What is "Unfettered Capitalism"?

[The Rabbi]

When has the US ever had an economy that was not regulated by government?

We could not settle this continent without federal regulation of land tights. The government granted vast tracts of land to the railroads. American trade goods had their prices regulated and protected by tariffs. Anytime there is a contract let between the state and a private contractor, the government is a player in the marketplace.

And as the government is us, shouldn't we be protected from shabby workmanship and financial fraud? If so, we had better have some regulations.

If the role of the federal government is to be limited to keeping the ports navigable, deliver the mail, protect our rights by way of a rigorous yet fair system of justice, defend the shore, and get out of the way, what manner of society would we have?

Are the lessons learned from labor strife through farm prices collapsing to the off shoring of our middle class opportunities all forgotten or passé?

Capitalism is the best scaffolding upon which to build an economy. But there has to be rules to play by. Otherwise, we see casino Capiralism. I submit that any corporation or individual playing the commodities market be require to be able to take immediate possession of the commodity they trade in. Of course, the commodities market sets prices world wide. As we are the final consumers, or buyers, why would we tolerate an artificially high price simply because some data and/or paper exchanged hands, not the physical barrels of oil or tankers full of molasses.

You're an ignoramus. But we all knew that.
In fact land rghts were a very contentious issue into the 19th century.
But it is downright funny seeing the libs say stuff like "gov't regulates weights and measures so we will never have unfettered capitalism."
It is a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

 

[dblack]

"Unfettered Capitalism".

What a silly phrase.

Can anyone provide an example?
.

Can you provide an example of 'free trade'?

Two people trade with each other free of coercion. It happens all the time. Have you never noticed?

 

[Flopper]

Pure capitalism does not take into account government's responsibilities making it a theoretical construct that's unworkable in the real world. Pure capitalism is just another Utopian idea which is no more practical than pure socialism.

Pure capitalism depends on government's responsibility to maintain and enforce property law. So it very much takes that 'into account'. But it does reject government's authority to dictate our economic decisions. Is that what you're referring to?

No, I'm referring to our government's responsibility to keep our free markets free of corruption and protection of the health and safety of the public; specifically full disclosure of investor information so it's available to not just to the wealthy and power but all Americans, banking regulations that guarantee the safety of deposits, product regulations particularly health and safety that insure that the food we eat and our medicines are safe, and protection of our most precious resources, the air we breath and water we drink.

 

[dblack]

Pure capitalism does not take into account government's responsibilities making it a theoretical construct that's unworkable in the real world. Pure capitalism is just another Utopian idea which is no more practical than pure socialism.

Pure capitalism depends on government's responsibility to maintain and enforce property law. So it very much takes that 'into account'. But it does reject government's authority to dictate our economic decisions. Is that what you're referring to?

No, I'm referring to our government's responsibility to keep our free markets free of corruption and protection of the health and safety of the public; specifically full disclosure of investor information so it's available to not just to the wealthy and power but all Americans, banking regulations that guarantee the safety of deposits, product regulations particularly health and safety that insure that the food we eat and our medicines are safe, and protection of our most precious resources, the air we breath and water we drink.

Well, you're wrapping up quite a bit there. Transparency in trade is important, and I'd agree the state has a responsibility to punish fraud. But "safety" is dubiously subjective. "Protecting" people from their own willingness to accept risk isn't a coherent concept. If I'm willing to drink raw milk, or try out drugs that haven't yet been approved by government, why shouldn't I be allowed to do that?

To be blunt, I simply don't buy the idea that government is there to protect us from our own ignorance. That's rationalizing tyranny.

 

[Flopper]

Pure capitalism does not take into account government's responsibilities making it a theoretical construct that's unworkable in the real world. Pure capitalism is just another Utopian idea which is no more practical than pure socialism.

Pure capitalism depends on government's responsibility to maintain and enforce property law. So it very much takes that 'into account'. But it does reject government's authority to dictate our economic decisions. Is that what you're referring to?

No, I'm referring to our government's responsibility to keep our free markets free of corruption and protection of the health and safety of the public; specifically full disclosure of investor information so it's available to not just to the wealthy and power but all Americans, banking regulations that guarantee the safety of deposits, product regulations particularly health and safety that insure that the food we eat and our medicines are safe, and protection of our most precious resources, the air we breath and water we drink.

Well, you're wrapping up quite a bit there. Transparency in trade is important, and I'd agree the state has a responsibility to punish fraud. But "safety" is dubiously subjective. "Protecting" people from their own willingness to accept risk isn't a coherent concept. If I'm willing to drink raw milk, or try out drugs that haven't yet been approved by government, why shouldn't I be allowed to do that?

To be blunt, I simply don't buy the idea that government is there to protect us from our own ignorance. That's rationalizing tyranny.

Imagine an American in which people were wary of putting their money in banks or putting their retirement savings in the hands of financial institutions, an America in which businesses were free to use any tactic to sell their products with no fear of government intervention. That's not an America where I would want to live.

I have no problem with taking risks in business or investing as long I'm not playing with a stacked deck. However, when it comes to the health and safety of my family, I'm not a risk taker and I doubt many other Americans are.

 

[The Rabbi]

Pure capitalism does not take into account government's responsibilities making it a theoretical construct that's unworkable in the real world. Pure capitalism is just another Utopian idea which is no more practical than pure socialism.

Pure capitalism depends on government's responsibility to maintain and enforce property law. So it very much takes that 'into account'. But it does reject government's authority to dictate our economic decisions. Is that what you're referring to?

No, I'm referring to our government's responsibility to keep our free markets free of corruption and protection of the health and safety of the public; specifically full disclosure of investor information so it's available to not just to the wealthy and power but all Americans, banking regulations that guarantee the safety of deposits, product regulations particularly health and safety that insure that the food we eat and our medicines are safe, and protection of our most precious resources, the air we breath and water we drink.

Well, you're wrapping up quite a bit there. Transparency in trade is important, and I'd agree the state has a responsibility to punish fraud. But "safety" is dubiously subjective. "Protecting" people from their own willingness to accept risk isn't a coherent concept. If I'm willing to drink raw milk, or try out drugs that haven't yet been approved by government, why shouldn't I be allowed to do that?

To be blunt, I simply don't buy the idea that government is there to protect us from our own ignorance. That's rationalizing tyranny.

Imagine an American in which people were wary of putting their money in banks or putting their retirement savings in the hands of financial institutions, an America in which businesses were free to use any tactic to sell their products with no fear of government intervention. That's not an America where I would want to live.

I have no problem with taking risks in business or investing as long I'm not playing with a stacked deck. However, when it comes to the health and safety of my family, I'm not a risk taker and I doubt many other Americans are.

OK, let's play.
Let's say you had an America where people didnt want to put money in banks. What would banks do? Sit there and go out of business from lack of funds?
Or would they respond by advertising how solid they were? Because this was the situation prior to FDR. There was no insurance. Banks and their directors were responsible for depositors' money. One bank went so far as to have physical gold in sufficient quantity to cover depositors' funds. They displayed it in the lobby.
The problem with libs is they think without government programs people would just sit on the curb and wait to die.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If there's no regulations in our economy this country would be a very ugly place to live. Big corps could pretty much do what ever the fuck they wanted.

The loserterian movement is a fucking joke.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I did a quick Google search and found this on page one. You two think that the left did not accuse W of unfettered capitalism.
You must be blind.
The great Bush 'deregulation' myth

Isn't hindsight wonderful? I would have never given the two-back the ball, the QB should have ... I would never have thrown a strike, the pitcher should have put the ball above the letters ... I would never bet on that horse ... used a five iron from that far out ...

 

[The Rabbi]

If there's no regulations in our economy this country would be a very ugly place to live. Big corps could pretty much do what ever the fuck they wanted.

The loserterian movement is a fucking joke.

According to you they already do that.
The only "losertarian" around here is you, Mr. Science and Infrastructure.

 

[The Rabbi]

I did a quick Google search and found this on page one. You two think that the left did not accuse W of unfettered capitalism.
You must be blind.
The great Bush 'deregulation' myth

Isn't hindsight wonderful? I would have never given the two-back the ball, the QB should have ... I would never have thrown a strike, the pitcher should have put the ball above the letters ... I would never bet on that horse ... used a five iron from that far out ...

Do you actually not realize he has shown you to be an ignorant fool, or are you just trying to pretend and hope no one notices?

 

[SwimExpert]

Wrong. It is controlled too much but no agency tells me what to charge for my efforts.

Capitalism has nothing to do with how much you charge for your efforts, or who decides what to charge. That's a feature of free markets. In a free market, you can decide to charge whatever you want for your efforts as long as the purchaser agrees to the price. Capitalism deals with who owns the products of your efforts. Specifically, the product is owned by whomever provided the capital.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

WHEN "CAPITALISM" IS CONTROLLED BY THE STATE IS CALLED FASCISM.


.

When Capitalists's collude with government officials, it is called a Plutocracy; when the power of money controls a nations dialogue, we have achieved the 21st Century iteration of Fascism.

When CORRUPT BUSINESSMEN COLLUDE WITH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IT IS CALLED FASCISM.



...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....


Benito Mussolini

 

[bripat9643]

Pure capitalism does not take into account government's responsibilities making it a theoretical construct that's unworkable in the real world. Pure capitalism is just another Utopian idea which is no more practical than pure socialism.

Pure capitalism depends on government's responsibility to maintain and enforce property law. So it very much takes that 'into account'. But it does reject government's authority to dictate our economic decisions. Is that what you're referring to?

No, I'm referring to our government's responsibility to keep our free markets free of corruption and protection of the health and safety of the public; specifically full disclosure of investor information so it's available to not just to the wealthy and power but all Americans, banking regulations that guarantee the safety of deposits, product regulations particularly health and safety that insure that the food we eat and our medicines are safe, and protection of our most precious resources, the air we breath and water we drink.

The government has no such responsibilities. Check the Constitution. You won't see them mentioned.

 

[Iceweasel]

Wrong. It is controlled too much but no agency tells me what to charge for my efforts.

Capitalism has nothing to do with how much you charge for your efforts, or who decides what to charge. That's a feature of free markets. In a free market, you can decide to charge whatever you want for your efforts as long as the purchaser agrees to the price. Capitalism deals with who owns the products of your efforts. Specifically, the product is owned by whomever provided the capital.

Wrong. Repeating an error doesn't make it true. If I pay $50 for materials and decide to charge $200 for the service I provide with it because it's what I determine it's worth, that's capitalism. I only provided $50 worth of capital, not $200. Profit is the foundation of capitalism, it's the individual setting the value that determines how free it is. If the government sets prices and services it becomes something closer to fascism. That's why we use the term free market capitalism, but it's really a redundant term.

 

[Searcher44]

Capitalism is a self regulating system. Charge too much, someone will undercut you. Deliver bad goods/services? People will stop buying. Cheat someone? Expect a big lawsuit.
The problems that people cite with "capitalism" usually are the result of lack of capitalism, i.e. gov't intrusion.
Capitalism has raised standards of living and brought people out of poverty. Why would anyone want to fetter that?

It's self-regulating? Then why have laws against child prostitution as an enterprise?

What part of capitalism allows for child rape, murder, theft or any other idiotic strawman you care to erect?

I'll make it simple for you again, child prostitution is a business, just like selling oil. Civil society decides it is a vile business and regulates it by passing laws that make it a felony. Are you really this stupid?

Self-regulation is RWnut fantasy. People won't even stop their cars at an intersection without a stop sign there,

let alone regulate themselves in the world of business where money and greed are kings.

Actually it's been shown that intersections without traffic lights are more efficient than intersections with traffic lights. In many countries the roads don't have traffic lights. But the fact is that whoever provides a service has to set the rules for using that service. Airlines have all kinds of rules that you have to follow if you want to fly on a plane. Those aren't regulations.

Regulations are when government interferes in private business transactions. These actions serve no useful purpose since the parties to any transaction are able to come to an agreement to what the rules will be. Otherwise the transaction wouldn't take place.

You keep blithely making statements that are obviously nonsense on their face. Like this one;

"Regulations are when government interferes in private business transactions. These actions serve no useful purpose since the parties to any transaction are able to come to an agreement to what the rules will be. Otherwise the transaction wouldn't take place"

What if their agreement includes price fixing such as two airlines or more agreeing on the amount of a "fuel surcharge" ? Or the "agreement" was the organized effort during the mid-1990s to raise the price of the animal feed additive lysine. It involved five companies that had commercialized high-tech fermentation technologies, Are you saying there shouldn't be any regulations to control these types of "agreements"?

 

[bripat9643]

It's self-regulating? Then why have laws against child prostitution as an enterprise?

What part of capitalism allows for child rape, murder, theft or any other idiotic strawman you care to erect?

I'll make it simple for you again, child prostitution is a business, just like selling oil. Civil society decides it is a vile business and regulates it by passing laws that make it a felony. Are you really this stupid?

Self-regulation is RWnut fantasy. People won't even stop their cars at an intersection without a stop sign there,

let alone regulate themselves in the world of business where money and greed are kings.

Actually it's been shown that intersections without traffic lights are more efficient than intersections with traffic lights. In many countries the roads don't have traffic lights. But the fact is that whoever provides a service has to set the rules for using that service. Airlines have all kinds of rules that you have to follow if you want to fly on a plane. Those aren't regulations.

Regulations are when government interferes in private business transactions. These actions serve no useful purpose since the parties to any transaction are able to come to an agreement to what the rules will be. Otherwise the transaction wouldn't take place.

You keep blithely making statements that are obviously nonsense on their face. Like this one;

"Regulations are when government interferes in private business transactions. These actions serve no useful purpose since the parties to any transaction are able to come to an agreement to what the rules will be. Otherwise the transaction wouldn't take place"

What if their agreement includes price fixing such as two airlines or more agreeing on the amount of a "fuel surcharge" ? Or the "agreement" was the organized effort during the mid-1990s to raise the price of the animal feed additive lysine. It involved five companies that had commercialized high-tech fermentation technologies, Are you saying there shouldn't be any regulations to control these types of "agreements"?

It's "obvious nonsense" only to morons like you who are totally ignorant of economics. Price fixing schemes have been attempted time and time again throughout American history, and they have always failed. That's because the incentive to cheat is just too great. It's odd that leftwingers complain about price fixing when FDR's New Deal was actually just one gigantic scheme to fix prices and have the government enforce it.

Lysine is an essential amino acid, so why would anyone complain about it being added to animal feed?

If companies are adding dangerous substances to our food, they can be sued in a court of law. There's no need for some huge regulatory bureaucracy.

 

[SwimExpert]

If I pay $50 for materials and decide to charge $200 for the service I provide with it because it's what I determine it's worth, that's capitalism.

No. That's a free market. Your being uneducated about the matter does not make you magically correct.

I only provided $50 worth of capital, not $200.

No shit? Lookie der! You can count!

What is your point? Are you misunderstanding things? Gee, imagine that.

Anyway, what makes you the owner of the $150 profit? By what right do you claim that profit? Eh? Why doesn't the profit belong to the workers who performed the labor?

In a capitalist system, the right to those profits stems from the fact that you supplied the capital for the endeavor. Hence the name capitalism. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Why are you so damned pig headed that you aren't willing to learn something? Why is ignorance so much more appealing to you?

Profit is the foundation of capitalism

Actually, capital is the foundation of capitalism. If profits were the foundation it would be called profitism.

it's the individual setting the value that determines how free it is.

Oh, for fuck's sake, now you're just spraying loose bowel from your mouth. Seriously, are you 10 years old? Because your knowledge, education level, and mastery of basic economics is piss poor.

First of all, it is impossible for one party to set the value of something, unless that party is the government. Otherwise, it takes two parties to set the value of something; the seller and the buyer. Both sides have to agree to a common value. Only then can value actually be established.

Second, based on your statement the freeness of a market is an all or nothing affair. Either you set your price, or you don't. Either it's free, or it's not at all. That of course is 100% bollocks. The freeness of a market is fluid, and is based on what degree of limitations and controls are set by the government.

If the government sets prices and services it becomes something closer to fascism. That's why we use the term free market capitalism, but it's really a redundant term.

No, it's not a redundant term. Jesus Hell! For someone who was complaining about people re-inventing the meaning of words and phrases, you sure are doing your damnest to obliterate the English language.

The term "free market capitalism" highlights everything that I've been saying. Once again, your lack of education shows itself. You are making assumptions about what things mean, because you haven't a clue otherwise, and you're too stupid to be able to envision the subject in a multi-faceted way; the only way you can even pretend to understand the subject is to reduce it to the same kind of one-dimensional false dichotomy as so many other topics in our modern political environment.

The reason we use the phrase "free market capitalism" is because both free markets and capitalism are separate elements of an economic system. Even if government set 100% of prices, our system would still be capitalist. It just wouldn't be a free market anymore. On the other hand, if government set 0% of prices, but the laws changed to assign ownership of profits based on those who supplied the labor, that would be a free market socialist system.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Unfettered capitalism is a factory dumping toxic chemicals into a river without fear of legal liability.

Unfettered capitalism is a business operating an unsafe workplace without fear of legal liability.

Unfetter capitalism is a business selling uninspected meat without fear of legal liability.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

If companies are adding dangerous substances to our food, they can be sued in a court of law. There's no need for some huge regulatory bureaucracy.

How could they be sued in a court of law in your world of no government?

 

[SwimExpert]

Unfettered capitalism is a factory dumping toxic chemicals into a river without fear of legal liability.

Unfettered capitalism is a business operating an unsafe workplace without fear of legal liability.

Unfetter capitalism is a business selling uninspected meat without fear of legal liability.

"Unfettered" capitalism is just a casual way of saying laissez-faire capitalism. It's funny how laissez-faireists are so terrified to call a rose a rose.