Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Why does capitalism get such a bad rap?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 1:24:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Capitalism has succeeded in making the US the most powerful economy in the world. In the 1970's when China allowed free market policies in agriculture the economy grew leaps and bounds above when it was controlled by the state. Almost every first world economy today operates under principles of capitalism.

The power of capitalism is in its natural efficiency. If producers are able to produce a good for profit in a competitive market, this means that the good must be of competitive quality or price in order to be demanded. If the good isn't of competitive price or quality, it won't be bought by consumers and the business will fail. Businesses are incentivized to innovate because it lessens the costs of production and allows them to keep a greater profit. Centrally planned economies are a different story. The government tells producers what to produce and how much to produce. The excess surplus of production and possible lack of quality or relative high price is solely due to inefficiency. Capitalism is simply the best economic system for creating real wealth.

That being said, unmanaged or pure capitalism doesn't work. Monopolies, labor violations, pollution, exploiting resources in the environment, etc., are all real problems. This is why we're not truly a capitalist economy (I don't believe any economy is) but rather a mixed economy of the private sector acting on capitalist principles while being managed and granted those rights by the government.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 3:46:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why does capitalism get such a bad rap? Perhaps for the quite simple reason that it deserves it, in spades. Here, http://www.debate.org...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 4:10:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 1:24:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

That being said, unmanaged or pure capitalism doesn't work. Monopolies, labor violations, pollution, exploiting resources in the environment, etc., are all real problems. This is why we're not truly a capitalist economy (I don't believe any economy is) but rather a mixed economy of the private sector acting on capitalist principles while being managed and granted those rights by the government.

Well, the idea of a "mixed economy", of moderating capitalism, making it more safe & sane with a bit of regulation and a better social safety net is rather like, about as naive as, the idea of creating a tamer piranha by breeding one with a harmless goldfish. The quite predictable result, of course, is simply that the piranha will eat the goldfish. And this is essentially what we see happening with the European mixed economies today.

That is, developments caused by capitalism, by its inherent dynamics and drives, adverse developments such as the Global Financial Crisis and Great Recession, bursting real estate bubbles, trade imbalances, etc., have indeed had a quite destructive impact on the "European dream", and on the mixed economies that used to make the "European dream" come true for a great many workingpeople. You might say that these economies have been swallowed into the belly of the capitalist beast, except for the fact that what's really happened is of course that it's been rudely revealed that mixed economies never really escaped from the belly of the capitalist beast in the first place.

Mm-hmm, with the UK leading the way and the IMF imposing "permanent austerity", European mixed economies, like the goldfish who's passed through the belly of a piranha, are being turned to sh*t. Yes, so much for the wishful notion that a mixed economy is the way to go, is the hopeful wave of the future. Arguably, an all-out conversion to what could indeed be called communism holds significantly brighter prospects for the evolution of a truly livable and sustainable economic form of life.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 6:08:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, you might perhaps be interested in this,

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 12:25:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just Seems like Common Sense
Part 1

At 11/15/2014 4:10:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/15/2014 1:24:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

That being said, unmanaged or pure capitalism doesn't work. Monopolies, labor violations, pollution, exploiting resources in the environment, etc., are all real problems. This is why we're not truly a capitalist economy (I don't believe any economy is) but rather a mixed economy of the private sector acting on capitalist principles while being managed and granted those rights by the government.


Well, the idea of a "mixed economy", of moderating capitalism, making it more safe & sane with a bit of regulation and a better social safety net is rather like, about as naive as, the idea of creating a tamer piranha by breeding one with a harmless goldfish.
The quite predictable result, of course, is simply that the piranha will eat the goldfish. And this is essentially what we see happening with the European mixed economies today.


That is, developments caused by capitalism, by its inherent dynamics and drives, adverse developments such as the Global Financial Crisis and Great Recession, bursting real estate bubbles, trade imbalances, etc., have indeed had a quite destructive impact on the "European dream", and on the mixed economies that used to make the "European dream" come true for a great many workingpeople. You might say that these economies have been swallowed into the belly of the capitalist beast, except for the fact that what's really happened is of course that it's been rudely revealed that mixed economies never really escaped from the belly of the capitalist beast in the first place.

