What is "Unfettered Capitalism"?

[Iceweasel]

"Unfettered capitalism" is just another term for free trade.

It's a general term used to distinguish less regulated capitalism from more regulated capitalism.

A general term the left pulls out of their collective asses.

It's no different than saying 'free trade', or 'free markets'. When you use those terms I guarantee that you are not talking about trade or markets that are absolutely 'free'.

No it isn't the same thing. Unfettered implies capitalism runs amok if not controlled. But as I have pointed out numerous times, no control is anarchy, not capitalism. The term is intellectually dishonest. For a reason.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The problem with these threads is always the same. The term "capitalism" does not include the grand enchilada that many people tend to attribute to it. The same is true for socialism, fascism, communism, etc. The result is that when 20 people engage in a discussion they're going to be talking about 12 different enchiladas, and invariably fail to find sufficient common ground to support a debate.

In this thread, most people have once again made the wrong assumptions because they are confusing capitalism with free markets.

The defining feature of capitalism has to do with ownership of the fruits of labor, i.e. profits. In capitalism, ownership of profits stems from supplying the capital. Hence, the name capitalism. If I own the capital that it took to produce a watermelon, then I own the product. That is where capitalism ends. What comes next is no longer about capitalism and is about the free market.

In a free market, I get to decide what I'm going to do with any watermelon that I happen to own. If I want to sell it, I can. If I want to eat it, I can. If I choose to sell it, I can charge whatever price I want. If someone agrees to buy at the price I choose to charge, then the price is adequately fair to all people who matter (the buyer and seller).

Capitalism does not require a free market to exist, nor does a free market require capitalism to exist.

If capitalism is controlled by the state it's fascism. But it isn't a misunderstanding at all. The left deliberately lies about what it is in order to forward socialism. That's why they insist on using the made up term unfettered capitalism, they put a qualifier on it and pretend that's what it is without state control.

Capitalism in the US is controlled by the state.

Agreed. We don't have unfettered capitalism here.

The term is not meant to be used in an either or manner. These people are just nitpicking in lieu of a substantive argument.

A person who claims to believe in 'free markets', for example, doesn't really mean that to be literal and absolute. Unless he's nuts, of course.

 

[dblack]

"Unfettered capitalism" is usually employed as part of a strawman (surprise, surprise) that seek to equate free trade with anarchy.

 

[Iceweasel]

"Unfettered capitalism" is just another term for free trade.

It's a general term used to distinguish less regulated capitalism from more regulated capitalism.

A general term the left pulls out of their collective asses.

And it starts the conversation off with a misnomer.

What's the point?
.

I said so above. To demonize capitalism to make socialism more palatable.

 

[RodISHI]

"Unfettered capitalism" is just another term for free trade.

It's a general term used to distinguish less regulated capitalism from more regulated capitalism.

A general term the left pulls out of their collective asses.

And it starts the conversation off with a misnomer.

What's the point?
.

Some people like to see their ineffective words rattle around on a web page.

Do you believe in free trade?

I believe there are issues that came along with the last free trade agreement that screwed the American people royal. It does not make sense to ship frozen chicken 14,000 miles have it processed and ship it back to where it came from. If that is the kind of free trade you are talking about, no I don't believe in it.

 

[dblack]

"Unfettered capitalism" is usually employed as part of a strawman (surprise, surprise) that seek to equate free trade with anarchy.

And here's a fine example:

A person who claims to believe in 'free markets', for example, doesn't really mean that to be literal and absolute. Unless he's nuts, of course.

 

[Wry Catcher]

When Capitalism goes unregulated, human nature takes over.

"Industrial capitalism was the first system to benefit all levels of society rather than just the noble class. Wages increased, helped greatly by the formation of unions, and the standard of living also increased with the glut of affordable products being mass-produced. This led to the formation of a middle class that began to lift more and more people from the lower classes to swell its ranks.

"All over the world, capitalism grew beyond pure industrial capitalism into forms more palatable to the region it settled. The U.S. raised one of the purest types of capitalism with a minimum of government regulation, while Canada and the Nordic countries created a balance between socialism and capitalism. It took a long time to get here, but capitalism is here to stay. As the world becomes more globalized, it is likely that countries who haven't yet adopted this system will jump on the bandwagon as well."

Read more: The History Of Capitalism: From Feudalism To Wall Street The History Of Capitalism: From Feudalism To Wall Street

Some more food for though, for those not on a diet of dogma:


The Dismal Science of Economics
The Uncertainty Of Economics: Exploring The Dismal Science

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Unfettered capitalism" is usually employed as part of a strawman (surprise, surprise) that seek to equate free trade with anarchy.

Fettered is synonymous with restrained. To 'unfetter' is to remove OR lessen 'restraint'.

 

[Mac1958]

"Unfettered capitalism" is just another term for free trade.

It's a general term used to distinguish less regulated capitalism from more regulated capitalism.

A general term the left pulls out of their collective asses.

And it starts the conversation off with a misnomer.

What's the point?
.

I said so above. To demonize capitalism to make socialism more palatable.

Well, fair point.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Unfettered capitalism" is just another term for free trade.

So then, it's not really "unfettered".

Pretty tough to have honest conversations when dishonest terms are used.

The key is finding the right equilibrium, and that would be a constructive conversation.
.

Since you are not participating in the conversation at all except to nitpick semantics, what the **** do you care about 'constructive conversation'?

Sorry, I have twice brought up the significance of equilibrium and you have chosen not to respond.

Instead, you're just doing your regular partisan thing.

So, you're wrong. Tough shit.
.

I'm sorry but I have no such posts of yours on my alert list, i.e., you bringing up to me equilibrium.

Why not challenge the OP on equilibrium. He supports 'self-regulation', which is essentially no regulation if the self-regulator so chooses. Is that a viable system?

 

[SwimExpert]

If capitalism is controlled by the state it's fascism.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. You are equivocating capitalism with free markets. And you're equating economic systems with political systems. Ultimately, you're saying things that don't even make any damn sense.

1 - Government control is a necessary element to maintain a capitalist society. Without the power of law to demand that ownership of profits is held by those who supplied the capital, the principle cannot be maintained. Without the law preserving ownership, possession cannot be preserved except through force and violence.

2 - Capitalism is an economic system, and really is only a portion of a complete economic system. Fascism is a complete political system. As such, they are not comparable. Your claim is the logical equivalent of saying "Put a Ford alternator in a Chevy motor and your car becomes a Toyota."

Fascism typically involves a mixed economy. By and large, fascism opposes socialism, and firmly embraces the power of capitalism. But fascism is ultimately a concern for the operation and strength of the state itself, so the underlying motive is always what makes the nation stronger, what unites the people to support the state, what unites the people under one identity, what inspires national pride, etc.

But it isn't a misunderstanding at all. The left deliberately lies about what it is in order to forward socialism.

That's a pretty absurd claim. Both sides routinely engage in these conversations, and both sides equally engage in a seemingly endless degree of false equivocations. In fact, your statement here is yet another example of your own false equivocations. Whatever you think "socialism" means, you seem to be quite wrong. Looks like you need an education. Maybe you should ask your local middle school if you can enroll.

That's why they insist on using the made up term unfettered capitalism, they put a qualifier on it and pretend that's what it is without state control.

Oh my god, they put a qualifier on it!?! You mean to tell me these bastards used an adjective to modify a noun? These freaks of nature are using language to express thoughts and ideas in a way that you haven't considered before?!? The nerve! Why, if this kind of laissez-faire approach to communication is going to be tolerated then I'm not just going to call them bastards; I say we call them rat bastards!

 

[Mac1958]

"Unfettered capitalism" is just another term for free trade.

So then, it's not really "unfettered".

Pretty tough to have honest conversations when dishonest terms are used.

The key is finding the right equilibrium, and that would be a constructive conversation.
.

Since you are not participating in the conversation at all except to nitpick semantics, what the **** do you care about 'constructive conversation'?

Sorry, I have twice brought up the significance of equilibrium and you have chosen not to respond.

Instead, you're just doing your regular partisan thing.

So, you're wrong. Tough shit.
.

I'm sorry but I have no such posts of yours on my alert list, i.e., you bringing up to me equilibrium.

Why not challenge the OP on equilibrium. He supports 'self-regulation', which is essentially no regulation if the self-regulator so chooses. Is that a viable system?

A little intellectual elasticity would lead one to realize that equilibrium is, in itself, in disagreement with self regulation.

So if you want to discuss that, great, as long as you can avoid your traditional straw men.

If the OP wants to disagree with me, great, I'm more than happy to have that conversation. He has not communicated with me yet.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Unfettered capitalism" is just another term for free trade.

So then, it's not really "unfettered".

Pretty tough to have honest conversations when dishonest terms are used.

The key is finding the right equilibrium, and that would be a constructive conversation.
.

Since you are not participating in the conversation at all except to nitpick semantics, what the **** do you care about 'constructive conversation'?

Sorry, I have twice brought up the significance of equilibrium and you have chosen not to respond.

Instead, you're just doing your regular partisan thing.

So, you're wrong. Tough shit.
.

I'm sorry but I have no such posts of yours on my alert list, i.e., you bringing up to me equilibrium.

Why not challenge the OP on equilibrium. He supports 'self-regulation', which is essentially no regulation if the self-regulator so chooses. Is that a viable system?

A little intellectual elasticity would lead one to realize that equilibrium is, in itself, in disagreement with self regulation.

So if you want to discuss that, great, as long as you can avoid your traditional straw men.

If the OP wants to disagree with me, great, I'm more than happy to have that conversation. He has not communicated with me yet.
.

He communicated with all of us when he put the thread up.

 

[dblack]

A person who claims to believe in 'free markets', for example, doesn't really mean that to be literal and absolute. Unless he's nuts, of course.

Why? Economic freedom doesn't mean the freedom to violate the rights of others. It simply means we don't need to get permission from the government to trade with other people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For those who advocate a 'free market', let's start here:

Methamphetamine.

What is the status of trade in meth in a 'free market'?

 

[bripat9643]

How long did kids work in the coal mines?

Age of consent is a government construct. Without government there is no such thing as a legal age of consent.

Capitalism doesn't mean lawlessness. Failed again.

Since I never said that, why did you post that?

I posted it to prove you don't even understand your own words. Fail again!

The OP claims that business can self-regulate and doesn't need 'fettering'. To fetter is to restrain.

It's the OP who supports lawlessness.

The claim that free enterprise includes murder for hire and child prostitution is so stupid that only some brain damaged turd like you could dream it up.

 

[bripat9643]

For those who advocate a 'free market', let's start here:

Methamphetamine.

What is the status of trade in meth in a 'free market'?

It's perfectly legal. Taking drugs is a victimless crime - meaning it's not a crime.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A person who claims to believe in 'free markets', for example, doesn't really mean that to be literal and absolute. Unless he's nuts, of course.

Why? Economic freedom doesn't mean the freedom to violate the rights of others. It simply means we don't need to get permission from the government to trade with other people.

So you don't think you should need permission to set up a meth lab and sell meth, let alone be prohibited from doing it? lol.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How long did kids work in the coal mines?

Age of consent is a government construct. Without government there is no such thing as a legal age of consent.

Capitalism doesn't mean lawlessness. Failed again.

Since I never said that, why did you post that?

I posted it to prove you don't even understand your own words. Fail again!

The OP claims that business can self-regulate and doesn't need 'fettering'. To fetter is to restrain.

It's the OP who supports lawlessness.

The claim that free enterprise includes murder for hire and child prostitution is so stupid that only some brain damaged turd like you could dream it up.

So you concede that the term 'free' is not being used in a literal, absolute sense.

Okay, then tell that to the people who are attacking the term 'unfettered' from the view that it is being used in a literal, absolute sense.

 

[RodISHI]

For those who advocate a 'free market', let's start here:

Methamphetamine.

What is the status of trade in meth in a 'free market'?

It's perfectly legal. Taking drugs is a victimless crime - meaning it's not a crime.

Generally that is the case unless the Meth or Coke addict runs out of ways to get their Meth or Coke. At that point they really have no conscience and in order to feed that addiction crimes generally ensue and then you get victims.