What is the goal of capitalism?

[otto105]

There are no employees without employers and leadership. When people believe they own something when in debt to what they purchased is not capitalism. The right to own your own property is capitalism and freedom. Without capitalism there is no true freedom.

WTF

 

[Cougarbear]

WTF

Over the head of a liberal, I know.

 

[TruthNotBS]

There are no employees without employers and leadership. When people believe they own something when in debt to what they purchased is not capitalism. The right to own your own property is capitalism and freedom. Without capitalism there is no true freedom.

21st-century capitalism has a new definition of ownership. I used to own a CD with the latest Photoshop software from Adobe. I had all of their software installed on my computer. A few years ago, Adobe stopped selling its high-end software on CD. Today I pay a yearly subscription to Adobe and I have to log in to their servers to use their software. They rent the software to me, they don't really sell it to me as they used to in the "good old days". Under modern capitalism, we rent, we really don't own:

​

As far as what you said about there not being employees without employers. I could just as well say, there are no employers without employees. Both of these socioeconomic classes are symbiotically connected. They depend on each other. Without wage labor or "employees", there are no paying customers, hence no profits. Without profits, you have no market or employers/capitalists.

​

The reality is that labor is superior to capital. Employers need employees more than employees need capitalist employers. Workers can own companies collectively in what are called cooperatives:

​

In the US the SBA (Small Business Administration) and banks, don't support the creation of labor cooperatives, but as advanced automation and artificial intelligence, continue to develop and replace wage-labor, that lack of support will change. Labor cooperatives will allow the US government to collaborate with productive forces in the planning of the post-capitalist, non-profit economy, that will become a necessity with the advancement of technology.

​

 

[Foxfyre]

I undrestand your point. But my point is that sometimes individual choices will be affected by publicity or convenience. There was a time when smoking was potrayed as a healthy habit ( in spite of overwhelming evidence of the opposite), then we have the case of junk food and the price spiral of healthcare ( some have argued the spiral can be cut down by eliminating medicaid and medicare; I suspect it wouldn't work either, but if it wasn't for the terrible consequences I would say: ok give it a try and let's see what happens). Then we have lobbying groups. Large financial institutions have been very apt at reducing oversight and securing rescues.
For all of the above reasons I think the ideal capitalism is good, but in practice it has a lot of caveats.
PD. Thanks for keeping it civil too. I may not agree with you , but I am willing to hear your point of view and point out why I disagree.

Capitalism doesn't eliminate greed, sin, harm but neither does socialism, communism, dictatorship/monarchy or any other form of government. But it promotes more prosperity, freedom from poverty, more realization of personal goals, dreams, possibilities than any other form of government ever devised. And there is almost always far less income inequality between those who hold the power and those who don't than any other system devised.

Government can enact laws that give citizens a means of redressing real harm done to them by others and should enforce arrest and prosecution for harmful criminal acts. It can forbid harmful false advertising (i.e. you can say your product is best when it isn't but you can't say it cures cancer when it doesn't). It can require reasonable warnings to be put on products such as the government requires on cigarettes and require certain reasonable and beneficial to all safety features. (Brakes on motorized vehicles is a reasonable requirement. Making the vehicle 100% safe for people to use is not a reasonable requirement.)

But liberty must allow stupidity, being wrong, making mistakes in order to allow people to act on their intelligence/ability/aptitude/vision, sense of right and wrong, and trial and error until they get it right. At at some point liberty must also allow the people to be smart enough to figure things out themselves and exercise common sense. The baker should not have to put "do not consume the plastic wrapper' on the wrapper that contains the bread.

 

[Cougarbear]

21st-century capitalism has a new definition of ownership. I used to own a CD with the latest Photoshop software from Adobe. I had all of their software installed on my computer. A few years ago, Adobe stopped selling its high-end software on CD. Today I pay a yearly subscription to Adobe and I have to log in to their servers to use their software. They rent the software to me, they don't really sell it to me as they used to in the "good old days". Under modern capitalism, we rent, we really don't own:

​

As far as what you said about there not being employees without employers. I could just as well say, there are no employers without employees. Both of these socioeconomic classes are symbiotically connected. They depend on each other. Without wage labor or "employees", there are no paying customers, hence no profits. Without profits, you have no market or employers/capitalists.