Mm-hmm, with the UK leading the way and the IMF imposing "permanent austerity", European mixed economies, like the goldfish who's passed through the belly of a piranha, are being turned to sh*t. Yes, so much for the wishful notion that a mixed economy is the way to go, is the hopeful wave of the future. Arguably, an all-out conversion to what could indeed be called communism holds significantly brighter prospects for the evolution of a truly livable and sustainable economic form of life.

The Fool: A mixed economy can just be as well thought of as moderating socialism.

I don't know much economics but, it just seems common sense to me from little I know that a mixed economy is best. Since well there are obvious advantages and disadvantages to each extreme economy.

A completely socialist economy, can control distribution amongst the population, but has no competitive incentive. This kind of economy eventually leads to a kind of stagnation,
And puts too much control in the hands of the government, leading to an anti-free society.

On the other hand a capitalist economy has the competitive incentive for innovation, but will eventually lead to an unequal distribution where too much money will be in the hands of the rich, and too little in the hands of poor.

So it seems only common sense to me, that the best economy, is to have one which of course has both the competitive incentive necessary for innovation, while ensuring that the rich don't get too rich, and that the poor always have an opportunity to redeem themselves. Social programs can be used, intelligently to adjust for problems should they arise.

It doesn't seem complicated to me at all. Why would you want to go to either extreme?

Even if we were to approach a certain extreme, we would still do it slowly, by increasing or decreasing social programs accordingly. We will never, just all the sudden switch economies on a whim, as that would be too much destabilization. If I were you I wouldn't expect to have a communist economy in your lifetime, so I don't know why is obsessed with this. It's a much more interesting to simply argue that for what types of programs we should adopt rather than argue about a fully capitalist or fully communist economy at all.

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 2:35:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 12:25:53 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Just Seems like Common Sense
Part 1

At 11/15/2014 4:10:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/15/2014 1:24:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

That being said, unmanaged or pure capitalism doesn't work. Monopolies, labor violations, pollution, exploiting resources in the environment, etc., are all real problems. This is why we're not truly a capitalist economy (I don't believe any economy is) but rather a mixed economy of the private sector acting on capitalist principles while being managed and granted those rights by the government.


Well, the idea of a "mixed economy", of moderating capitalism, making it more safe & sane with a bit of regulation and a better social safety net is rather like, about as naive as, the idea of creating a tamer piranha by breeding one with a harmless goldfish.
The quite predictable result, of course, is simply that the piranha will eat the goldfish. And this is essentially what we see happening with the European mixed economies today.


That is, developments caused by capitalism, by its inherent dynamics and drives, adverse developments such as the Global Financial Crisis and Great Recession, bursting real estate bubbles, trade imbalances, etc., have indeed had a quite destructive impact on the "European dream", and on the mixed economies that used to make the "European dream" come true for a great many workingpeople. You might say that these economies have been swallowed into the belly of the capitalist beast, except for the fact that what's really happened is of course that it's been rudely revealed that mixed economies never really escaped from the belly of the capitalist beast in the first place.

Mm-hmm, with the UK leading the way and the IMF imposing "permanent austerity", European mixed economies, like the goldfish who's passed through the belly of a piranha, are being turned to sh*t. Yes, so much for the wishful notion that a mixed economy is the way to go, is the hopeful wave of the future. Arguably, an all-out conversion to what could indeed be called communism holds significantly brighter prospects for the evolution of a truly livable and sustainable economic form of life.

The Fool: A mixed economy can just be as well thought of as moderating socialism.

I don't know much economics but, it just seems common sense to me from little I know that a mixed economy is best. Since well there are obvious advantages and disadvantages to each extreme economy.

A completely socialist economy, can control distribution amongst the population, but has no competitive incentive. This kind of economy eventually leads to a kind of stagnation,
And puts too much control in the hands of the government, leading to an anti-free society.

On the other hand a capitalist economy has the competitive incentive for innovation, but will eventually lead to an unequal distribution where too much money will be in the hands of the rich, and too little in the hands of poor.

So it seems only common sense to me, that the best economy, is to have one which of course has both the competitive incentive necessary for innovation, while ensuring that the rich don't get too rich, and that the poor always have an opportunity to redeem themselves. Social programs can be used, intelligently to adjust for problems should they arise.

It doesn't seem complicated to me at all. Why would you want to go to either extreme?

Even if we were to approach a certain extreme, we would still do it slowly, by increasing or decreasing social programs accordingly. We will never, just all the sudden switch economies on a whim, as that would be too much destabilization. If I were you I wouldn't expect to have a communist economy in your lifetime, so I don't know why is obsessed with this. It's a much more interesting to simply argue that for what types of programs we should adopt rather than argue about a fully capitalist or fully communist economy at all.

Well, your reply is clearly designed to sound reasonable, but in fact it's simply naive. (I mean this to be merely a statement of fact, not an insult.)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 2:37:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 2:35:19 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/16/2014 12:25:53 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Just Seems like Common Sense
Part 1

At 11/15/2014 4:10:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/15/2014 1:24:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

That being said, unmanaged or pure capitalism doesn't work. Monopolies, labor violations, pollution, exploiting resources in the environment, etc., are all real problems. This is why we're not truly a capitalist economy (I don't believe any economy is) but rather a mixed economy of the private sector acting on capitalist principles while being managed and granted those rights by the government.


Well, the idea of a "mixed economy", of moderating capitalism, making it more safe & sane with a bit of regulation and a better social safety net is rather like, about as naive as, the idea of creating a tamer piranha by breeding one with a harmless goldfish.
The quite predictable result, of course, is simply that the piranha will eat the goldfish. And this is essentially what we see happening with the European mixed economies today.


That is, developments caused by capitalism, by its inherent dynamics and drives, adverse developments such as the Global Financial Crisis and Great Recession, bursting real estate bubbles, trade imbalances, etc., have indeed had a quite destructive impact on the "European dream", and on the mixed economies that used to make the "European dream" come true for a great many workingpeople. You might say that these economies have been swallowed into the belly of the capitalist beast, except for the fact that what's really happened is of course that it's been rudely revealed that mixed economies never really escaped from the belly of the capitalist beast in the first place.

Mm-hmm, with the UK leading the way and the IMF imposing "permanent austerity", European mixed economies, like the goldfish who's passed through the belly of a piranha, are being turned to sh*t. Yes, so much for the wishful notion that a mixed economy is the way to go, is the hopeful wave of the future. Arguably, an all-out conversion to what could indeed be called communism holds significantly brighter prospects for the evolution of a truly livable and sustainable economic form of life.

The Fool: A mixed economy can just be as well thought of as moderating socialism.

I don't know much economics but, it just seems common sense to me from little I know that a mixed economy is best. Since well there are obvious advantages and disadvantages to each extreme economy.

A completely socialist economy, can control distribution amongst the population, but has no competitive incentive. This kind of economy eventually leads to a kind of stagnation,
And puts too much control in the hands of the government, leading to an anti-free society.

On the other hand a capitalist economy has the competitive incentive for innovation, but will eventually lead to an unequal distribution where too much money will be in the hands of the rich, and too little in the hands of poor.

So it seems only common sense to me, that the best economy, is to have one which of course has both the competitive incentive necessary for innovation, while ensuring that the rich don't get too rich, and that the poor always have an opportunity to redeem themselves. Social programs can be used, intelligently to adjust for problems should they arise.

It doesn't seem complicated to me at all. Why would you want to go to either extreme?

Even if we were to approach a certain extreme, we would still do it slowly, by increasing or decreasing social programs accordingly. We will never, just all the sudden switch economies on a whim, as that would be too much destabilization. If I were you I wouldn't expect to have a communist economy in your lifetime, so I don't know why is obsessed with this. It's a much more interesting to simply argue that for what types of programs we should adopt rather than argue about a fully capitalist or fully communist economy at all.

Well, your reply is clearly designed to sound reasonable, but in fact it's simply naive. (I mean this to be merely a statement of fact, not an insult.)

The Fool: Doesn't help, if you do not explain, what is na"ve, or why it is na"ve.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 8:34:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 4:10:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/15/2014 1:24:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

That being said, unmanaged or pure capitalism doesn't work. Monopolies, labor violations, pollution, exploiting resources in the environment, etc., are all real problems. This is why we're not truly a capitalist economy (I don't believe any economy is) but rather a mixed economy of the private sector acting on capitalist principles while being managed and granted those rights by the government.


Well, the idea of a "mixed economy", of moderating capitalism, making it more safe & sane with a bit of regulation and a better social safety net is rather like, about as naive as, the idea of creating a tamer piranha by breeding one with a harmless goldfish. The quite predictable result, of course, is simply that the piranha will eat the goldfish. And this is essentially what we see happening with the European mixed economies today.

That is, developments caused by capitalism, by its inherent dynamics and drives, adverse developments such as the Global Financial Crisis and Great Recession, bursting real estate bubbles, trade imbalances, etc., have indeed had a quite destructive impact on the "European dream", and on the mixed economies that used to make the "European dream" come true for a great many workingpeople. You might say that these economies have been swallowed into the belly of the capitalist beast, except for the fact that what's really happened is of course that it's been rudely revealed that mixed economies never really escaped from the belly of the capitalist beast in the first place.

Mm-hmm, with the UK leading the way and the IMF imposing "permanent austerity", European mixed economies, like the goldfish who's passed through the belly of a piranha, are being turned to sh*t. Yes, so much for the wishful notion that a mixed economy is the way to go, is the hopeful wave of the future. Arguably, an all-out conversion to what could indeed be called communism holds significantly brighter prospects for the evolution of a truly livable and sustainable economic form of life.

You would have anything resembling a point if your post wasn't so ahistorical. The current crisis came to Europe because of the failure to impose tough regulations on banks in the US and the UK--which had started dismantling a large part of the regulatory apparatus--and of course this recklessness has affected the European economies, but it would be mere demagogy to say that the "goldfish" has been eaten in Europe, the poor of Europe--the UK aside--still have relatively high standards of living--relative to what they had before. Furthermore, no one in Germany, or France--where economic stagnation was a result of bad economic policies--has proposed anything like "permanent austerity."
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 3:11:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 8:34:32 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 11/15/2014 4:10:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/15/2014 1:24:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

That being said, unmanaged or pure capitalism doesn't work. Monopolies, labor violations, pollution, exploiting resources in the environment, etc., are all real problems. This is why we're not truly a capitalist economy (I don't believe any economy is) but rather a mixed economy of the private sector acting on capitalist principles while being managed and granted those rights by the government.


Well, the idea of a "mixed economy", of moderating capitalism, making it more safe & sane with a bit of regulation and a better social safety net is rather like, about as naive as, the idea of creating a tamer piranha by breeding one with a harmless goldfish. The quite predictable result, of course, is simply that the piranha will eat the goldfish. And this is essentially what we see happening with the European mixed economies today.

That is, developments caused by capitalism, by its inherent dynamics and drives, adverse developments such as the Global Financial Crisis and Great Recession, bursting real estate bubbles, trade imbalances, etc., have indeed had a quite destructive impact on the "European dream", and on the mixed economies that used to make the "European dream" come true for a great many workingpeople. You might say that these economies have been swallowed into the belly of the capitalist beast, except for the fact that what's really happened is of course that it's been rudely revealed that mixed economies never really escaped from the belly of the capitalist beast in the first place.

Mm-hmm, with the UK leading the way and the IMF imposing "permanent austerity", European mixed economies, like the goldfish who's passed through the belly of a piranha, are being turned to sh*t. Yes, so much for the wishful notion that a mixed economy is the way to go, is the hopeful wave of the future. Arguably, an all-out conversion to what could indeed be called communism holds significantly brighter prospects for the evolution of a truly livable and sustainable economic form of life.

You would have anything resembling a point if your post wasn't so ahistorical. The current crisis came to Europe because of the failure to impose tough regulations on banks in the US and the UK--which had started dismantling a large part of the regulatory apparatus--and of course this recklessness has affected the European economies, but it would be mere demagogy to say that the "goldfish" has been eaten in Europe, the poor of Europe--the UK aside--still have relatively high standards of living--relative to what they had before. Furthermore, no one in Germany, or France--where economic stagnation was a result of bad economic policies--has proposed anything like "permanent austerity."

The piranha is in fact the capitalist world-system. A global beast whose insatiable belly the mixed and "socialist" economies of Western Europe never actually escaped from. And it's their residence in the belly of this all-devouring capitalist beast that is indeed turning them, and the European dream, to dung.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 7:15:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 3:11:35 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/16/2014 8:34:32 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 11/15/2014 4:10:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/15/2014 1:24:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

That being said, unmanaged or pure capitalism doesn't work. Monopolies, labor violations, pollution, exploiting resources in the environment, etc., are all real problems. This is why we're not truly a capitalist economy (I don't believe any economy is) but rather a mixed economy of the private sector acting on capitalist principles while being managed and granted those rights by the government.


Well, the idea of a "mixed economy", of moderating capitalism, making it more safe & sane with a bit of regulation and a better social safety net is rather like, about as naive as, the idea of creating a tamer piranha by breeding one with a harmless goldfish. The quite predictable result, of course, is simply that the piranha will eat the goldfish. And this is essentially what we see happening with the European mixed economies today.

That is, developments caused by capitalism, by its inherent dynamics and drives, adverse developments such as the Global Financial Crisis and Great Recession, bursting real estate bubbles, trade imbalances, etc., have indeed had a quite destructive impact on the "European dream", and on the mixed economies that used to make the "European dream" come true for a great many workingpeople. You might say that these economies have been swallowed into the belly of the capitalist beast, except for the fact that what's really happened is of course that it's been rudely revealed that mixed economies never really escaped from the belly of the capitalist beast in the first place.

Mm-hmm, with the UK leading the way and the IMF imposing "permanent austerity", European mixed economies, like the goldfish who's passed through the belly of a piranha, are being turned to sh*t. Yes, so much for the wishful notion that a mixed economy is the way to go, is the hopeful wave of the future. Arguably, an all-out conversion to what could indeed be called communism holds significantly brighter prospects for the evolution of a truly livable and sustainable economic form of life.

You would have anything resembling a point if your post wasn't so ahistorical. The current crisis came to Europe because of the failure to impose tough regulations on banks in the US and the UK--which had started dismantling a large part of the regulatory apparatus--and of course this recklessness has affected the European economies, but it would be mere demagogy to say that the "goldfish" has been eaten in Europe, the poor of Europe--the UK aside--still have relatively high standards of living--relative to what they had before. Furthermore, no one in Germany, or France--where economic stagnation was a result of bad economic policies--has proposed anything like "permanent austerity."

The piranha is in fact the capitalist world-system. A global beast whose insatiable belly the mixed and "socialist" economies of Western Europe never actually escaped from. And it's their residence in the belly of this all-devouring capitalist beast that is indeed turning them, and the European dream, to dung.

It is a wild exaggeration to say that because the social democracies of Europe have been forced to cut spending in social programs, the Third Way has gone "to dung." And it would be suicide for Europe to escape from the "global beast"--as you call it--since that is how they generate the wealth that is then used to improve the lives of the poor.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 12:22:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 7:15:32 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 11/17/2014 3:11:35 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/16/2014 8:34:32 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 11/15/2014 4:10:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/15/2014 1:24:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

That being said, unmanaged or pure capitalism doesn't work. Monopolies, labor violations, pollution, exploiting resources in the environment, etc., are all real problems. This is why we're not truly a capitalist economy (I don't believe any economy is) but rather a mixed economy of the private sector acting on capitalist principles while being managed and granted those rights by the government.


Well, the idea of a "mixed economy", of moderating capitalism, making it more safe & sane with a bit of regulation and a better social safety net is rather like, about as naive as, the idea of creating a tamer piranha by breeding one with a harmless goldfish. The quite predictable result, of course, is simply that the piranha will eat the goldfish. And this is essentially what we see happening with the European mixed economies today.

That is, developments caused by capitalism, by its inherent dynamics and drives, adverse developments such as the Global Financial Crisis and Great Recession, bursting real estate bubbles, trade imbalances, etc., have indeed had a quite destructive impact on the "European dream", and on the mixed economies that used to make the "European dream" come true for a great many workingpeople. You might say that these economies have been swallowed into the belly of the capitalist beast, except for the fact that what's really happened is of course that it's been rudely revealed that mixed economies never really escaped from the belly of the capitalist beast in the first place.

Mm-hmm, with the UK leading the way and the IMF imposing "permanent austerity", European mixed economies, like the goldfish who's passed through the belly of a piranha, are being turned to sh*t. Yes, so much for the wishful notion that a mixed economy is the way to go, is the hopeful wave of the future. Arguably, an all-out conversion to what could indeed be called communism holds significantly brighter prospects for the evolution of a truly livable and sustainable economic form of life.

You would have anything resembling a point if your post wasn't so ahistorical. The current crisis came to Europe because of the failure to impose tough regulations on banks in the US and the UK--which had started dismantling a large part of the regulatory apparatus--and of course this recklessness has affected the European economies, but it would be mere demagogy to say that the "goldfish" has been eaten in Europe, the poor of Europe--the UK aside--still have relatively high standards of living--relative to what they had before. Furthermore, no one in Germany, or France--where economic stagnation was a result of bad economic policies--has proposed anything like "permanent austerity."

The piranha is in fact the capitalist world-system. A global beast whose insatiable belly the mixed and "socialist" economies of Western Europe never actually escaped from. And it's their residence in the belly of this all-devouring capitalist beast that is indeed turning them, and the European dream, to dung.

It is a wild exaggeration to say that because the social democracies of Europe have been forced to cut spending in social programs, the Third Way has gone "to dung."

Well, the "austerity" that will more and more come to characterize life in the "social democracies" of Western Europe is certainly quite sh*tty.

And it would be suicide for Europe to escape from the "global beast" ...

Failing to do so will mean the slow and increasingly miserable demise of the "European Dream".
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Otokage
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 3:55:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 1:24:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Capitalism has succeeded in making the US the most powerful economy in the world. In the 1970's when China allowed free market policies in agriculture the economy grew leaps and bounds above when it was controlled by the state. Almost every first world economy today operates under principles of capitalism.

The power of capitalism is in its natural efficiency.

That depends on your definition of "efficiency". If by efficiency you mean solving its citizens' problems, then I would say that the most capitalistic gobernments are all but efficient.

If producers are able to produce a good for profit in a competitive market,

Until producers realize competitive market is not profitable, and they make an oligopoly.

this means that the good must be of competitive quality or price in order to be demanded.

Or rather, it must be advertised as having a good quality, but it is better if it has a very low quality so the production costs are also very low. As capitalism often gives lots of priviledges to private companies, this private companies quickly outmatch State's money, buy political parties, and are even capable of selling products full of cancer-related chemicals and the gobernment does literaly nothing about it.

If the good isn't of competitive price or quality, it won't be bought by consumers and the business will fail. Businesses are incentivized to innovate because it lessens the costs of production and allows them to keep a greater profit.

True, but it is not like the supposed innovation needs to be in any way profitable to you, the citizen. So who cares?

Centrally planned economies are a different story.

Well, all succesful economies in the world are partialy controled by the State, as all are from social-democratic contries.

The government tells producers what to produce and how much to produce. The excess surplus of production and possible lack of quality or relative high price is solely due to inefficiency. Capitalism is simply the best economic system for creating real wealth.

Macroeconomic wealth, maybe, that serves for practicaly nothing but to get A ranks on the markets qualification agencies, yay!

That being said, unmanaged or pure capitalism doesn't work. Monopolies, labor violations, pollution, exploiting resources in the environment, etc., are all real problems.

Those are not problems of "unmanaged or pure capitalism", those are big problems of practicaly every single country on Earth that is partialy capitalist.

This is why we're not truly a capitalist economy (I don't believe any economy is) but rather a mixed economy of the private sector acting on capitalist principles while being managed and granted those rights by the government.

Which has led us to a big economic crisis, so maybe we need to be even less capitalist.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 4:46:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 1:24:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Capitalism has succeeded in making the US the most powerful economy in the world. In the 1970's when China allowed free market policies in agriculture the economy grew leaps and bounds above when it was controlled by the state. Almost every first world economy today operates under principles of capitalism.

The power of capitalism is in its natural efficiency. If producers are able to produce a good for profit in a competitive market, this means that the good must be of competitive quality or price in order to be demanded. If the good isn't of competitive price or quality, it won't be bought by consumers and the business will fail. Businesses are incentivized to innovate because it lessens the costs of production and allows them to keep a greater profit. Centrally planned economies are a different story. The government tells producers what to produce and how much to produce. The excess surplus of production and possible lack of quality or relative high price is solely due to inefficiency. Capitalism is simply the best economic system for creating real wealth.

That being said, unmanaged or pure capitalism doesn't work. Monopolies, labor violations, pollution, exploiting resources in the environment, etc., are all real problems. This is why we're not truly a capitalist economy (I don't believe any economy is) but rather a mixed economy of the private sector acting on capitalist principles while being managed and granted those rights by the government.

What need is there for the type of wealth that capitalists accrue? What good will millions of dollars concentrated in the hands of a few do for the world?

The efficiency of capitalism, which you mentioned, is the bourgeois definition of efficiency- economic growth. More goods produced, more goods sold, and greater wealth...

But only to certain members of any nation.

Here is the problem with capitalism: It allows for workers working under their bosses to get richer- but the richer the workers become, the richer their bosses become, and at a faster rate. In capitalism, resources, i.e. wealth, are accumulated by those that own the means of production- not spent as capital, but accumulated for the personal use of the capitalists. This is a waste of resources! Those resources could go towards bettering the condition of the masses- better infrastructure, better food, better standard of living- but they are wasted! Capitalism's problem is what priorities it has, and its priorities are based on greed, not the betterment of society. Think how much of that "development" you see is sliced off to "develop" the coffers of the rich men.

Capitalism is destructive. More and more resources are transformed into goods not out of need (the companies always publicly belie their priorities by saying that they are "committed to serving the community" or "committed with providing (so on and so forth)" but really want to accumulate as much wealth as they desire. This culminates with the rapid destruction of Earth's resources and environment in order to serve the whims of the consumer market that was created by the capitalists- again, not out of necessity (Is oil really a necessity? Are smartphones?). In short, all of the developing nations serve not themselves, but the developed countries' wants, while the developed countries squeeze out most of the resources for profit and to increase the wealth of their countries- and the consumerism that takes place in these countries is truly shocking. Think of how many resources will be purchased with the dollars of the wealthy. Those resources don't come out of nowhere. More and more resources spent on recreation correlate to more and more destruction of the environment, usually. Things are not used according to need; they are used according to who buys them. The capitalists don't care how their product is used, only that it is sold. In short, capitalism is a global system of unnecessary imbalances founded on greed, and the unequal distribution of wealth across the globe is unnecessary and the result of exploitation rather than the hard work of individuals (Business owners only manage the business that they created, and their wages are different from those of their underlings). Workers working in a capitalist system are effectively robbed of the majority of the product they produce. Let's examine your claim that lack of competition will result in lower quality of products.

First off, where is there a society where there is lack of competition? Most countries have economies based off of competition. There are also ones that are supposedly not- communist ones, for instance. There are currently no more than five communist countries (or countries that claim to be communist).

Second off, with the sheer amount of competition in mind and the small amount of non-competition, let's consider the priorities of capitalism: Are capitalists who practice capitalism concerned about the quality of their product firsthand?

The answer is no. As we have already determined what the priority of capitalism is- to procure and accumulate capital- not for the many, but for the owners- the few. So capitalism, according to its priority, does not necessarily increase the quality of products produced- thanks to its priority. This means that capitalists will do whatever they can within their power to increase profit-within reason and government regulations- and then care about other things. The priorities of capitalism are sick. Furthermore, the claim that capitalist competition will increase quality more than anything that is not capitalist or competitive is unfounded- societies founded on anything other than capitalism, since the existence of capitalism have not been around enough to effectively compare them to capitalism and find capitalist-created products higher in quality. Your statement that capitalism is the only good system of creating "real" wealth is similarly flawed.

Capitalism looks good in the USA- workers have unions and "rights"- but then again, the USA is primarily a service-driven country, and manufacturing is primarily being outsourced. Our capitalism looks good to the citizens of America who live within the "bubble". Think of it this way: The world is Tsarist Russia, and the Western World comprises the upper class. Do your research, and you'll soon see what I mean. It's no less exploitative than it was before.
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 4:54:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 4:10:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/15/2014 1:24:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

That being said, unmanaged or pure capitalism doesn't work. Monopolies, labor violations, pollution, exploiting resources in the environment, etc., are all real problems. This is why we're not truly a capitalist economy (I don't believe any economy is) but rather a mixed economy of the private sector acting on capitalist principles while being managed and granted those rights by the government.


Well, the idea of a "mixed economy", of moderating capitalism, making it more safe & sane with a bit of regulation and a better social safety net is rather like, about as naive as, the idea of creating a tamer piranha by breeding one with a harmless goldfish. The quite predictable result, of course, is simply that the piranha will eat the goldfish. And this is essentially what we see happening with the European mixed economies today.

