Questions for capitalists.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-10-2013, 09:33 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(24-10-2013 09:21 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Have fun in the little fantasy land you apparently live in. I am done responding to you as you have no idea what is actually involved in these decisions and are uninterested in a real discussion.
...
I wasn't kidding. I will toss up obvious fact checking but as you do not engage in honest debate I see no need to waste my time responding.

@Revenant77x, be SPECIFIC. If there is something that I said that is illogical, copy/paste it and state what is wrong with it. Dismissing it all as nonsense just because it doesn't suit your world view is so closed minded. The fact is that everything I said is no different than what Milton Friedman or Friedrich Hayek said, and they're both highly regarded intellectuals, so it's disingenuous to suggest this position is somehow "beneath you" and a waste of time to debate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 09:55 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
Quote:So you're arguing from some outdated definition of "socialism"

@Girlyman, where do you get that it's outdated? When you look it up on dictionary.com, or on wikipedia, the definition is still social ownership of the means of production. I know that the word is currently in all sorts of different ways, so it's hard to know what anybody means by it. But I'm not aware of the “official” definition ever changing, and 'intellectuals', like Noam Chomsky, a socialist, still use it in the same way I do. Do you have a new, updated dictionary or encyclopedia that proposes a newer definition, or suggests that this definition is “outdated”?

Quote:Hey now big fella, I said I knew you weren't dim let alone condemning you to Palinesque dimwittedness. Hell, I kinda like you. I try to not be all up in your grill 'cause I think you got some worthwhile shit to say. But your arguments are only considered when you ain't all up in my grill. ... Fair enough?

Fair enough. I like you too. I even like I and I. You engage in debate. You don't do 'drive by' attacks and throwing out silly accusations. And, you even concede points you don't like, such as your admission that people like myself who manage our own health care judiciously are fucked by Obamacare.

What's more, when it comes to actual policy, I imagine we only disagree on one thing, namely if these policies should be done at the national level. I am a classic liberal and believe in letting everyone exercise their free will. But I admit only a small minority will ever share that view, so a compromise needs to be reached to accommodate all views. Thus I believe we should follow the constitution and the rule of law where the Federal government should stick to the enumerated powers it was given and everything else should be left to the states, which are free to be liberal, conservative, socialist, communist, libertarian, hippie, or anything else they want, and let people pick the state that has the system they're the most comfortable in. Is that really such an extreme position?

Aren't there advantages to competing experiments in democracy, with 50 states competing to have the best system to lure residents and bright minds? Isn't it a safety valve if a bad policy slips through to let people, as a last resort, move to another state if the law is too burdensome?

For example, I'd never bash Romneycare. If I lived in Massachusetts when it passed, I would quietly move. No fuss. I condemn Obamacare because there's no means of escape—it does fuck me, and even if I'm willing to live and work in another country, even one with a single payer system like Canada, I'm STILL subject to the individual mandate because 40 years ago I happened to be born within the US borders and thus the US thinks it owns me for life and that I'm subject to its rules no matter where in the world I go. That's indentured servitude.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 09:58 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(24-10-2013 09:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(24-10-2013 09:21 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Have fun in the little fantasy land you apparently live in. I am done responding to you as you have no idea what is actually involved in these decisions and are uninterested in a real discussion.
...
I wasn't kidding. I will toss up obvious fact checking but as you do not engage in honest debate I see no need to waste my time responding.

@Revenant77x, be SPECIFIC. If there is something that I said that is illogical, copy/paste it and state what is wrong with it. Dismissing it all as nonsense just because it doesn't suit your world view is so closed minded. The fact is that everything I said is no different than what Milton Friedman or Friedrich Hayek said, and they're both highly regarded intellectuals, so it's disingenuous to suggest this position is somehow "beneath you" and a waste of time to debate.

I will probably regret this but I will give you another chance. While the US is not a fully Socialist state it is at best a mixed economy. Government does claim ownership of several resources that are then leased to private companies to develop. Pure Laissez-faire capitalism is unworkable and leads directly to far worse oppression than the supposed injustice of a rule of law democratic republic.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 10:11 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
Quote:I will probably regret this but I will give you another chance. While the US is not a fully Socialist state it is at best a mixed economy. Government does claim ownership of several resources that are then leased to private companies to develop.

Look, I agree with you that throughout history government has always owned some resources. For example, government builds roads, and it could be said that 'road building' is a 'means of production' that is 'socially owned'. But to call that "partial socialism" is, imo, misleading because that means the world has ALWAYS had partial socialism and the socialist revolutions were, thus, meaningless. So, will you concede that according to the strict, literal definition of socialism, the one that revolutions like the Bolshevik's were fought over, the goal was a complete and total ban on ANY private ownership of the means of production, so that it is thus, by definition, impossible to be "partially socialist"?

Quote:Pure Laissez-faire capitalism is unworkable and leads directly to far worse oppression than the supposed injustice of a rule of law democratic republic.

The closest we've ever had is Hong Kong. In the 1970's the British authorized an experiment in pure laissez-faire free market capitalism with an official 'hands off' policy of non-intervention. Government officials and politicians were even prevented from getting economic indicators to make sure they didn't try to influence the economy. Milton Friedman called it the "greatest experiment in laissez-faire capitalism" (until the Chinese took it back, and it's been slowly returning to a more traditional government).

Given that when the experiment ended 30 years later, Hong Kong was the #1 trading hub in the world, with the 6th largest stock market (#1 if factored by population), a 30,000% increase in gdp, and millions of people flocking to it so it became the most densely populated place on the planet, why do you say it was "unworkable" and led to "oppression"? If the people were being oppressed, why was there such a flood of immigrants?

Or are you saying HK wasn't pure laissez-faire capitalism? If so, why wasn't it? And then if HK wasn't pure laissez-faire, what in your opinion WAS the closest thing to pure laissez-faire this past century, that you considered to be such a failure?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 10:20 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(24-10-2013 10:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:I will probably regret this but I will give you another chance. While the US is not a fully Socialist state it is at best a mixed economy. Government does claim ownership of several resources that are then leased to private companies to develop.

Look, I agree with you that throughout history government has always owned some resources. For example, government builds roads, and it could be said that 'road building' is a 'means of production' that is 'socially owned'. But to call that "partial socialism" is, imo, misleading because that means the world has ALWAYS had partial socialism and the socialist revolutions were, thus, meaningless. So, will you concede that according to the strict, literal definition of socialism, the one that revolutions like the Bolshevik's were fought over, the goal was a complete and total ban on ANY private ownership of the means of production, so that it is thus, by definition, impossible to be "partially socialist"?

Quote:Pure Laissez-faire capitalism is unworkable and leads directly to far worse oppression than the supposed injustice of a rule of law democratic republic.

The closest we've ever had is Hong Kong. In the 1970's the British authorized an experiment in pure laissez-faire free market capitalism with an official 'hands off' policy of non-intervention. Government officials and politicians were even prevented from getting economic indicators to make sure they didn't try to influence the economy.

Given that when the experiment ended 30 years later, Hong Kong was the #1 trading hub in the world, with the 6th largest stock market (#1 if factored by population), a 30,000% increase in gdp, and millions of people flocking to it so it became the most densely populated place on the planet, why do you say it was "unworkable" and led to "oppression"? If the people were being oppressed, why was there such a flood of immigrants?

Or are you saying HK wasn't pure laissez-faire capitalism? If so, why wasn't it? And then if HK wasn't pure laissez-faire, what in your opinion WAS the closest thing to pure laissez-faire this past century, that you considered to be such a failure?

I remember seeing your Hong Kong argument decimated in another thread by cjlr or chas, I'm not sure which thread that was in or I would give a direct link. As for your challenge I would go back more than a century to the 1880's and the rise of the robber barons in post civil war America. Worker exploitation, child labor, atrocious working conditions (for a great look at this read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair) all done with little to no government oversight or regulations. This of course lead directly to the formation of Labor Unions and worker safety laws.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 10:43 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
There is no such thing as pure Laseiz-faire capitalism for many reasons.

1. Capitalism is built on the idea of limitless expansion, this does not exist because resources are finite, this is a road block to laiseiz-fare capitalism.

2. Capitalists keep forming governments that are tools for capitalist oppression of other up coming businesses and the working class. This puts more hurdles for most to even try their turn at being a capitalist. Governments that are owned and controlled by the biggest capitalists effectively limit competition.

3. Competition. The idea of competition means that a corporation can use it's size to limit competition. Capitalists themselves take part in inhibiting capitalism by using points 2 and 3.

4. The working class does not like to live like shit. This is simple, you can't keep oppressing workers and expect them to not attempt to limit your power to exploit them.

Hence, pure laissez-faire capitalism is not possible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes I and I's post
24-10-2013, 11:39 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(24-10-2013 10:43 PM)I and I Wrote:  There is no such thing as pure Laseiz-faire capitalism for many reasons.

1. Capitalism is built on the idea of limitless expansion, this does not exist because resources are finite, this is a road block to laiseiz-fare capitalism.

2. Capitalists keep forming governments that are tools for capitalist oppression of other up coming businesses and the working class. This puts more hurdles for most to even try their turn at being a capitalist. Governments that are owned and controlled by the biggest capitalists effectively limit competition.

3. Competition. The idea of competition means that a corporation can use it's size to limit competition. Capitalists themselves take part in inhibiting capitalism by using points 2 and 3.

4. The working class does not like to live like shit. This is simple, you can't keep oppressing workers and expect them to not attempt to limit your power to exploit them.

Hence, pure laissez-faire capitalism is not possible.

You missed the biggest one. It assumes a completely rational consumer and there ain't no such thing, that why they invented marketing. Wink

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
24-10-2013, 11:52 PM
Questions for capitalists.
(24-10-2013 11:39 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(24-10-2013 10:43 PM)I and I Wrote:  There is no such thing as pure Laseiz-faire capitalism for many reasons.

1. Capitalism is built on the idea of limitless expansion, this does not exist because resources are finite, this is a road block to laiseiz-fare capitalism.

2. Capitalists keep forming governments that are tools for capitalist oppression of other up coming businesses and the working class. This puts more hurdles for most to even try their turn at being a capitalist. Governments that are owned and controlled by the biggest capitalists effectively limit competition.

3. Competition. The idea of competition means that a corporation can use it's size to limit competition. Capitalists themselves take part in inhibiting capitalism by using points 2 and 3.

4. The working class does not like to live like shit. This is simple, you can't keep oppressing workers and expect them to not attempt to limit your power to exploit them.

Hence, pure laissez-faire capitalism is not possible.

You missed the biggest one. It assumes a completely rational consumer and there ain't no such thing, that why they invented marketing. Wink

Yep, but that is more philosophical. Rational choices made by individuals can lead to irrational results.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 07:59 AM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(10-10-2013 12:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @I and I, I already gave my situation earlier in this thread, and I asked you if I am a capitalist or labor, but never got a reply. Now you're saying I'm not a capitalist. But please explain. From my post below, who are the capitalists and who are the laborers? What about Bill Gates? Capitalist or laborer? How are he and I any different? We're both software coders, we both started a business, we both made money at the business, and we both invested it in other projects. Of course, there's a HUGE difference in the numbers (his numbers have many more zero's than mine). But, explain to me, please, from a practical, philosophical manner, what's the difference between Bill and me based on my situation. To me, most of us ARE capitalists and we're all laborers too--for many people their 'capital' is the fruits of their labor, but it's entirely fluid and dynamic and labor can be converted into cash and vice-versa. Have you ever invested in anything, I and I? What about a computer? If you invest a computer and use it to make money, aren't you a capitalist, just like the investor who puts money into a company to buy computers?

Quote:It's an old trick to make up a fake 'battle' between capital and labor. I started a business several years ago. I sold my home and assumed huge debt to get the business going, and worked in the business 100+ hour weeks for several years without a break. Was I "capital" or "labor"? At one point when money got really tight, I offered the employees to take some of their pay in stock instead of cash. Most took advantage of that. Are they "capital" or "labor"? And later I took on an investor who bought shares for cash. He's obviously "capital", but why do you say he's on the opposite side of the "laborers"? Weren't the laborers doing the same thing, effectively donating cash (in the form of reduced salary) to buy equity in the business? If the investor's interests were contrary to the "laborers", why were the "laborers" so thrilled to have an investor come on board so they could again take a full salary? Some of the "laborers", however, preferred to continue with a reduced salary in exchange for equity. Capital and labor are NOT opposing teams in a free market capitalist system, they are both on the same team struggling for the same goals. If an investor, say a doctor, works hard for decades and lives modestly so that he has extra income to invest in start-up business, his "capital" _IS_ his "labor". They are one and the same. In life we all have choices to make to balance risk vs. reward. Some prefer the security of collecting a regular paycheck and will give up own equity in business. Some are all about taking on risk to have more in the future and will invest everything they made from previous labor, or put in new labor ("sweat equity") to own a stake in a business. Others balance this and collect salary + stock. In a business, you have a group of people working together towards one goal, and they all put in what they have, some have capital, some have labor, some have both.

(24-10-2013 10:43 PM)I and I Wrote:  There is no such thing as pure Laseiz-faire capitalism for many reasons.

1. Capitalism is built on the idea of limitless expansion, this does not exist because resources are finite, this is a road block to laiseiz-fare capitalism.

2. Capitalists keep forming governments that are tools for capitalist oppression of other up coming businesses and the working class. This puts more hurdles for most to even try their turn at being a capitalist. Governments that are owned and controlled by the biggest capitalists effectively limit competition.

3. Competition. The idea of competition means that a corporation can use it's size to limit competition. Capitalists themselves take part in inhibiting capitalism by using points 2 and 3.

4. The working class does not like to live like shit. This is simple, you can't keep oppressing workers and expect them to not attempt to limit your power to exploit them.

Hence, pure laissez-faire capitalism is not possible.

A fake battle between labor and capital? FAKE????
How many times has the capitalist class paid police to beat working protesters in the past few hundred years? How many times has the capitalist class used government to implement laws to put more working people in jail? How many times has the capitalist class used the working class to fight it's wars? All of the economic policies implemented by the capitalist class cause millions of people to die of starvation and live in deplorable conditions. Your mind simply refuses to take anything into account as for the majority of people in the world that suffer from capitalism.

Here is my beef with you, In order to believe what you believe I have to completely and totally detach my mind from reality and simply ignore the paragraph I just said above.

IF YOU HAVE TO IGNORE LARGE PARTS OF REALITY TO MAINTAIN BELIEF IN A SYSTEM THEN THAT SYSTEM IS NOT WORTH KEEPING AND AS EVIDENCE SHOWS, IT IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS FOR MOST OF THE BILLIONS OF PEOPLE ON THE PLANET.

Your bar for success of a system is extremely low if millions of people dying of malnutrition every year and billions of people living in poverty. To believe in capitalism in 2014 is the true definition of faith. It is killing people, it is killing the environment and it is failing like a mother fucker right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWSxzjyMNpU The richest 300 people on earth have more wealth than the poorest 3 billion. (a mother fucking B)

Is your support for capitalism base on anything substantial? excluding a simple desire, wish, hope, faith.

Bill Gates is profiting off of (owning privately...

1. The labor of thousands of extremely low paid mine workers that extract minerals we use in computers in africa.

2. The labor of many workers to make the parts for his computers.

3. The labor of many people to assemble these parts.

Since when have you privately owned the results of other peoples labor and the goods they produced?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 08:19 AM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
You'll have to excuse I&I Frankksj. He failed at life, most likely due to his "winning personality", and is angry against everyone because he can't comprehend that maybe the problem his life is so shit is because he's a useless waste of space not because other people are "out to stick it to him".
He's incapable of taking responsibility for his own actions as well as being incapable of pulling his head out of his own arse.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: