Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The End of Capitalism?

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 2:11:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
David Harvey delivers a great speech on post-Marxist theory and the alternative to Capitalism. His speech starts at 8:00.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 1:38:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Summary plox.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 1:52:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lk's right. Td;lr pl0x.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 3:33:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2012 1:52:25 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Lk's right. Td;lr pl0x.

What?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 3:42:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 3:33:50 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 11/19/2012 1:52:25 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Lk's right. Td;lr pl0x.

What?

Summarise it.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 4:44:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 3:33:50 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 11/19/2012 1:52:25 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Lk's right. Td;lr pl0x.

What?

Internet translator:

Lordknuckle is right. Too long; didn't read. Please.

King James Version:

Our Lord, Knuckle, who art on DDO, is the way, the light and the Truth. Thou shall not offer up any excessive material with not, too, a shorter version. I do implore you for such, my brother.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 9:00:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 8:01:02 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Btw, I didn't watch the video but Capitalism isn't going anywhere.

Neither is socialism. They're two sides of the same coin.

Capitalism is great when the goal is to protect scarce resources and build capital. Socialism, or a socialistic system, works better when the goal is the betterment of society, a la police and fire protection.

What is the goal of health care (or, I should say, what should the goal of health care be)? Health, right? Unfortunately, right now, we have a health care system where the goal is the maximization of profit, and this is contrary to what the goal should be. Health care, then, should be under a socialistic system.

At the same time, we are soon going to run out of helium if we can't figure out a way to mine it from the moon's surface (who knew it was such a rich source of helium? maybe there is something to the whole NASA thing, after all...). Helium is incredibly important in modern electronic devices, like MRI, because it is an inert gas which can be cooled to near 0 degrees Kelvin. Thus, in order to run out of this resource as slowly as possible, the Helium market should be a capitalist one.

They've both been around since hunters/gatherers have begun trading with tribes of other such proto-humans. We just recently came up with a name for both of them. Together, they work fairly well. Individually, they're both sure-fire losers.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 9:07:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
First he asks "why is it so hard to imagine an alternative to capitalism?", claims there is a "bankruptcy of ideas as to what to do about the failures of 2008+", in the 1930's there were alternatives discussed, but not now. He stopped for a moment to say that he went to a "tuition free" school (without explaining how teachers fed and clothed themselves). He then blames the Rockefeller's for eliminating tuition-free schools in New York. He fails to mention the city was bankrupt and the government was also part of this urging. It might be worth stopping and mentioning that the speaker, David Harvey, as near as I can tell has spent his entire life living off of others. In other words, while those that produce fund his existence, he uses their money to write books that criticize capitalism. Next, he claims that Republicans are preventing us from doing what Keynes recommended during the great depression (wikipedia says this about harvey: "Widely influential, he is among the top 20 most cited authors in the humanities". Proof you don't need facts to be influential).

Finally at 21:30 he says he is going to speak to Marxist theory (finally, I can't wait).

http://www.youtube.com...

This is paraphrased:

"There are two classes in society: capitalists and workers. Total demand comes from capitalists purchasing the means to production and workers spending wages. The total supply is the surplus at the end of the day, the profit. So there is more at the end of the day then the start of the day. Who gets the "more at the end of the day". The capitalists, of course. The capitalists generate the surplus (profit), then they have to find the money to pay for it. That's a weird economy. What the capitalists do is buy now, pay later. Since they have to continue to produce more each day, and they have to pay for that, this gap is filled by the credit system. So, the accumulation of capital matches the accumulation of debt. If you retire the debt, you end the capital, and capitalism. "

This is disappointing. This is just more criticism and really bad criticism at that. Maybe someone else can help me, but in what way does business have to pay for profit? Profit is used to fund expansion or pay dividends. He continues:

"Capitalism requires what I call a state financed nexus."

Ok, I get it. Because Capitalism requires mountains of debt, it can only happen via the state, ie Federal Reserve, etc. He claims to have studied history on this, but apparently is unaware that the Capitalism of the 19th century didn't really need this "nexus" very much.

