What I hate about capitalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-06-2013, 12:33 PM
RE: What I hate about capitalism
LOL.... It's like arguing with creationists...

Socialist: I HATE CAPITALISM! (Shows example of corporate/state collusion)

Me: Um, that's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

Socialist: I HATE CAPITALISM! (Shows example of corporate/state collusion)

Me: Um, that's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

Socialist: I HATE CAPITALISM! (Shows example of corporate/state collusion)

Me: Um, that's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

Socialist: I HATE CAPITALISM! (Shows example of corporate/state collusion)

Me: Um, that's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

Socialist: I HATE CAPITALISM! (Shows example of corporate/state collusion)

Me: Um, that's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

Socialist: I HATE CAPITALISM! (Shows example of corporate/state collusion)

Me: Um, that's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

Socialist: I HATE CAPITALISM! (Shows example of corporate/state collusion)

Me: Um, that's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

Socialist: I HATE CAPITALISM! (Shows example of corporate/state collusion)

Me: Um, that's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

Frusty

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like bbeljefe's post
09-06-2013, 01:36 PM
RE: What I hate about capitalism
(09-06-2013 09:50 AM)DeepThought Wrote:  I don't agree with the free market stuff, because the first thing a big business does in a free market is create a government equivalent or do things that eliminates a free market so it can secure itself as the main monopoly.

Oh... Shiva... where to begin.

Corporations don't create laws.
Governments create laws.
Corporations pay the government to create certain laws.

Giving the government power to create even more laws
Does NOT prevent corporations from paying the government to create laws
In fact, it gives corporations even MORE opportunities to pay the government to create laws

Taking away the government's ability to create certain laws
Makes it so corporations can NOT pay the government to create said laws
This is how you fix corporatism - you limit government power.

Lets say you're filthy rich and you want me (the government) to pass a law that would harm your competition. If I promise to pass said law, you will endorse me. Explain to me how giving me more power to create laws will stop me from creating unjust laws?

The solution to the problem is LIMITING the government. If you're rich and you want me (the government) to pass a law that would harm you competition, and I don't have the power to pass such a law, then the law can't be passed.

Are you starting to get it? Everything you propose is LEADING to the very corporatism you despise!

"How do you think we got to this point? We are here now... Businesses fighting each other for control over the government is where we are at.

Companies don't like competing and WILL DO ANYTHING to secure their dominant position. It's more profitable not to fight and to eliminate competition and stop new competition from getting started.

This isn't the only weakness with the free market arguments. It's just one of the obvious oversights.

If you try answering with more free market arguments try to summarise it and avoid wall of text syndrome and 1billion linked references syndrome. It doesn't help at all."

*head desk*

You have this weird idea that in a free-market, corporations are allowed to do whatever they want.

They aren't.

You keep suggesting that in a free-market, corporations are allowed to do whatever they want (including create their own laws that restrict the market). News flash - THAT'S NOT A FREE MARKET. In a free-market, corporations are NOT allowed to create laws or use coercion against other people!

Here's the irony of the whole issue. You keep talking about how the free-market will turn into a corporatist market. The only way a free-market can turn into a corporatist market is if government steps in and takes more control over the marketplace. HOWEVER, you're proposing that the government steps in and takes over the marketplace as a way of preventing the market from transforming into a corporatist one!

IF we can have a government that creates laws that sustain a free-market, then a free-market can be maintained. If the government stops sustaining the free-market and they get involved, then the market is no longer free.

You mentioned that, within a free-market, businesses compete for control over the government. If businesses are competing for control over the government, THEN IT'S NOT A FREE-MARKET TO BEGIN WITH.

You're really just attacking a straw man.

------------------

"Coles sells the competitions products because Coles makes money selling the competitions products alongside its own. To them it's like being a stockbroker. They cannot lose. The competition pays shelf rental and Coles takes a commission on all sales. The Coles brand products rake in extra profit and cut into other companys sales. It's win win for Coles."

First of all, you're mad at Coles because they're benefiting. They got themselves into a win-win situation, and apparently win-win situations are inherently bad.

