Capitalism it WORKS

[nobull]

I want all to think about what Capitalism actually is... It is the individual creation of goods and services that can be traded for different goods and services. Government is not involved. Capitalism in its purest sense means complete disclosure and satisfaction with the deal. In other words you bushel of corn is an agreeable trade to my 1/2 bushel of wheat. We both agree to the exchange and there are no hidden defects.

The problem with Capitalism is not Capitalism but a character failure by either of the traders. For example you trade my your grade A corn for wheat which I know has mold.

Capitalism then decided that fixing human nature was impossible and made all transactions caveat emptor, which is Buyer Beware. So basically you trade only when you inspect the goods and agree to the trade. But even here, there could be latent defects which are not detected and so what evolved was the law to act as a forum for remedy.

This of course got further perverted by gov stepping in and regulating commerce. At first it was limited but over time, gov started making money off taxing goods so the guise of regulation led into self interest. Thus the form of capitalism we have today is not really capitalism in the pure sense of the fair deal but is a large perversion of self-interests attached to gov. Goldman is a prime example. Why the American public tolerate Goldman's astonishing government political power is beyond the pale of reason.

To ask if Capitalism works for everyone the answer is sure it does. Even the pot head crack slinger, could go out and set up a trade in drugs. Drug deals are a great example of true capitalism. The traders have to know what they are getting and they have to know the people they are dealing with, and they have built in remedies for paying and for delivering quality goods. The size and scale of the pot and cocaine business are enormous. All things considered, it operates remarkably smoothly on a global scale. It's better than Amway!

Of course if your population starts to view Gov as the source of all revenues, then you have a problem because gov will then tax capitalism and make it much less efficient. John Marshal said the power to tax was the power to destroy. Thus once again we see the black market takes on certain risk, but is not really hurt economically by Gov. Whereas, legitimate business like alcohol and tobacco are always under the destructive thumb of gov.

Capitalism in its ideal is a wonderful idea and quite natural. You trade your goods and services for someone else's goods and services. This is Craigslist or Ebay. Most of the time it works out find. Buyer beware is certainly an underlying condition of any trade. But for the most part it works. Black markets work wonderfully well. It is socialism that turns gov into a tax predator in order to feed those that refuse to be productive on their own. Since the loser set is given the right to vote, their gov become more and more predatorial until they destroy economic activity and collapse themselves.

Capitalism taken to its Utopian conclusion, creates prosperity for all. Reliable traders become successful and unreliable traders get pushed out of business. Successful organizations survive, unsuccessful are replace by more successful. The system works. Socialism has never worked.

just sayin
doug

 

[steveox]

I disagree. Watch these!

 

[Dr.Who]

Minimal and constitutionally restricted regulations on capitalism creates the best system.

Michal Moore is an idiot or a liar or both.

 

[steveox]

He Tells it like it is.

 

[Cosmo]

The capitalism you speak of has never been tried, for good reason. The closest we've ever come is the Gilded Age, and we know how that worked out.

I also find capitalism to be deeply anti-human.

 

[GenSeneca]

I also find capitalism to be deeply anti-human.

I'd be curious to hear two things,

1. Your definition/explanation of Capitalism as a system.

2. Name a system you consider to be Pro-Human.

 

[Cosmo]

I'd be curious to hear two things,

1. Your definition/explanation of Capitalism as a system.

2. Name a system you consider to be Pro-Human.

I really don't feel like writing an "explanation" of capitalism. That's trivial. We all know what we basically mean when we say "capitalism," although I agree that we should distinguish between true unabated capitalism and the kind of state capitalism seen throughout the western world. But for the sake of simplicity and this discussion, I suppose we should just ignore that distinction and basically use the current American template as our definition of "capitalism."

As for what I view as a more pro-human way of doing things, it would be in line with the basic principles of anarchism and socialism, which involve principles like all people taking part in the decision making in their place of work, nobody being forced to rent himself out as a wage slave, no economic exploitation of other people, etc.

 

[GenSeneca]

I really don't feel like writing an "explanation" of capitalism. That's trivial.

I find nothing trivial about defining the terms being used in a conversation. I'm not asking you write an epic novel, only that you offer a more concise definition.

I can offer a one sentence definition of Capitalism: Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The term Capitalism should not be confused with the term Free Market: The voluntary exchange of goods or services without interference from the State.

We all know what we basically mean when we say "capitalism,"

Based on your statements thus far, I can guarantee your understanding of "capitalism" is very different from my own. That is the reason I was asking for clarification.

I agree that we should distinguish between true unabated capitalism and the kind of state capitalism seen throughout the western world.

Yes, we should distinguish between actual Capitalism and what people loosely refer to as Capitalism. If you wish to discuss Capitalism, that is what we shall discuss. If you wish to discuss something else but call it Capitalism, then our conversation will be contentious and unproductive.

But for the sake of simplicity and this discussion, I suppose we should just ignore that distinction and basically use the current American template as our definition of "capitalism."

Which is what? What does the "current American template" offer as a definition of Capitalism?

In my experience, people bad mouth our current system as being Capitalism but it's actually Corporatism. We bounce between the Liberal Corporatism offered by the Right to the Neo-Corporatism offered by the Left and we've done so for more than a century.

As for what I view as a more pro-human way of doing things, it would be in line with the basic principles of anarchism and socialism, which involve principles like all people taking part in the decision making in their place of work...

Like a pure democracy of the workplace whereby all decisions are voted on by all the employees?

...nobody being forced to rent himself out as a wage slave, no economic exploitation of other people, etc.

Do you consider the forced redistribution of wealth to be an "economic exploitation of other people"?

Lastly, would you consider a system that protects individual rights, bans the use of force except for self defense, punishes coercion and fraud, and promotes relationships based on mutual benefit to be Anti-Human or Pro-Human?

 

[Cosmo]

The "real" version of capitalism is essentially a fantasy. Capitalism necessarily produces economic inequality, which necessarily produces political inequality, and the most economically and politically powerful members of a more or less capitalist society would never dream of allowing TRUE capitalism. That would mean corporations would have to give up their guaranteed liability limits, they would lose R&D funding, they would lose a guaranteed market for excess production (the government), they would lose the profits that come from the technology that is produced at the Pentagon, and so on. It's a tool they use to get the people behind this idea because it's in the interest of the powerful that that happens..... but truly get behind it themselves? Never. I mean I suppose the closest example of unabated and unregulated capitalism was in the Gilded Age, in which there were no federal labor laws, sanitation and health standards, safety laws, etc. If that's the sort of thing you're into, then that's the sort of thing you're into. Not me.

Like a pure democracy of the workplace whereby all decisions are voted on by all the employees?

More or less, yes.

Do you consider the forced redistribution of wealth to be an "economic exploitation of other people"?

That's an interesting question. My answer would be no. But in the type of society I'm discussing there would be little if any inequality so the question would basically be moot.

Lastly, would you consider a system that protects individual rights, bans the use of force except for self defense, punishes coercion and fraud, and promotes relationships based on mutual benefit to be Anti-Human or Pro-Human?

Obviously I would need to hear much more about the society before I decided that.

Just so I know where you're coming from..... I gather you're a Ron Paul type?

 

[GenSeneca]

The "real" version of capitalism is essentially a fantasy.

You believe the system you're proposing where "there would be little if any inequality" is something other than a fantasy? Interesting...

Capitalism necessarily produces economic inequality,

True

which necessarily produces political inequality,

False

and the most economically and politically powerful members of a more or less capitalist society would never dream of allowing TRUE capitalism.

That doesn't make sense... Unless you believe that people can only prosper at the expense of others and mutually beneficial exchanges are some kind of "fantasy".

That would mean corporations would have to give up their guaranteed liability limits, they would lose R&D funding, they would lose a guaranteed market for excess production (the government), they would lose the profits that come from the technology that is produced at the Pentagon, and so on.

Yes, corporations would be forced to earn an honest dollar under Capitalism. Government handouts, bailouts, and corporate welfare would be a thing of the past under a truly Capitalist system.

It's a tool they use to get the people behind this idea because it's in the interest of the powerful that that happens..... but truly get behind it themselves? Never.

What most "too big to fail" corporations get behind is State Corporatism, they just refer to it as Capitalism. I agree they would never support actual Capitalism, they'd have too much to lose and the same is true for the politicians and political parties who serve as their partners.

I mean I suppose the closest example of unabated and unregulated capitalism was in the Gilded Age

False. Good luck arguing there was no government interference in the markets during that period. The "Gilded Age" was a time of unregulated State Corporatism, not unregulated Capitalism:

Politics of the Gilded Age: Americans' sense of civic virtue was shocked by the scandals associated with the Reconstruction era: corrupt state governments, massive fraud in cities controlled by political machines, political payoffs to secure government contracts, and widespread evidence of government corruption during the Ulysses S. Grant Administration.​

Additionally, the idea that individual rights were protected, rather than violated, during the gilded age is absurd. But again, feel free to argue individual rights were respected more during the gilded age than any other time in history.

More or less, yes.

Such a system could function with a small group of people running a local fruit stand but would quickly become unworkable as you apply it to larger business ventures. Each minute an employee spends voting is a minute of nonproductive activity for the corporation. Large international corporations would spend their entire work day voting, rather than producing, and quickly go bankrupt.

That's an interesting question. My answer would be no.

You do not consider using force to take property from one person for the benefit of another person to be economic exploitation. That's an interesting answer... Especially since you consider voluntarily applying for a job and voluntarily accepting an agreement with the employer stating you will do job X for Y amount of time per day in return for Z amount of money to be economic exploitation.

But in the type of society I'm discussing there would be little if any inequality so the question would basically be moot.

Your type of society would have little if any inequality... And you think Capitalism is a fantasy... OK, how would your type of society accomplish this task of virtually eliminating inequality? I can only surmise such a system would require the use of force and a rampant violation of individual rights.

Obviously I would need to hear much more about the society before I decided that.

Well I'm talking about Capitalism, the type of society that I hope to see replace our current system.

Just so I know where you're coming from..... I gather you're a Ron Paul type?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Ron Paul type", I find most of his supporters incredibly obnoxious and irrational and I'm guessing you do as well. If I'm any "type", I'm an Ayn Rand style Capitalist. I agree with much of what Ron Paul has to say but don't take that to mean I'm one of his frothing at the mouth supporters because I'm not.

 

[Cosmo]

Wait, before I address the other stuff, you're claiming that economic inequality doesn't necessarily produce political inequality? How so? Are you in favor of public financing of elections or something?

 

[Hobo1]

Capitalism as an ideal is a very good way to distribute goods and services to the People. I must quickly add that, in practice, it can never be a totally unregulated free-for-all. Even the purist capitalist recognizes some fatal flaws, such as the creating of monopolies or unethical behavior (ie, clearly false advertising).

Having said that, every Congressperson should take the basic attitude that capitalism is good for the country and every new regulation must be clearly necessary (not just a good idea).

The primary point I want to make is capitalism in America is under attack from countries like China. Here, a openly declared Communist country where the government has the power to regulate everything is allowed to be a member of the World Trade Organization. Any totalitarian country that is able to keep wages low and disregard all environmental protection should not be allowed to compete with American countries without penalty or tariff. Companies operating in China have an unfair advantage over American companies.

For capitalism to work, all participants must play on a level playing field. To use an example cited above, the drug trade is indeed a good example of pure capitalism. However when you get the mafia to come in and play the game, then the small drug dealer will loose out every time. And the consumer will no longer be well served.

I agree that "Capitalism works", provided the same rules apply to all players. When one player jumps into a phone booth and changes into Superman, that is time that the government must step in and call foul. It is time for our government to cry foul on these countries that have an unfair advantage.

 

[nobull]

Capitalism as an ideal is a very good way to distribute goods and services to the People. I must quickly add that, in practice, it can never be a totally unregulated free-for-all. Even the purist capitalist recognizes some fatal flaws, such as the creating of monopolies or unethical behavior (ie, clearly false advertising).

Having said that, every Congressperson should take the basic attitude that capitalism is good for the country and every new regulation must be clearly necessary (not just a good idea).

The primary point I want to make is capitalism in America is under attack from countries like China. Here, a openly declared Communist country where the government has the power to regulate everything is allowed to be a member of the World Trade Organization. Any totalitarian country that is able to keep wages low and disregard all environmental protection should not be allowed to compete with American countries without penalty or tariff. Companies operating in China have an unfair advantage over American companies.

For capitalism to work, all participants must play on a level playing field. To use an example cited above, the drug trade is indeed a good example of pure capitalism. However when you get the mafia to come in and play the game, then the small drug dealer will loose out every time. And the consumer will no longer be well served.

I agree that "Capitalism works", provided the same rules apply to all players. When one player jumps into a phone booth and changes into Superman, that is time that the government must step in and call foul. It is time for our government to cry foul on these countries that have an unfair advantage.

Well said..Thank you
doug

 

[steveox]

This man is OUR KING! Hes gonna end capitolism

 

[Dr.Who]

Capitalism as an ideal is a very good way to distribute goods and services to the People. I must quickly add that, in practice, it can never be a totally unregulated free-for-all. Even the purist capitalist recognizes some fatal flaws, such as the creating of monopolies or unethical behavior (ie, clearly false advertising).

Having said that, every Congressperson should take the basic attitude that capitalism is good for the country and every new regulation must be clearly necessary (not just a good idea).

The primary point I want to make is capitalism in America is under attack from countries like China. Here, a openly declared Communist country where the government has the power to regulate everything is allowed to be a member of the World Trade Organization. Any totalitarian country that is able to keep wages low and disregard all environmental protection should not be allowed to compete with American countries without penalty or tariff. Companies operating in China have an unfair advantage over American companies.

For capitalism to work, all participants must play on a level playing field. To use an example cited above, the drug trade is indeed a good example of pure capitalism. However when you get the mafia to come in and play the game, then the small drug dealer will loose out every time. And the consumer will no longer be well served.

I agree that "Capitalism works", provided the same rules apply to all players. When one player jumps into a phone booth and changes into Superman, that is time that the government must step in and call foul. It is time for our government to cry foul on these countries that have an unfair advantage.

If enough of the population opposes the unethical behavior then market forces will eliminate it. Even if only a tiny percent of people oppose unethical behavior it will still be more profitable to be ethical than to be unethical and unethical behavior will eventually be eliminated.

But lets suppose that mankind is inherently evil and there will always be too much unethical behavior for market forces to eliminate it. Then, within capitalism, the evil of one man will be set against the evil of another and will cancel each other out. While at the same time the good of one man will synergize with the good of another to multiply their effects.

These two forces are minimizing factors but I do not believe that they are enough to totally eliminate the effects of unethical behavior (or if they are it will simply take too long).

I believe that we need regulation. But it needs to be regulation that is limited by principles so that the evil of men which wants to corrupt the regulation just as much if not more than it wants to corrupt the market can be checked.

In that last bit there is a concept that bears repeating: whatever evil in men corrupts capitalism it corrupts regulation to a greater extent. There is a greater danger from unchecked regulation than from unregulated capitalism.