View attachment 801354
​

The reality is that labor is superior to capital. Employers need employees more than employees need capitalist employers. Workers can own companies collectively in what are called cooperatives:

​

In the US the SBA (Small Business Administration) and banks, don't support the creation of labor cooperatives, but as advanced automation and artificial intelligence, continue to develop and replace wage-labor, that lack of support will change. Labor cooperatives will allow the US government to collaborate with productive forces in the planning of the post-capitalist, non-profit economy, that will become a necessity with the advancement of technology.

​

I agree a lot with your first part. Luxury car companies are loaning or renting things like warming seat cushions and steering wheels and other parts of the car we used to actually buy and own. This will continue to grow in our economy to where we won’t own anything. Socialists-Communists find ways to circumvent our free society.
Not sure if I agree with some of the other things. Although, as we lose control of individual rights, we will see more of what you are saying.

 

[Mac-7]

Under capitalism yes, you need profits or there's no production, wages, or purchases. You also need a government to provide a medium of exchange, property rights, and the enforcement of contracts.

Cuba and North Korea are irrelevant. Those two countries are heavily sanctioned and under the constant threat of war, hence they've centralized power and are authoritarian regimes. You don't have the ideological luxury of criticizing their economies until you lift sanctions. Any ship that ports in Cuba can't port in US territory for 180 days. Any company that does business in Cuba, can't do business in the US and in several European countries. Lift the sanctions.

Do you think if we allowed Cuba into the community of nations it would become a free capitalist society?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Capitalism doesn't eliminate greed, sin, harm but neither does socialism, communism, dictatorship/monarchy or any other form of government. But it promotes more prosperity, freedom from poverty, more realization of personal goals, dreams, possibilities than any other form of government ever devised. And there is almost always far less income inequality between those who hold the power and those who don't than any other system devised.

Government can enact laws that give citizens a means of redressing real harm done to them by others and should enforce arrest and prosecution for harmful criminal acts. It can forbid harmful false advertising (i.e. you can say your product is best when it isn't but you can't say it cures cancer when it doesn't). It can require reasonable warnings to be put on products such as the government requires on cigarettes and require certain reasonable and beneficial to all safety features. (Brakes on motorized vehicles is a reasonable requirement. Making the vehicle 100% safe for people to use is not a reasonable requirement.)

But liberty must allow stupidity, being wrong, making mistakes in order to allow people to act on their intelligence, sense of right and wrong, and trial and error until they get it right. At at some point liberty must also allow the people to be smart enough to figure things out themselves and exercise common sense. The baker should not have to put "do not consume the plastic wrapper' on the wrapper that contains the bread.

The government or socialism, also bails out capitalism, every few years, using public funds. It has to mitigate the inequality or you end up with social unrest and this:

Capitalism privatizes its profits and makes public its losses.





​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Any ship that ports in Cuba can't port in US territory for 180 days. Any company that does business in Cuba, can't do business in the US and in several European countries.

That's hilarious!
Poor Cuba.

 

[Foxfyre]

The government or socialism, also bails out capitalism, every few years, using public funds. It has to mitigate the inequality or you end up with social unrest and this:

View attachment 801363



Capitalism privatizes its profits and makes public its losses.





​

I think it extremely rare that anything needs to be bailed out that didn't have harmful government meddling in the first place.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

21st-century capitalism has a new definition of ownership. I used to own a CD with the latest Photoshop software from Adobe. I had all of their software installed on my computer. A few years ago, Adobe stopped selling its high-end software on CD. Today I pay a yearly subscription to Adobe and I have to log in to their servers to use their software. They rent the software to me, they don't really sell it to me as they used to in the "good old days". Under modern capitalism, we rent, we really don't own:

​

As far as what you said about there not being employees without employers. I could just as well say, there are no employers without employees. Both of these socioeconomic classes are symbiotically connected. They depend on each other. Without wage labor or "employees", there are no paying customers, hence no profits. Without profits, you have no market or employers/capitalists.

View attachment 801354
​

The reality is that labor is superior to capital. Employers need employees more than employees need capitalist employers. Workers can own companies collectively in what are called cooperatives:

​

In the US the SBA (Small Business Administration) and banks, don't support the creation of labor cooperatives, but as advanced automation and artificial intelligence, continue to develop and replace wage-labor, that lack of support will change. Labor cooperatives will allow the US government to collaborate with productive forces in the planning of the post-capitalist, non-profit economy, that will become a necessity with the advancement of technology.

​

21st-century capitalism has a new definition of ownership. I used to own a CD with the latest Photoshop software from Adobe. I had all of their software installed on my computer. A few years ago, Adobe stopped selling its high-end software on CD. Today I pay a yearly subscription to Adobe and I have to log in to their servers to use their software. They rent the software to me, they don't really sell it to me as they used to in the "good old days". Under modern capitalism, we rent, we really don't own:

What kind of software are you using from Cuba?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Do you think if we allowed Cuba into the community of nations it would become a free capitalist society?

There is no such thing as a "free capitalist" society. When was last time you participated in an election in the workplace? Adam Smith the father of capitalism, calls capitalists "masters". Since when is there freedom when one has an earthly master? Working-class people spend most of their waking hours in absolute tyranny. If there is one thing that the American ruling class is good at is brainwashing the American working class into thinking that voting in favor of their master's vested interests, is for their own good. The reason for that is that the US population, despite whatever austerities it might be experiencing now, is still the primary world consumer and citizenry of the empire. The customer of the world's ruling class.

We are the aristocracy of labor, the people of the empire. We consume the third world, and American capitalists see us as their customer base. We have it good here, compared to workers in other countries, where they get paid peanuts and in general have a lower standard of living. Between 1950 and 1980, the American middle class was the best paid, with the most benefits and standard of living. We still have a collective memory of the good old days, so it's easy for our masters, to convince us to vote in their interest, even at our expense. However, things are now getting so bad that it's getting more difficult for our masters to continue fooling us into capitulating to their demands.

 

[Foxfyre]

21st-century capitalism has a new definition of ownership. I used to own a CD with the latest Photoshop software from Adobe. I had all of their software installed on my computer. A few years ago, Adobe stopped selling its high-end software on CD. Today I pay a yearly subscription to Adobe and I have to log in to their servers to use their software. They rent the software to me, they don't really sell it to me as they used to in the "good old days". Under modern capitalism, we rent, we really don't own:

What kind of software are you using from Cuba?

This is true of many many apps we used to buy on CDs--Quick Books, Quicken, Microsoft Office, tax software, many many games etc.--as corporations figured out how to expand and even sometimes improve their products more economically and efficiently and cutting out a lot of the overhead. For instance my husband and I are still using our Microsoft Office installed from a CD in 2003. And it still works great. One of these days it won't and we'll be forced to go to the $100/yr on line Microsoft Office if we continue to use those programs.

But. sooner or later some bright entrepreneur/software engineer/programmer will likely recognize that there is a huge market out there for people who never use Excel, Power Point, etc. but just need a good easy to navigate word processing app and will offer a good user friendly one on a CD for a one time affordable price bypassing Microsoft entirely. That person will likely retire a multi-millionaire.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I think it extremely rare that anything needs to be bailed out that didn't have harmful government meddling in the first place.

With the lifting of banking regulations, like the Glass Steagall Act in the 1990s, we had the 2008 recession, requiring massive bailouts to avoid the collapse of our economy. The golden era of our economy was when we had the most regulations and the highest tax rate was at 93%. Back in the 1950s, until the late 70s, the highest-paid CEOs in the country, didn't make more than 40 times the lowest wage in their companies. Today Fortune 500 CEOs make 400+ times the average salary of their workers. The inequality is astronomical. Only 40% of the US population is of the middle class, with over half of America living paycheck to paycheck, hand to mouth. Most Americans can't afford a $500 emergency.

With the advent of advanced automation and artificial intelligence, we're facing mass unemployment and starvation. Most Americans are going to be living in abject poverty if we don't adopt a non-profit system of production, where the people collectively own all of the robots and artificial intelligence, the mines and factories..etc. Either the people own it together or a few wealthy elites will own the means of production, consigning the worthless masses to the compost heap.

​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no such thing as a "free capitalist" society. When was last time you participated in an election in the workplace? Adam Smith the father of capitalism, calls capitalists "masters". Since when is there freedom when one has an earthly master? Working-class people spend most of their waking hours in absolute tyranny. If there is one thing that the American ruling class is good at is brainwashing the American working class into thinking that voting in favor of their master's vested interests, is in for their own good. The reason for that is that the US population, despite whatever austerities it might be experiencing now, is still the primary world consumer and citizenry of the empire. The customer of the world's ruling class.

We are the aristocracy of labor, the people of the empire. We consume the third world, and American capitalists see us as their customer base. We have it good here, compared to workers in other countries, where they get paid peanuts and in general have a lower standard of living. Between 1950 and 1980, the American middle class was the best paid, with the most benefits and standard of living. We still have a collective memory of the good old days, so it's easy for our masters, to convince us to vote in their interest, even at our expense. However, things are now getting so bad that it's getting more difficult for our masters to continue fooling us into capitulating to their demands.

We still have a collective memory of the good old days, so it's easy for our masters, to convince us to vote in their interest, even at our expense. However, things are now getting so bad that it's getting more difficult for our masters to continue fooling us into capitulating to their demands.

The government spends more and more, but things are worse? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

With the lifting of banking regulations, like the Glass Steagall Act in the 1990s, we had the 2008 recession, requiring massive bailouts to avoid the collapse of our economy. The golden era of our economy was when we had the most regulations and the highest tax rate was at 93%. Back in the 1950s, until the late 70s, the highest-paid CEOs in the country, didn't make more than 40 times the lowest wage in their companies. Today Fortune 500 CEOs make 400+ times the average salary of their workers. The inequality is astronomical. Only 40% of the US population is of the middle class, with over half of America living paycheck to paycheck, hand to mouth. Most Americans can't afford a $500 emergency.

With the advent of advanced automation and artificial intelligence, we're facing mass unemployment and starvation. Most Americans are going to be living in abject poverty if we don't adopt a non-profit system of production, where the people collectively own all of the robots and artificial intelligence, the mines and factories..etc. Either the people own it together or a few wealthy elites will own the means of production, consigning the worthless masses to the compost heap.

​

With the lifting of banking regulations, like the Glass Steagall Act in the 1990s, we had the 2008 recession, requiring massive bailouts to avoid the collapse of our economy.

What would Glass Steagall have done to prevent the 2008 recession? Be specific.

 

[TruthNotBS]

We still have a collective memory of the good old days, so it's easy for our masters, to convince us to vote in their interest, even at our expense. However, things are now getting so bad that it's getting more difficult for our masters to continue fooling us into capitulating to their demands.

The government spends more and more, but things are worse? LOL!

Not spending it as they should. We can stop with the bailouts, and let capitalists rot.

 

[Foxfyre]

With the lifting of banking regulations, like the Glass Steagall Act in the 1990s, we had the 2008 recession, requiring massive bailouts to avoid the collapse of our economy. The golden era of our economy was when we had the most regulations and the highest tax rate was at 93%. Back in the 1950s, until the late 70s, the highest-paid CEOs in the country, didn't make more than 40 times the lowest wage in their companies. Today Fortune 500 CEOs make 400+ times the average salary of their workers. The inequality is astronomical. Only 40% of the US population is of the middle class, with over half of America living paycheck to paycheck, hand to mouth. Most Americans can't afford a $500 emergency.

With the advent of advanced automation and artificial intelligence, we're facing mass unemployment and starvation. Most Americans are going to be living in abject poverty if we don't adopt a non-profit system of production, where the people collectively own all of the robots and artificial intelligence, the mines and factories..etc. Either the people own it together or a few wealthy elites will own the means of production, consigning the worthless masses to the compost heap.

​

As I said, it is mostly harmful government meddling invariably causes the crises that develop in the economy.

And yes, somebody always comes up with these scare stories re why communism is the only answer. And every time enough gullible people bite it results in totalitarian governments that severely repress the people's liberties, options, opportunities, choices as well as many thousands (Cuba and North Korea) to many millions (Russia and China) of citizens being imprisoned, tortured, executed, starved/frozen to death. The promised peace and relief of hunger and poverty never happens for any other than those who hold the power and those the regime favors. Usually they eventually have to allow some capitalism or everybody starves.

And, as Bill Maher said, he opposes socialism/communism because he doesn't want to have to wait in line for an hour for a potato.

I have enough faith in human ingenuity and creativity to figure out the best way to do most anything. Don't forget, if corporations automate to the point there are not enough jobs, people won't have the cash to buy their products and there will be bi more profits of any kind.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not spending it as they should. We can stop with the bailouts, and let capitalists rot.

Which bailouts should we have stopped? Be specific.

 

[Mexicano]

Capitalism doesn't eliminate greed, sin, harm but neither does socialism, communism, dictatorship/monarchy or any other form of government. But it promotes more prosperity, freedom from poverty, more realization of personal goals, dreams, possibilities than any other form of government ever devised. And there is almost always far less income inequality between those who hold the power and those who don't than any other system devised.

Government can enact laws that give citizens a means of redressing real harm done to them by others and should enforce arrest and prosecution for harmful criminal acts. It can forbid harmful false advertising (i.e. you can say your product is best when it isn't but you can't say it cures cancer when it doesn't). It can require reasonable warnings to be put on products such as the government requires on cigarettes and require certain reasonable and beneficial to all safety features. (Brakes on motorized vehicles is a reasonable requirement. Making the vehicle 100% safe for people to use is not a reasonable requirement.)

But liberty must allow stupidity, being wrong, making mistakes in order to allow people to act on their intelligence/ability/aptitude/vision, sense of right and wrong, and trial and error until they get it right. At at some point liberty must also allow the people to be smart enough to figure things out themselves and exercise common sense. The baker should not have to put "do not consume the plastic wrapper' on the wrapper that contains the bread.

Foxfyre,
I agree with your first paragraph, but I need to make some clarifications for the sake of future discussions. There are two separate matters that people tend to clump into a single concept:
1) The production system or economic system : socialist, capitalist, mixed economy.
2) The form of government: democracy, bi-party democracy, single-party democracy, dictatorship, monarchy.
Some examples:
- France :
Economic system: mixed economy ( mostly capitalist)
Form of government: democracy
- Saudi Arabia
Economic system: mixed economy (mostly capitalist)
Form of government: monarchy
- China
Economic system: mixed economy ( half state-owned enterprises: mostly socialist)
Form of government: single-party democracy... it is not an actual dictatorship people do vote for candidates, but they are all sanctioned by a single party... how different is that when there are only 2 parties and no direct vote?
Liberty has many aspects, but we can diferentiate at least 2:
economic liberty - a product of having wealth and working it the option you consider the best option.
political liberty - having the right to express your ideas and choose the direction of the government.
They are not the same , but they have effect on each other.

 

[TruthNotBS]

With the lifting of banking regulations, like the Glass Steagall Act in the 1990s, we had the 2008 recession, requiring massive bailouts to avoid the collapse of our economy.

What would Glass Steagall have done to prevent the 2008 recession? Be specific.

Alright, let's cut to the chase. The Glass-Steagall Act was the bouncer at the party, making sure the rowdy crowd didn't crash in and wreck the place. When Glass-Steagall was repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, it was like the doors were thrown open and everyone, including the Wall Street jocks, were allowed to rush in with their beer funnels.

First, it's clear as day that Glass-Steagall kept the lunatics in the asylum. Commercial banks, you know, the guys you trust with your life savings, were not allowed to gamble it away in the Wall Street casino. Without Glass-Steagall, they jumped into bed with the high-risk-taking crowd. Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve Chairman, was one of the big guns who supported bringing back Glass-Steagall. He knew the financial world like the back of his hand, and he argued that separating commercial and investment banking was essential for financial stability.

Non-Bank Financial Institutions? Sure, Lehman Brothers wasn't a traditional bank, but guess what? Without Glass-Steagall, everyone was playing in the same muddy puddle. If Glass-Steagall had been in place, Lehman's crash wouldn't have splashed as much dirt on the traditional banks. Less intermingling, less cross-contamination.

Globalization and Innovation? That's like blaming the car for the accident and not the drunk driver. The fact that the financial world got more complex is all the more reason we needed a chaperone like Glass-Steagall. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz was on the money when he said repealing Glass-Steagall contributed to the global contagion of the meltdown.

Shadow Banking? That's the black market of banking. But if Glass-Steagall had been around, the shadow banking system wouldn't have had the traditional banks to lean on.

So, the bottom line is that Glass-Steagall had our backs. It kept the financial system from turning into a free-for-all and could have stopped 2008 from taking the economy on Mr. Toad's Wild Ride.