Coles is selling their own product next to other brand name products because there is still a demand for the brand name products! It's more profitable for Coles to sell the brand name products than it is for them to sell only their own products. This does benefit Coles, but it also benefits the companies who's products are being sold by Coles! It's win-win for Coles, but it's also win for the company who's goods are being sold at Coles.

Here's the problem, you look at Coles and you see them "winning", and you assume there must be a "loser". But who's the loser? You're telling me the company who's products are being sold by Coles is the loser? Think again! That company is having their products sold by Coles! They're BENEFITING.

You argued that it's nearly impossible for other supermarkets to get started because Coles already has this "monopoly". You claim that the issue is that it's too expensive to compete with Coles. Now there is one of two scenarios.

1. Either Coles is offering a service that's very good, and very affordable, to the point most people don't know how they could pull off the same. If this is the case, then Coles is actually a very good company. (capitalism)

or

2. Coles is taking advantage of certain laws that hurt or prohibit their competition. If Coles is taking advantage of these laws, then they aren't dealing within a free-market, but rather a corporatist one. If this is the case, you're attacking capitalism for something done within a corporatist market.

------------

"We need a mixed economy. "

This is a response to the person who posted the video about wealth inequality, and stated that we need a mixed economy.

First, let's establish what "wealth inequality" is. Wealth inequality is merely the state in which one person is more wealthy than another person. That's not inherently a bad thing. In fact, capitalism promises more wealth to those who are more successful - and the successful in a capitalist society are those who best provide goods and services customers want and need. If someone is going to be wealthy, it should be those who give customers what they want.

The problem with the video is that it's all built on this basis that wealth inequality is inherently bad. However, like monopolies, it's not the inequality that's bad - but rather HOW the inequality comes to exist that may or may not be bad.

Let me bring back Jack and John:

(this is what I said earlier)
"Imagine if Jack and Tom decided to sell shirts. Jack sells his shirts for 5$, John sells his shirts for 20$. Out of 100 customers, Jack sells to 90 of them. John only sells to 10 of the customers. Because Jack sold his shirts at such a lower cost, John can't afford to stay in business. Now Jack has a monopoly! How did Jack gain the monopoly? By selling cheaper shirts, and who's going to argue that this is a bad thing?!"

Let's suppose Jack became rich selling his 5$ shirts. All of a sudden, John and his friends are mat at Jack because Jack has more money than they do! "Look at that wealth inequality!", they shout. "It's not fair!"

But Jack is selling shirts to people. He's benefiting society by meeting customer's demands. John and his friends, are not.

So when you complain about the 1%, or the 20%, or the 40%, ask yourself this, how much are they benefiting society compared to you? (Note: To benefit society - in this case - means to provide goods and services people want)

Now, I'm not defending the top percent brackets in America. I'm merely explaining that wealth inequality isn't inherently bad. It's okay for people to obtain wealth, as long as they obtain the wealth honestly through consensual trade. The problem with many of the wealthiest Americans is that they're lobbyists who profit off of government laws that destroy or prohibit their competition.

My point is this: It's not weather or not some people have more money than others, it's HOW they obtained their money.

- If someone is in the top 1% because they profited off coercion used by either themselves or the government, then they're rich due to corporatism. I am against this.

- If someone is in the top 1% because they were successful in their business, and their success did not come from coercion used by either themselves or the government, then they're rich due to capitalism. I have no problem with this, and will argue that this person deserves their wealth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2013, 01:39 PM
RE: What I hate about capitalism
I call bullshit.

Capitalism is an economic system that can operate under various forms of government, and does.

Capitalism is not inherently evil. Some people are inherently greedy and dishonest.

As a society, we need to rein in the excesses of greedy and dishonest people, whether they are capitalists or thieves or politicians. Or all of those.

Do multinational corporations wield power and influence? Yes.
Do the people who manage corporations do sneaky and underhanded, even illegal, things? Yes.
Are there problems created by collusion between businesspeople and politicians? Yes.

The solution is political, the politics are local. Elect decent people or get elected.
Fix the system, there is no other practicable choice.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
09-06-2013, 02:25 PM
RE: What I hate about capitalism
(09-06-2013 12:33 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  LOL.... It's like arguing with creationists...

Socialist: I HATE CAPITALISM! (Shows example of corporate/state collusion)

Me: Um, that's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

Socialist: I HATE CAPITALISM! (Shows example of corporate/state collusion)

Me: Um, that's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

Socialist: I HATE CAPITALISM! (Shows example of corporate/state collusion)

Me: Um, that's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

Socialist: I HATE CAPITALISM! (Shows example of corporate/state collusion)

Me: Um, that's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

Socialist: I HATE CAPITALISM! (Shows example of corporate/state collusion)

Me: Um, that's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

Socialist: I HATE CAPITALISM! (Shows example of corporate/state collusion)

Me: Um, that's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

Socialist: I HATE CAPITALISM! (Shows example of corporate/state collusion)

Me: Um, that's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

Socialist: I HATE CAPITALISM! (Shows example of corporate/state collusion)

Me: Um, that's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

Frusty

It's like arguing with a color blind person. Your false dichotomy that the socialist is the only alternative to capitalism is amusing. Capitalism does not have to be an exclusive system, and the countries in which it is fair and successful exercise a healthy balance between public and private sector. I find it stupid that so many people are hostile to the idea of equal opportunity and fair financial distribution. It is demonstrably true that the United States is at its worst when the top one percent run rampant without regulation.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2013, 02:40 PM
RE: What I hate about capitalism
(09-06-2013 01:36 PM)Nemo Wrote:  This is a response to the person who posted the video about wealth inequality, and stated that we need a mixed economy.

What, you disagree that we need a mixed economy? Go live in the Gilded Age. Kthanxbye.

(09-06-2013 01:36 PM)Nemo Wrote:  First, let's establish what "wealth inequality" is. Wealth inequality is merely the state in which one person is more wealthy than another person. That's not inherently a bad thing. In fact, capitalism promises more wealth to those who are more successful - and the successful in a capitalist society are those who best provide goods and services customers want and need. If someone is going to be wealthy, it should be those who give customers what they want.

You are under the assumption that people have equal opportunity, which they do not. Your lack of understanding about the modern issue of wealth inequality is that it is unreasonably skewed. If you even bothered to watch the video, the ideal still saw differences in the financial hierarchy, the transition to wealth was simply more fair.

(09-06-2013 01:36 PM)Nemo Wrote:  The problem with the video is that it's all built on this basis that wealth inequality is inherently bad. However, like monopolies, it's not the inequality that's bad - but rather HOW the inequality comes to exist that may or may not be bad.

Again, this post simply demonstrates your not even watching the video. Nowhere does it say that inequality is bad. It says that the massive gaps in between the classes is bad, which it is.

(09-06-2013 01:36 PM)Nemo Wrote:  Let me bring back Jack and John:

Yes, let's read your overly-simplified story.

(09-06-2013 01:36 PM)Nemo Wrote:  (this is what I said earlier)
"Imagine if Jack and Tom decided to sell shirts. Jack sells his shirts for 5$, John sells his shirts for 20$. Out of 100 customers, Jack sells to 90 of them. John only sells to 10 of the customers. Because Jack sold his shirts at such a lower cost, John can't afford to stay in business. Now Jack has a monopoly! How did Jack gain the monopoly? By selling cheaper shirts, and who's going to argue that this is a bad thing?!"

Let's say that Tom sells his shirts for $20, and because he was able to destroy any other businesses in the sector by using drastically lower prices by using cheap layer overseas, he is able to control the entire market. A monopoly. Jack can't even get into the shirt-making business.

(09-06-2013 01:36 PM)Nemo Wrote:  Let's suppose Jack became rich selling his 5$ shirts. All of a sudden, John and his friends are mat at Jack because Jack has more money than they do! "Look at that wealth inequality!", they shout. "It's not fair!"

Again, you misunderstand both the video and my point. It is not simply about people having more money. Socialism is both unfair and unintuitive, which is stated in the video. It is arguing that Jack became so incredibly rich that he is able to manipulate the market and control the government in order to secure his future, thereby destroying equal opportunity, for the rest of his life.

(09-06-2013 01:36 PM)Nemo Wrote:  But Jack is selling shirts to people. He's benefiting society by meeting customer's demands. John and his friends, are not.

This is irrelevant when contrasted with what is actually happening.

(09-06-2013 01:36 PM)Nemo Wrote:  So when you complain about the 1%, or the 20%, or the 40%, ask yourself this, how much are they benefiting society compared to you? (Note: To benefit society - in this case - means to provide goods and services people want)

Please watch the video.

(09-06-2013 01:36 PM)Nemo Wrote:  Now, I'm not defending the top percent brackets in America. I'm merely explaining that wealth inequality isn't inherently bad. It's okay for people to obtain wealth, as long as they obtain the wealth honestly through consensual trade. The problem with many of the wealthiest Americans is that they're lobbyists who profit off of government laws that destroy or prohibit their competition.

Please watch the video.

(09-06-2013 01:36 PM)Nemo Wrote:  My point is this: It's not weather or not some people have more money than others, it's HOW they obtained their money.

Please watch the video.

(09-06-2013 01:36 PM)Nemo Wrote:  - If someone is in the top 1% because they profited off coercion used by either themselves or the government, then they're rich due to corporatism. I am against this.

If that were so, you'd be agreeing with both me and the video. Welcome to crony capitalist America, baby.

(09-06-2013 01:36 PM)Nemo Wrote:  - If someone is in the top 1% because they were successful in their business, and their success did not come from coercion used by either themselves or the government, then they're rich due to capitalism. I have no problem with this, and will argue that this person deserves their wealth.

Ah, the good old pipe dream of anarcho-capitalism. It makes Marxism actually seem possible. Drinking Beverage

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2013, 02:50 PM
RE: What I hate about capitalism
(09-06-2013 02:25 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It's like arguing with a color blind person. Your false dichotomy that the socialist is the only alternative to capitalism is amusing.

Are you agitating for a minarchist state that does not interfere with trade? If not, you are agitating for a socialist agenda. It doesn't matter that you want to pick and choose where socialism is applied and where is isn't, the points you made that I am arguing against are instances where you are agitating for socialism as the solution.

Quote:Capitalism does not have to be an exclusive system, and the countries in which it is fair and successful exercise a healthy balance between public and private sector.

Capitalism is two or more people voluntarily agreeing on a transaction. When you stick a gun in one of those people's necks, you've removed the voluntary component of that transaction and thus, no longer have capitalism.

Quote:I find it stupid that so many people are hostile to the idea of equal opportunity and fair financial distribution.

I couldn't agree more. What sort of sadistic fuck wants the state to go around pointing guns at people and telling them who they have to trade with, who they can't trade with, where they can work, what they can earn, what substances they can sell and consume. It's disgusting.

Quote:It is demonstrably true that the United States is at its worst when the top one percent run rampant without regulation.

There is not one industry that the state doesn't regulate. Some are regulated more than others but make no mistake, no form of trade is unregulated in the US.

The problem isn't that there's no regulation. The problem is that pointing guns at people and thinking you're doing good does exactly the opposite of its intended purpose. Violence doesn't solve violence, it begets it.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2013, 03:36 PM
RE: What I hate about capitalism
I think this is in Pensylvania, but I'm not sure!





I don't know if "fracking", or hydraulic fracturing, is the only way to extract natural gas, but if it isn't, the government didn't point any guns at the company to get them to do this to save money. In fact, if fracking isn't the only way to get at that natural gas, then either the government SHOULD point a gun at them and tell them to stop, or allow it's people to "convince" them to stop poisoning their water supply in light of safer yet more expensive methods! Forget paying to exclude any competition! Someone's child could drink that tap water and possibly die, and no one at that corporation would give a damn! If not the Government, then who's going to step in and keep these people from hurting, and poisoning others in the name of profit? I guess we could always pray the CEO's and shareholders all spontaneously grow a consciuos; I just don't see that happening,....EVER!

Don't nit-pick this particular instance; there are plenty of examples of how not having regulations, or having lax regulations, is just a harmful, if not more so, than having laws prohibiting such inhumane practices that harm commerce! If there were not any laws against eating babies, some sick asshole would find a way to make money off showing an eating contest!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2013, 03:51 PM
RE: What I hate about capitalism
(09-06-2013 03:36 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  I think this is in Pensylvania, but I'm not sure!

Your argument might have some degree of merit if regulation prevented this from happening... but it doesn't and, it can't.

Methane migration is a natural phenomenon and it has been happening for a long, long time. Fracking can cause this phenomenon to accelerate and yes, that is a problem.

So what has the state done to stop it? Fine Chesapeake? How does that help the people who have natural gas in their water?

It doesn't. And it doesn't do the victims a lot of good to sue Chesapeake because access to the court system in the US is prohibitively expensive for 95% of the population. Especially in a case as hard to prove as this.

Like Nemo said above, the state is allowing these people to prey on citizens and your response is to beg the state for more help.

Don't you think they've helped enough? How much more help will it take for you to understand that the people who run the state and the people who run the oil companies are birds of a feather?

You have more in common with an Iraqi dirt farmer that you do your own rulers and you can't seem to get that.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2013, 04:04 PM
RE: What I hate about capitalism
(09-06-2013 03:51 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(09-06-2013 03:36 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  I think this is in Pensylvania, but I'm not sure!

Your argument might have some degree of merit if regulation prevented this from happening... but it doesn't and, it can't.

Methane migration is a natural phenomenon and it has been happening for a long, long time. Fracking can cause this phenomenon to accelerate and yes, that is a problem.

So what has the state done to stop it? Fine Chesapeake? How does that help the people who have natural gas in their water?

It doesn't. And it doesn't do the victims a lot of good to sue Chesapeake because access to the court system in the US is prohibitively expensive for 95% of the population. Especially in a case as hard to prove as this.

Like Nemo said above, the state is allowing these people to prey on citizens and your response is to beg the state for more help.

Don't you think they've helped enough? How much more help will it take for you to understand that the people who run the state and the people who run the oil companies are birds of a feather?

You have more in common with an Iraqi dirt farmer that you do your own rulers and you can't seem to get that.

So Chas was at least partially correct in saying electing officials willing to regulate without concern for their pocket books could help? Just as the regulations they'd enact could help? One might try to make the argument that regulations bought and paid for by those who are supposedly being regulated means there are no real regulations at all. And that some real ones popping up would be welcome.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2013, 04:13 PM
RE: What I hate about capitalism
(09-06-2013 04:04 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  
(09-06-2013 03:51 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Your argument might have some degree of merit if regulation prevented this from happening... but it doesn't and, it can't.

Methane migration is a natural phenomenon and it has been happening for a long, long time. Fracking can cause this phenomenon to accelerate and yes, that is a problem.

So what has the state done to stop it? Fine Chesapeake? How does that help the people who have natural gas in their water?

It doesn't. And it doesn't do the victims a lot of good to sue Chesapeake because access to the court system in the US is prohibitively expensive for 95% of the population. Especially in a case as hard to prove as this.

Like Nemo said above, the state is allowing these people to prey on citizens and your response is to beg the state for more help.

Don't you think they've helped enough? How much more help will it take for you to understand that the people who run the state and the people who run the oil companies are birds of a feather?

You have more in common with an Iraqi dirt farmer that you do your own rulers and you can't seem to get that.

So Chas was at least partially correct in saying electing officials willing to regulate without concern for their pocket books could help? Just as the regulations they'd enact could help? One might try to make the argument that regulations bought and paid for by those who are supposedly being regulated means there are no real regulations at all. And that some real ones popping up would be welcome.

Chas was correct to the degree that it is correct that if everyone had a unicorn to ride, we wouldn't need roads.

But still, "benevolent" government officials have the power to point guns at people. That's not an effective way to solve complex social problems and to be sure, it is not a moral way to solve anything.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: