Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pure capitalism

CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 7:10:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Pure laissez-faire capitalism? 1929?

The Great Depression from my understanding (probably rudimentary), was due to the unregulated free market, in which due to the roaring 20s there was too much borrowing, spending, growth, goods and when the bubble burst, it affected the whole world.

I am very capitalist, but you need anti-cronyist, anti-monopoly/oligarchy and regulations so the market is free, but not one-sided to the rich. Pure capitalism will not work, and will only cause a plutocratic state.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 11:19:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
How do you define "pure" capitalism? There's never been a system that was 100% free market laissez faire capitalism with no government intervention (US in 1929 was as much an example of misguided fiscal policy, bad management from the Federal Reserve, and protectionism stifling trade as of capitalism failing). There have been plenty of examples of capitalism with varying levels of government oversight, but it's hard to even think of a time when government kept itself to protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and penalizing the use of force and fraud without meddling in some other ways as well, which has left who's at fault for crises open to debate.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 11:37:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 7:10:16 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:
Pure laissez-faire capitalism? 1929?

The Great Depression from my understanding (probably rudimentary), was due to the unregulated free market, in which due to the roaring 20s there was too much borrowing, spending, growth, goods and when the bubble burst, it affected the whole world.

It was caused by the government stimuli of previous years, coupled with poor monetary policy.

I am very capitalist, but you need anti-cronyist, anti-monopoly/oligarchy and regulations so the market is free, but not one-sided to the rich. Pure capitalism will not work, and will only cause a plutocratic state.

Other than assertions, can you provide any evidence to back that up?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 11:51:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 11:37:57 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/28/2014 7:10:16 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:
Pure laissez-faire capitalism? 1929?

The Great Depression from my understanding (probably rudimentary), was due to the unregulated free market, in which due to the roaring 20s there was too much borrowing, spending, growth, goods and when the bubble burst, it affected the whole world.

It was caused by the government stimuli of previous years, coupled with poor monetary policy.

I am very capitalist, but you need anti-cronyist, anti-monopoly/oligarchy and regulations so the market is free, but not one-sided to the rich. Pure capitalism will not work, and will only cause a plutocratic state.

Other than assertions, can you provide any evidence to back that up?

Assertions? Evidence is not needed here. Monopolistic/oligopolistic businesses in a capitalist state have higher profits. Therefore, they can expand on their capital and brand until the point of their domination over a nation.

This means their products are more inelastic, they take on a lot of social responsibility in regards to what industry they are in (e.g. food and health). Not only this, if a large industry becomes monopolistic, then people rely on them for their needs.

This means that effectively they have power over people. They can reduce the levels of obesity, increase it, increase prices so to hurt the poor and decrease to benefit the poor, they can import their foods or get them from farms, so effectively the supplier industry is in their hands.

They have the ability to shape diets, rule what people eat by simply changes prices and in an monopolistic industry their actions could lead to the happiness of the people...which politicians want. Politicians want votes, and want people in all areas to be happy, therefore if a business has said power over people, and has such a large effect, keeping the business successful and in the right state is what they want.

And then we have crony-capitalism. We watch as bureaucracy, sometimes needed is chopped off in order to please the business. We watch as in times of crises, the government works with said business, such as obesity in order to reduce it.

This seems far-fetched, but this is exactly what happened with Google and the Right-to-Forget initiative. Google, basically a monopoly and at best an oligopoly in its field has this responsibility and ties with the EU parliament because of it. Now, Google are a benign industry, but any industry owned by anyone moderately malignant can turn this in their favour and start exploiting its own people.

Such as Foxconn and their sweatshops covered in anti-suicide nets. If we allow this to happen freely, there will be no small businesses at the level needed for maximum happiness and if all fields are dominated by a couple of businesses, they take on a level of social responsibility and power which effectively create a quasi-plutocratic state.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 11:53:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 11:37:57 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/28/2014 7:10:16 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:
Pure laissez-faire capitalism? 1929?

The Great Depression from my understanding (probably rudimentary), was due to the unregulated free market, in which due to the roaring 20s there was too much borrowing, spending, growth, goods and when the bubble burst, it affected the whole world.

It was caused by the government stimuli of previous years, coupled with poor monetary policy.

I am very capitalist, but you need anti-cronyist, anti-monopoly/oligarchy and regulations so the market is free, but not one-sided to the rich. Pure capitalism will not work, and will only cause a plutocratic state.

Other than assertions, can you provide any evidence to back that up?

I am certain that you are more educated with regards to the great depression, I am after all not an American, but I don't assert. Free market capitalism runs on people wanting to buy your stuff, and when the amount of said people doing so is high enough that your growth approaches an exponential rate, it only fuels a big businesses quest for economic superiority.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 12:41:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 11:19:22 AM, storytimewithjesus wrote:
How do you define "pure" capitalism? There's never been a system that was 100% free market laissez faire capitalism with no government intervention (US in 1929 was as much an example of misguided fiscal policy, bad management from the Federal Reserve, and protectionism stifling trade as of capitalism failing). There have been plenty of examples of capitalism with varying levels of government oversight, but it's hard to even think of a time when government kept itself to protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and penalizing the use of force and fraud without meddling in some other ways as well, which has left who's at fault for crises open to debate.

I agree completely. As far as the debate goes as to fault, In my opinion It is those who are entrusted but fail to enforce the rule of law that cause all economic failures based on capitalism. Without the rule of law there is nothing but cronyism and nepotism.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 12:46:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 12:41:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:19:22 AM, storytimewithjesus wrote:
How do you define "pure" capitalism? There's never been a system that was 100% free market laissez faire capitalism with no government intervention (US in 1929 was as much an example of misguided fiscal policy, bad management from the Federal Reserve, and protectionism stifling trade as of capitalism failing). There have been plenty of examples of capitalism with varying levels of government oversight, but it's hard to even think of a time when government kept itself to protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and penalizing the use of force and fraud without meddling in some other ways as well, which has left who's at fault for crises open to debate.

I agree completely. As far as the debate goes as to fault, In my opinion It is those who are entrusted but fail to enforce the rule of law that cause all economic failures based on capitalism. Without the rule of law there is nothing but cronyism and nepotism.

Amen to that.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 11:35:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 12:41:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:19:22 AM, storytimewithjesus wrote:
How do you define "pure" capitalism? There's never been a system that was 100% free market laissez faire capitalism with no government intervention (US in 1929 was as much an example of misguided fiscal policy, bad management from the Federal Reserve, and protectionism stifling trade as of capitalism failing). There have been plenty of examples of capitalism with varying levels of government oversight, but it's hard to even think of a time when government kept itself to protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and penalizing the use of force and fraud without meddling in some other ways as well, which has left who's at fault for crises open to debate.

I agree completely. As far as the debate goes as to fault, In my opinion It is those who are entrusted but fail to enforce the rule of law that cause all economic failures based on capitalism. Without the rule of law there is nothing but cronyism and nepotism.

Can you explain what rule of law means?
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 11:46:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 11:35:17 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
Can you explain what rule of law means?

It means that all people are subject to the law, including the people who make the laws. In a dictatorship, oligopoly, etc. the people making and enforcing the laws are allowed to break them, so they are ruled by people, not laws. Western democracies are generally built with legal safeguards and checks and balances that make it possible to hold lawmakers and law enforcement responsible if they break the law. When those systems work, you have the rule of law, because even the people making and enforcing the law are penalized for breaking it.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 11:47:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 11:46:25 PM, storytimewithjesus wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:35:17 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
Can you explain what rule of law means?

It means that all people are subject to the law, including the people who make the laws. In a dictatorship, oligopoly, etc. the people making and enforcing the laws are allowed to break them, so they are ruled by people, not laws. Western democracies are generally built with legal safeguards and checks and balances that make it possible to hold lawmakers and law enforcement responsible if they break the law. When those systems work, you have the rule of law, because even the people making and enforcing the law are penalized for breaking it.

Alright. It seems like America has been quite hypocritical with whom the rule of law applies.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 12:02:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 11:35:17 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/28/2014 12:41:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:19:22 AM, storytimewithjesus wrote:
How do you define "pure" capitalism? There's never been a system that was 100% free market laissez faire capitalism with no government intervention (US in 1929 was as much an example of misguided fiscal policy, bad management from the Federal Reserve, and protectionism stifling trade as of capitalism failing). There have been plenty of examples of capitalism with varying levels of government oversight, but it's hard to even think of a time when government kept itself to protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and penalizing the use of force and fraud without meddling in some other ways as well, which has left who's at fault for crises open to debate.

I agree completely. As far as the debate goes as to fault, In my opinion It is those who are entrusted but fail to enforce the rule of law that cause all economic failures based on capitalism. Without the rule of law there is nothing but cronyism and nepotism.

Can you explain what rule of law means?

It is the basis of republicanism, whereby every individual is subject to the law, and government power is restricted by the law.

To quote the legal dictionary;

"The rule of law is an ambiguous term that can mean different things in different contexts. In one context the term means rule according to law. No individual can be ordered by the government to pay civil damages or suffer criminal punishment except in strict accordance with well-established and clearly defined laws and procedures. In a second context the term means rule under law. No branch of government is above the law, and no public official may act arbitrarily or unilaterally outside the law. In a third context the term means rule according to a higher law. No written law may be enforced by the government unless it conforms with certain unwritten, universal principles of fairness, morality, and justice that transcend human legal systems."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 8:12:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 11:35:17 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/28/2014 12:41:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:19:22 AM, storytimewithjesus wrote:
How do you define "pure" capitalism? There's never been a system that was 100% free market laissez faire capitalism with no government intervention (US in 1929 was as much an example of misguided fiscal policy, bad management from the Federal Reserve, and protectionism stifling trade as of capitalism failing). There have been plenty of examples of capitalism with varying levels of government oversight, but it's hard to even think of a time when government kept itself to protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and penalizing the use of force and fraud without meddling in some other ways as well, which has left who's at fault for crises open to debate.

I agree completely. As far as the debate goes as to fault, In my opinion It is those who are entrusted but fail to enforce the rule of law that cause all economic failures based on capitalism. Without the rule of law there is nothing but cronyism and nepotism.

Can you explain what rule of law means?

I will not waste my time with argument for the sake of argument. If you don't know what the rule of law is at this stage of your life then you never will.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 12:37:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 7:10:16 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:
Pure laissez-faire capitalism? 1929?

The Great Depression from my understanding (probably rudimentary), was due to the unregulated free market, in which due to the roaring 20s there was too much borrowing, spending, growth, goods and when the bubble burst, it affected the whole world.

I am very capitalist, but you need anti-cronyist, anti-monopoly/oligarchy and regulations so the market is free, but not one-sided to the rich. Pure capitalism will not work, and will only cause a plutocratic state.

I disagree. My research has shown a direct correlation between regulation and oligarchy. It appears that regulation causes monopolies and oligarchies.

It seems big business petitions government for regulations too complex and expensive for small businesses to abide by and there is a direct affect on the market share of the big businesses.

Before the FDA was implemented there were a bunch of food companies providing us with food. Now only a handful of companies do. Before all the banking regulations in early 1900s a the majority of banking was done with local banks. Now it's typically done with just a handful of banks.

Honestly, I could just keep going with examples.

A true capitalist system would have more businesses competing in the market, not less.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 3:37:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:56:23 AM, GOP wrote:
can you guys refer to some instances where pure capitalism turned out to be counterproductive?

Capitalism is pretty inefficient. Cooperation is more effective than competition. Higher financial incentives lead to poorer performance in tasks requiring anything more than 'rudimentary cognitive skill'. Only 13% of workers are engaged at work. Pharmaceutical companies waste an extraordinary amount of time and resources all secretely researching the same molecules and seeing them fail... I'm also fairly sure that free market capitalism has done little to help the third world, right?
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 10:10:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:56:23 AM, GOP wrote:
can you guys refer to some instances where pure capitalism turned out to be counterproductive?

My friend, I have so many sources for you.

First, let's be clear, there has not been a pure laissez faire capitalist system in over a century. America talks a big game about the "free market" but our markets have not been free for a very, very long time, and for good reason! We would have starved by now if not for the government influence over agricultural production.

Though the value of the methodology used in that control is debatable.

That is why most economists consider the debate over socialization of various industries to be tedious and rhetorical, we know America is already so very socialist.

So, examples of capitalism running amok?

The Gilded Age, my friend, is an excellent example of what lax regulations can lead to.
There are so many great works examining how the gilded age came to pass.

Some other examples of arguably "laissez faire" economic systems which failed:

1950s Paraguay

Early 1900s Portugal

The Dominican Republic under Rafael Trujillo - early 1900s

Haiti under Fran"ois Duvalier- early 1900s

Nicaragua under Anastazio Somoza Debayle
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 10:11:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am very capitalist, but you need anti-cronyist, anti-monopoly/oligarchy and regulations so the market is free, but not one-sided to the rich. Pure capitalism will not work, and will only cause a plutocratic state.:

I like you. You have a good head on your shoulders.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 4:02:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Regulations are always one sided for the rich. (the rich as defined by campaign contributors).

The government shouldn't arbitrarily supersede contracts between buyers and sellers. Lawyers can monitor these contract negotiations better and faster.
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 7:10:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:56:23 AM, GOP wrote:
can you guys refer to some instances where pure capitalism turned out to be counterproductive?

'Pure' capitalism? No such thing, components of capitalism (such as private ownership of the means of production, and wage labor) will always prevent a capitalist society from being run on 'free market' principles due to opposing interests between the rich and the poor.

Capitalism will always cause corporate power to intermingle with state power. 'Pure' capitalism is utopian.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 9:03:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 7:10:16 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:
Pure laissez-faire capitalism? 1929?

lol, nope.


The Great Depression from my understanding (probably rudimentary), was due to the unregulated free market, in which due to the roaring 20s there was too much borrowing, spending, growth, goods and when the bubble burst, it affected the whole world.


Total misconception. The Great Depression was caused by government intervention and was prolonged by the new deal.
http://www.cato.org...

I am very capitalist, but you need anti-cronyist, anti-monopoly/oligarchy and regulations so the market is free, but not one-sided to the rich. Pure capitalism will not work, and will only cause a plutocratic state.

With the statements above you sound very pro crony capitalist. Further, monopolies in almost every case either 1) dissipate over time or 2) you guessed it, are propped up by governments. In true capitalism, people monopolies don't form due to greed. Say one company has a monopoly on a new sector of business. Another businessman says "oo profit". So he makes a company in the same sector to compete. Unless the monopoly has government support, which most monopolies do, generally competition takes over.

Although I believe in some regulation, pure capitalism would actually be a very good system compared to what we have now.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 9:12:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 9:03:16 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Further, monopolies in almost every case either 1) dissipate over time or 2) you guessed it, are propped up by governments. In true capitalism, people monopolies don't form due to greed. Say one company has a monopoly on a new sector of business. Another businessman says "oo profit". So he makes a company in the same sector to compete. Unless the monopoly has government support, which most monopolies do, generally competition takes over.

Sometimes unintentionally, even. Like AT&T's monopoly on landline phones for most of the mid 20th century. Cell phone technology has existed since the 1940s - not the portability or the miniaturization, but the ability to transmit signal from small portable antennas. We had the technology that anyone who wanted to enter the market could have thrown up a few cell towers in a city and sold antennas and avoided the high cost of digging phone lines everywhere that prevented easy entry into the market. However, the FCC prohibited its use until the 1980s, so AT&T was able to keep its monopoly because they were the first to get phone lines to the most places and it was too expensive to compete with them.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 9:47:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:56:23 AM, GOP wrote:
can you guys refer to some instances where pure capitalism turned out to be counterproductive?

I honestly don't think "pure" capitalism has ever existed. I think you'd have to do away with the state for that. Meaning, you'd have to "instate" "libertarian" anarchy.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 3:21:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 9:03:16 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/28/2014 7:10:16 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:
Pure laissez-faire capitalism? 1929?

lol, nope.


The Great Depression from my understanding (probably rudimentary), was due to the unregulated free market, in which due to the roaring 20s there was too much borrowing, spending, growth, goods and when the bubble burst, it affected the whole world.


Total misconception. The Great Depression was caused by government intervention and was prolonged by the new deal.
http://www.cato.org...


I am very capitalist, but you need anti-cronyist, anti-monopoly/oligarchy and regulations so the market is free, but not one-sided to the rich. Pure capitalism will not work, and will only cause a plutocratic state.

With the statements above you sound very pro crony capitalist. Further, monopolies in almost every case either 1) dissipate over time or 2) you guessed it, are propped up by governments. In true capitalism, people monopolies don't form due to greed. Say one company has a monopoly on a new sector of business. Another businessman says "oo profit". So he makes a company in the same sector to compete. Unless the monopoly has government support, which most monopolies do, generally competition takes over.

Although I believe in some regulation, pure capitalism would actually be a very good system compared to what we have now.

^ I'd agree with both arguments
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 2:54:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2014 6:56:23 AM, GOP wrote:
can you guys refer to some instances where pure capitalism turned out to be counterproductive?

The old laissez-faire system over here in the U.S. was more or less dropped as a result of the Great Depression.
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 2:55:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 2:54:46 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:56:23 AM, GOP wrote:
can you guys refer to some instances where pure capitalism turned out to be counterproductive?

The old laissez-faire system over here in the U.S. was more or less dropped as a result of the Great Depression.

Not completey laissez-faire, of course.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 7:07:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2014 6:56:23 AM, GOP wrote:
can you guys refer to some instances where pure capitalism turned out to be counterproductive?

There are none, for capitalism to be counter-productive government is required. Most examples that people use, the core cause is government false belief that an economy needs help or control. The root problems of most economic crises, depressions, and panics has been governmental monetary policy and interference with natural interest rates.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 1:04:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You can find a lot of economic booms and busts during pre-Federal Reserve period.

Sometimes the Miracle of Chile can actually be used as an example of where capitalism failed because while GDP growth did increase, most of the gains went to the rich and social problems increased. Not to mention a few busts occured.

"According to Ricardo Ffrench-Davis the unnecessary radicalism of the shock therapy in the 1970s caused mass unemployment, purchasing power losses, extreme inequalities in the distribution of income and severe socio-economic damage"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Rogernomics also seems to be a huge failure:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Over 15 years, New Zealand's economy and social capital faced serious problems: the youth suicide rate grew sharply into one of the highest in the developed world;[41][42] the proliferation of food banks increased dramatically;[43] marked increases in violent and other crime were observed;[44] the number of New Zealanders estimated to be living in poverty grew by at least 35% between 1989 and 1992;[45] and health care was especially hard-hit, leading to a significant deterioration in health standards among working and middle-class people.[46] In addition, many of the promised economic benefits of the experiment never materialised.[47] Between 1985 and 1992, New Zealand's economy grew by 4.7% during the same period in which the average OECD nation grew by 28.2%.[48] From 1984 to 1993 inflation averaged 9% per year, New Zealand's credit rating dropped twice, and foreign debt quadrupled.[49] Between 1986 and 1993, the unemployment rate rose from 3.6% to 11%."
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 7:23:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 7:07:44 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:56:23 AM, GOP wrote:
can you guys refer to some instances where pure capitalism turned out to be counterproductive?

There are none, for capitalism to be counter-productive government is required. Most examples that people use, the core cause is government false belief that an economy needs help or control. The root problems of most economic crises, depressions, and panics has been governmental monetary policy and interference with natural interest rates.

For capitalism to exist in the first place, governance is required.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 7:38:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 7:23:02 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/24/2015 7:07:44 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:56:23 AM, GOP wrote:
can you guys refer to some instances where pure capitalism turned out to be counterproductive?

There are none, for capitalism to be counter-productive government is required. Most examples that people use, the core cause is government false belief that an economy needs help or control. The root problems of most economic crises, depressions, and panics has been governmental monetary policy and interference with natural interest rates.

For capitalism to exist in the first place, governance is required.

Capitalism will spring up anywhere, no governance required. Whenever, two people both benefit from voluntary exchange capitalism is at work.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 8:36:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 7:38:29 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/28/2015 7:23:02 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/24/2015 7:07:44 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:56:23 AM, GOP wrote:
can you guys refer to some instances where pure capitalism turned out to be counterproductive?

There are none, for capitalism to be counter-productive government is required. Most examples that people use, the core cause is government false belief that an economy needs help or control. The root problems of most economic crises, depressions, and panics has been governmental monetary policy and interference with natural interest rates.

For capitalism to exist in the first place, governance is required.

Capitalism will spring up anywhere, no governance required. Whenever, two people both benefit from voluntary exchange capitalism is at work.

Voluntary exchange =! Capitalism

Voluntary exchange has been around for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years, Capitalism on the other hand has only been around for 200. Saying voluntary exchange is equivalent to capitalism would mean that feudalistic societies were capitalistic, or even that some primitive tribal societies were capitalistic. Even though they obviously weren't, for the simple reason that capitalism requires private ownership of the means of production, and the relations that spring out of capital.

These private property rights are required in order for capitalism to function, if they weren't present, workers would just take control of the means of production for themselves. So, because of his, the capitalist class require an apparatus that can organize violence over a given area, this takes the form of the state. The state protects the capitalist class by using their legislative capacities to enact bills that will defend them, then enforce these bills through violence. Without this violence defending private property, capitalism wouldn't exist.

Thus, capitalism requires governance.