Maybe at some point he gets past criticism and discusses a coherent theory of Marxism. Wallstreet, maybe you can post another link with a time parameter on it. I admit I don't know much about Post-Marxist theory but I think this guy is an idiot. I mean he writes books about the philosophy of geography.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 9:17:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 9:07:44 PM, ax123man wrote:


Ok, I get it. Because Capitalism requires mountains of debt, it can only happen via the state, ie Federal Reserve, etc. He claims to have studied history on this, but apparently is unaware that the Capitalism of the 19th century didn't really need this "nexus" very much.

The FED is a private organization, and The US has spent a grand total of one day "in the black" (under Andrew Jackson...we were something like $33K in the hole at the time, so he paid it off...and then began the process of amassing new debt) in its entire history, so I'd say the nexus is real. It is irrelevant, but it's certainly real.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 9:52:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 9:00:21 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/10/2012 8:01:02 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Btw, I didn't watch the video but Capitalism isn't going anywhere.

Neither is socialism. They're two sides of the same coin.

Capitalism is great when the goal is to protect scarce resources and build capital. Socialism, or a socialistic system, works better when the goal is the betterment of society, a la police and fire protection.

What is the goal of health care (or, I should say, what should the goal of health care be)? Health, right? Unfortunately, right now, we have a health care system where the goal is the maximization of profit, and this is contrary to what the goal should be. Health care, then, should be under a socialistic system.

At the same time, we are soon going to run out of helium if we can't figure out a way to mine it from the moon's surface (who knew it was such a rich source of helium? maybe there is something to the whole NASA thing, after all...). Helium is incredibly important in modern electronic devices, like MRI, because it is an inert gas which can be cooled to near 0 degrees Kelvin. Thus, in order to run out of this resource as slowly as possible, the Helium market should be a capitalist one.

They've both been around since hunters/gatherers have begun trading with tribes of other such proto-humans. We just recently came up with a name for both of them. Together, they work fairly well. Individually, they're both sure-fire losers.

capitalism is giving people what they want through voluntary exchange. I fail to see how that isn't in societies best interest. The companies that satisfy their customers the most are able to get the most business. Thus capitalism is the best system to satisfy the needs and wants of society.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 10:23:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 9:17:07 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/10/2012 9:07:44 PM, ax123man wrote:


Ok, I get it. Because Capitalism requires mountains of debt, it can only happen via the state, ie Federal Reserve, etc. He claims to have studied history on this, but apparently is unaware that the Capitalism of the 19th century didn't really need this "nexus" very much.

The FED is a private organization, and The US has spent a grand total of one day "in the black" (under Andrew Jackson...we were something like $33K in the hole at the time, so he paid it off...and then began the process of amassing new debt) in its entire history, so I'd say the nexus is real. It is irrelevant, but it's certainly real.

Well, yea, the debt is real. My issue with this guy is he seems to know nothing about economics and how business works. And how would he? He's been an author and professor his whole life, studying social theory and Marxism (and the philosophy of geography). He hasn't had a direct, or even indirect, impact on the production of goods/wealth in his life.

I have issues with the debt myself, but this guy thinks capitalism will die without debt, and more specifically state-sponsored debt. To that, he's just flat wrong. I do realize there could be semantics at play here. Like many on the left, Harvey likely can't (or won't) distinguish between free markets and crony capitalism. It's against his interests to do so - wrapping it all up in a nice neat evil ball of state sponsored capitalism makes it easier to bash so it can be replaced with marxist socialism.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 10:44:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 9:52:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/10/2012 9:00:21 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/10/2012 8:01:02 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Btw, I didn't watch the video but Capitalism isn't going anywhere.

Neither is socialism. They're two sides of the same coin.

Capitalism is great when the goal is to protect scarce resources and build capital. Socialism, or a socialistic system, works better when the goal is the betterment of society, a la police and fire protection.

What is the goal of health care (or, I should say, what should the goal of health care be)? Health, right? Unfortunately, right now, we have a health care system where the goal is the maximization of profit, and this is contrary to what the goal should be. Health care, then, should be under a socialistic system.

At the same time, we are soon going to run out of helium if we can't figure out a way to mine it from the moon's surface (who knew it was such a rich source of helium? maybe there is something to the whole NASA thing, after all...). Helium is incredibly important in modern electronic devices, like MRI, because it is an inert gas which can be cooled to near 0 degrees Kelvin. Thus, in order to run out of this resource as slowly as possible, the Helium market should be a capitalist one.

They've both been around since hunters/gatherers have begun trading with tribes of other such proto-humans. We just recently came up with a name for both of them. Together, they work fairly well. Individually, they're both sure-fire losers.

capitalism is giving people what they want through voluntary exchange. I fail to see how that isn't in societies best interest. The companies that satisfy their customers the most are able to get the most business. Thus capitalism is the best system to satisfy the needs and wants of society.

Let you local fire and police departments move to private competition (thus, in the case of police, "customers" could pay to have people arrested), and then tell me it's always best.

Capitalism works great in some instances, but it is absolutely awful for others. Imagine if we had three fundamentally different highway systems like we do with the 3 main computer operating currently available - Windows, Mac OS and Linux (one where we drove on the right side, and one on the left and one that no one quite understood). It would be an expensive, chaotic clusterfuck.

How well did Enron serve the power needs of the American West in the "pure capitalist model"? It's a little more complicated than this (there were a lot of factors at play), but Enron basically ruined California.

The US Government is this country's largest economic driver, and it also dictates how the economy will move and grow...just like in China. The only difference, China is more honest about it...and probably just as Capitalistic in how they do it.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 11:35:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2012 1:38:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Summary plox.

It's been a while since I've watched this, but I'll sum it up in two sentences. You only have to watch about 5 minutes of any part of his speech to understand how fragile his ideology is in relation to reality. It was interesting to view events and concepts from the Marxist point of view for a change, but the sophistical networks between Marxist conceptions were and are quite weak.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Jake-migkillertwo
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 2:22:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 11:35:00 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 11/19/2012 1:38:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Summary plox.

It's been a while since I've watched this, but I'll sum it up in two sentences. You only have to watch about 5 minutes of any part of his speech to understand how fragile his ideology is in relation to reality. It was interesting to view events and concepts from the Marxist point of view for a change, but the sophistical networks between Marxist conceptions were and are quite weak.

http://www.amazon.com...

Perhaps Sowell did not give a balanced presentation of Marxism (although confessed marxists who have read Sowell said that he gave a very balanced portrait of Marxism and Marx for the first 6 chapters), but it is difficult to take marxists very seriously after reading this book.

I really don't think these guys have any understanding of finance or marginalist analysis.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 2:35:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 2:22:58 PM, Jake-migkillertwo wrote:
but it is difficult to take marxists very seriously after reading this book.

All I know is that I am not a Marxist - Karl Marx

Kinda takes the wind out of most Marxist's sails, frankly.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 8:05:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 2:35:04 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/11/2012 2:22:58 PM, Jake-migkillertwo wrote:
but it is difficult to take marxists very seriously after reading this book.

All I know is that I am not a Marxist - Karl Marx

Kinda takes the wind out of most Marxist's sails, frankly.

Not really. Marx was condemning the violence that people advocated in his name. Way to talk one sentence out of context, lol.

Marx was documenting what he believed would happen. They were his projections.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 8:32:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 8:05:56 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/11/2012 2:35:04 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/11/2012 2:22:58 PM, Jake-migkillertwo wrote:
but it is difficult to take marxists very seriously after reading this book.

All I know is that I am not a Marxist - Karl Marx

Kinda takes the wind out of most Marxist's sails, frankly.

Not really. Marx was condemning the violence that people advocated in his name. Way to talk one sentence out of context, lol.

Marx was documenting what he believed would happen. They were his projections.

...and thus the flaw in, at the very least, how his theories were presented to, and understood by, the masses he was trying to assist.

Perhaps this quote, sarcastically repeated by its author, would be more to your liking - Hope lies with The Proles - George Orwell
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 8:36:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 8:32:17 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/11/2012 8:05:56 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/11/2012 2:35:04 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/11/2012 2:22:58 PM, Jake-migkillertwo wrote:
but it is difficult to take marxists very seriously after reading this book.

All I know is that I am not a Marxist - Karl Marx

Kinda takes the wind out of most Marxist's sails, frankly.

Not really. Marx was condemning the violence that people advocated in his name. Way to talk one sentence out of context, lol.

Marx was documenting what he believed would happen. They were his projections.

...and thus the flaw in, at the very least, how his theories were presented to, and understood by, the masses he was trying to assist.

The people who abused his theories were people who advocated vanguard parties and cult solutions. They deprived power from the masses. So, your analysis is way off.
Perhaps this quote, sarcastically repeated by its author, would be more to your liking - Hope lies with The Proles - George Orwell

1. Prove that it was sarcastic.

2. George Orwell was a democratic socialist.

3. Even if this is correct, at best it is an appeal to authority.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 8:45:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 8:36:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

1. Prove that it was sarcastic.

2. George Orwell was a democratic socialist.

3. Even if this is correct, at best it is an appeal to authority.

Prove it was sarcastic? To do that, I would have to read the entire text of nineteeneightyfour to you, as anyone who has read the book KNOWS Orwell was being sarcastic as "The Proles" in that book were completely useless in Winston imagined revolution against Big Brother.

Orwell was a revolutionary, a visionary and a realist. His political views changed and became more and more nuanced throughout his life. The only label I would affix to him, were I you, with the exception of genius, would be Mister.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 8:50:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Orwell was able to see the inherent flaws of Socialism in the same way he saw the flaws of Capitalism. In the end, the only difference is who is abusing power and oppressing the masses. It's gonna happen under both systems. The only difference is where power is concentrated, and thus the group abusing it.

Four legs good. Two legs better.


Or have you not read Animal Farm either?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 8:50:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 10:44:33 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/10/2012 9:52:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/10/2012 9:00:21 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/10/2012 8:01:02 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Btw, I didn't watch the video but Capitalism isn't going anywhere.


Let you local fire and police departments move to private competition (thus, in the case of police, "customers" could pay to have people arrested), and then tell me it's always best.

This isn't really an argument. The justice system in the U.S. right now is, to use your words, a clusterfuck. Your worried about private individuals paying to have someone arrested when your system jails 2.3 million citizens, many of victimless crimes. There is a wealth of examples of police abuse and brutality. Most people go to jail without a trial. If you get a trial, you are already in jail for months or years. How on earth can you defend this system or not imagine there might be something better?


Capitalism works great in some instances, but it is absolutely awful for others. Imagine if we had three fundamentally different highway systems like we do with the 3 main computer operating currently available - Windows, Mac OS and Linux (one where we drove on the right side, and one on the left and one that no one quite understood). It would be an expensive, chaotic clusterfuck.

What does "fundamentally different" mean? There are many examples of private highways - just google it. How can any rational human being think that government can build something more efficiently (ie less expensively as you claim) than the private sector? Is this the same gov. that produced the USPS that loses billions every year? How about Amtrak? The gov. that spends 70% of each dollar targeted to welfare on overhead? The gov. losing $1.2 trillion every year?

Regarding computers, I've worked with all three of your listed OS's without issue (along with a few others). It's really not that difficult given standards like TCP/IP and HTTP. There's value in variety, which produces innovation thru competition.

Your reasoning is completely emotional and irrational.


How well did Enron serve the power needs of the American West in the "pure capitalist model"? It's a little more complicated than this (there were a lot of factors at play), but Enron basically ruined California.

California, for the most part, has done itself in. Energy is one of, if not the, most highly regulated industry in the country and has been for 100 years. I wonder why every time there is a capitalist crisis, it's in a heavily regulated market, particularly finance and energy?

There are millions of "capitalist" businesses in this country and sometimes they will be run by crooks. Do you have any examples of some other economic system that hasn't had this happen?


The US Government is this country's largest economic driver, and it also dictates how the economy will move and grow...just like in China. The only difference, China is more honest about it...and probably just as Capitalistic in how they do it.

This is bull. I wonder how it is that we ever got thru the 19th century. I also ponder why, as government grows, our standard of living has leveled off, or, taking into account the massive inflation produced by the Federal Reserve, gone down.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 10:17:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 8:50:21 PM, ax123man wrote:
At 12/10/2012 10:44:33 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/10/2012 9:52:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/10/2012 9:00:21 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/10/2012 8:01:02 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Btw, I didn't watch the video but Capitalism isn't going anywhere.


Let you local fire and police departments move to private competition (thus, in the case of police, "customers" could pay to have people arrested), and then tell me it's always best.

This isn't really an argument. The justice system in the U.S. right now is, to use your words, a clusterfuck. Your worried about private individuals paying to have someone arrested when your system jails 2.3 million citizens, many of victimless crimes. There is a wealth of examples of police abuse and brutality. Most people go to jail without a trial.

Oh really? Unless you're referring to plea bargained sentences, I do know of a few people who have been jailed in this way under The Patriot Act,but otherwise, your assertion that "most" go to prison without a trial is dishonest (plea bargains are voluntary) or complete BS. And if you say they cant afford a lawyer, neither can I. Know what I can do? Learn the law and defend myself (which I have done in several civil trials, and I have only lost one of them)

If you get a trial, you are already in jail for months or years. How on earth can you defend this system or not imagine there might be something better?


Unless you're in the can for murder or something, criminal trials don't take months. If they do, that's a 7th amendment violation and anyone you know who has dealt with that should find a Civil Rights Attorney to take their case and win them a little scratch for when they get out.

We've had private police in this country, early on. There's a reason we don't any longer. You think it's bad now, try that system out of a while. It's the mob with shiny, blue uniforms (protection rackets...they did exactly what an crime organization does when they are the only available police for a community).

So, we did try it. It worked even more poorly than what we got (sorry you and your friends get caught doing drugs, man...get getting at procuring drugs and you won't have to worry about it).



Capitalism works great in some instances, but it is absolutely awful for others. Imagine if we had three fundamentally different highway systems like we do with the 3 main computer operating currently available - Windows, Mac OS and Linux (one where we drove on the right side, and one on the left and one that no one quite understood). It would be an expensive, chaotic clusterfuck.

What does "fundamentally different" mean? There are many examples of private highways - just google it. How can any rational human being think that government can build something more efficiently (ie less expensively as you claim) than the private sector? Is this the same gov. that produced the USPS that loses billions every year? How about Amtrak? The gov. that spends 70% of each dollar targeted to welfare on overhead? The gov. losing $1.2 trillion every year?


Here's how - Medicare spends $.03 for every dollar they take in on administrative costs. That means $.97 cents of every dollar they take in goes to funding health care. Private medical insurance, you may recall from the ACA that recently passed, has a $.35 per dollar allowance for profit and administrative costs. Therefore, for every dollar they take in, only $.65 cents goes to funding health care. (and, Medicare expansion would create the same number of jobs, and Medicare would fuel the economy the same as those private businesses do).

Now, go look into the total cost to the consumer for private highways as compared to public highways (which includes taxes you pay). The cost, per mile, is nearly double to drive on a private highway, there's no cohesive system (like the Interstate Freeway System built after WWII) and the condition of the private roads is no better than that of the public roads on any consistent basis.

How can any sane individual think the government can do things better than private industry? Intellectual curiosity and research...that's how.


Regarding computers, I've worked with all three of your listed OS's without issue (along with a few others). It's really not that difficult given standards like TCP/IP and HTTP. There's value in variety, which produces innovation thru competition.

I used an analogy to which people could relate. Also, the information highway is a little less cumbersome than the actual highway system (which is another reason I used that example...a little thing called symmetry)


Your reasoning is completely emotional and irrational.


How well did Enron serve the power needs of the American West in the "pure capitalist model"? It's a little more complicated than this (there were a lot of factors at play), but Enron basically ruined California.

California, for the most part, has done itself in. Energy is one of, if not the, most highly regulated industry in the country and has been for 100 years. I wonder why every time there is a capitalist crisis, it's in a heavily regulated market, particularly finance and energy?

Um...because once they take all the regulation away, as they did with power deregulation in CA, it's a free-for-all, and companies like Enron can purposefully shut down power plants that they own, cause brownouts and then charge customers 5X the standard rate to bring their own power plant online that never should have gone offline in the 1st place (and, that's exactly what they did...that's not any sort of exaggeration).


There are millions of "capitalist" businesses in this country and sometimes they will be run by crooks. Do you have any examples of some other economic system that hasn't had this happen?

Hey, I'm fully into the capitalist system for a great many things, but there are industries that shouldn't be under the capitalist system. Plus, whoever I was responding to said that capitalism is ALWAYS best, and there are myriad examples to show that it is clearly not.



The US Government is this country's largest economic driver, and it also dictates how the economy will move and grow...just like in China. The only difference, China is more honest about it...and probably just as Capitalistic in how they do it.

This is bull. I wonder how it is that we ever got thru the 19th century. I also ponder why, as government grows, our standard of living has leveled off, or, taking into account the massive inflation produced by the Federal Reserve, gone down.

The reason our standard of living has leveled off is because all the countries that blew themselves up (with our help) or that we blew up (Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial targets, not military ones, and the commander of NATO at that time, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, himself stated that the bombing of Japan was completely unnecessary) have rebuilt, and countries like China and India, with whom we never had to compete before, are now our direct competitors.

Also, agreements like NAFTA (free trade...whoo hoo).

Canada has a concept called the Crown Corporation which is a quasi-private/government entity, and they necessitate that all vital industries are set up as Crown Corps. They can't make a profit (though they usually do, which they simply reinvest in operations), but they operate like a private company, and they are a thing that Canadian citizens would protect almost to their deaths.

Your black and white views of economics are boring, though, and obviously the product of someone who has never studied the topic at any serious level.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 1:53:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Most of capitalism is economic law that cannot be abolished, any more that Newton's laws can be abolished. Economic laws are that money has time value, that supply meets demand at a price, and that risk must be compensated by reward. Pretending the laws of economics do not exist works as well as designing an airplane while pretending gravity does not exist.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 9:37:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 9:00:21 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Capitalism is great when the goal is to protect scarce resources and build capital. Socialism, or a socialistic system, works better when the goal is the betterment of society, a la police and fire protection.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. The fire deparment, for instance, protects the scarce resource houses. There was a time such protection was left to capitalism, and it failed miserably. Not everything has a functional explanation. Capitalism simply is, and it would be better if it weren't.
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 9:44:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 9:37:03 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/10/2012 9:00:21 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Capitalism is great when the goal is to protect scarce resources and build capital. Socialism, or a socialistic system, works better when the goal is the betterment of society, a la police and fire protection.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. The fire deparment, for instance, protects the scarce resource houses. There was a time such protection was left to capitalism, and it failed miserably. Not everything has a functional explanation. Capitalism simply is, and it would be better if it weren't.

I'd like to follow up on your comment. Can you point me to a source, country, location?
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 2:55:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 1:53:34 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Most of capitalism is economic law that cannot be abolished, any more that Newton's laws can be abolished. Economic laws are that money has time value, that supply meets demand at a price, and that risk must be compensated by reward. Pretending the laws of economics do not exist works as well as designing an airplane while pretending gravity does not exist.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

the Godfather of DDO has spoken.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 3:43:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 1:53:34 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Most of capitalism is economic law that cannot be abolished, any more that Newton's laws can be abolished. Economic laws are that money has time value, that supply meets demand at a price, and that risk must be compensated by reward. Pretending the laws of economics do not exist works as well as designing an airplane while pretending gravity does not exist.

TANSTAGI
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 7:55:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 3:43:17 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/13/2012 1:53:34 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Most of capitalism is economic law that cannot be abolished, any more that Newton's laws can be abolished. Economic laws are that money has time value, that supply meets demand at a price, and that risk must be compensated by reward. Pretending the laws of economics do not exist works as well as designing an airplane while pretending gravity does not exist.

TANSTAGI

There's no such thing as a gravity inversion?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...