is far better to maintain the current accommodative reserve system.​

Truly, I had no desire to address barter, as it really doesn't factor materially into the American economy's manifestation of unrestrained capitalism, but you proudly (?) mentioned it so damned many times, I figured I'd be courteous enough to remark upon it.

I understand why money was created. Bartering only works locally, but the basics is you trade something of value to get something of value. Currency is to assess that value. When currency is BASELESS of SOMETHING OF VALUE then the whole dang thing turns to BS. Allowing manipulation of the currency gets rid of the basis for the whole dang thing.

Nixon came off the standard. Why.............because others demanded payment in Gold. Creating a Fiat system over time manipulated by people with no skin in the real game. Don't produce anything but only trade shit back and forth creating bubbles from hell, and crashing whole economies..............

They don't create the oil, produce it. They just trade it thousands of times to make a buck. Has nothing to do with original definition of Capitalism.

What we have today is CRONY CAPITALISM. Where the Gov't is bought and paid for selecting the winners and losers.

So, My Caveman explanation stands whether you like it or not.