That is, developments caused by capitalism, by its inherent dynamics and drives, adverse developments such as the Global Financial Crisis and Great Recession, bursting real estate bubbles, trade imbalances, etc., have indeed had a quite destructive impact on the "European dream", and on the mixed economies that used to make the "European dream" come true for a great many workingpeople. You might say that these economies have been swallowed into the belly of the capitalist beast, except for the fact that what's really happened is of course that it's been rudely revealed that mixed economies never really escaped from the belly of the capitalist beast in the first place.

Mm-hmm, with the UK leading the way and the IMF imposing "permanent austerity", European mixed economies, like the goldfish who's passed through the belly of a piranha, are being turned to sh*t. Yes, so much for the wishful notion that a mixed economy is the way to go, is the hopeful wave of the future. Arguably, an all-out conversion to what could indeed be called communism holds significantly brighter prospects for the evolution of a truly livable and sustainable economic form of life.

The "mixed economies" you mentioned are illusory. It's easy to mislead the public as to the true nature of the current form of capitalism when you show it the crown jewel- the Western world- as opposed to the whole crown. Production is greater than it was it in the 1800s, so it follows that labor is still ridiculously cheap and greater amounts of people are getting exploited in similar ways to those during the 1800s- just different to those in Western countries- and in greater amounts. That's the beauty of globalism- your country dominates, or is one of the dominators, and so you can expand the once-middle-class of your country to your entire country, at the expense of the ones being dominated. In essence, your country as a whole becomes richer thanks to dominance of others. It's not that hard to understand, and I'm sure that you, being one of my peers ideologically, understand it.
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 5:00:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 1:24:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Capitalism has succeeded in making the US the most powerful economy in the world. In the 1970's when China allowed free market policies in agriculture the economy grew leaps and bounds above when it was controlled by the state. Almost every first world economy today operates under principles of capitalism.

The power of capitalism is in its natural efficiency. If producers are able to produce a good for profit in a competitive market, this means that the good must be of competitive quality or price in order to be demanded. If the good isn't of competitive price or quality, it won't be bought by consumers and the business will fail. Businesses are incentivized to innovate because it lessens the costs of production and allows them to keep a greater profit. Centrally planned economies are a different story. The government tells producers what to produce and how much to produce. The excess surplus of production and possible lack of quality or relative high price is solely due to inefficiency. Capitalism is simply the best economic system for creating real wealth.

That being said, unmanaged or pure capitalism doesn't work. Monopolies, labor violations, pollution, exploiting resources in the environment, etc., are all real problems. This is why we're not truly a capitalist economy (I don't believe any economy is) but rather a mixed economy of the private sector acting on capitalist principles while being managed and granted those rights by the government.

Really, communism makes more sense- you make money, working for yourself, at your own pace, getting ALL of your product rather than a tiny sliver of it, to the best of your ability. People do not become corpulent, wasteful tycoons in communism because tycoons require subservient workers to deliver to them the profits they need. Social classes are effectively negated, and the entire body of people- all workers- make decisions democratically. Thus, the majority are served and most or all, rather than a few, are happy.
You can call me Mark if you like.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 5:18:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 5:00:33 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/15/2014 1:24:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Capitalism has succeeded in making the US the most powerful economy in the world. In the 1970's when China allowed free market policies in agriculture the economy grew leaps and bounds above when it was controlled by the state. Almost every first world economy today operates under principles of capitalism.

The power of capitalism is in its natural efficiency. If producers are able to produce a good for profit in a competitive market, this means that the good must be of competitive quality or price in order to be demanded. If the good isn't of competitive price or quality, it won't be bought by consumers and the business will fail. Businesses are incentivized to innovate because it lessens the costs of production and allows them to keep a greater profit. Centrally planned economies are a different story. The government tells producers what to produce and how much to produce. The excess surplus of production and possible lack of quality or relative high price is solely due to inefficiency. Capitalism is simply the best economic system for creating real wealth.

That being said, unmanaged or pure capitalism doesn't work. Monopolies, labor violations, pollution, exploiting resources in the environment, etc., are all real problems. This is why we're not truly a capitalist economy (I don't believe any economy is) but rather a mixed economy of the private sector acting on capitalist principles while being managed and granted those rights by the government.

Really, communism makes more sense- you make money, working for yourself, at your own pace, getting ALL of your product rather than a tiny sliver of it, to the best of your ability. People do not become corpulent, wasteful tycoons in communism because tycoons require subservient workers to deliver to them the profits they need. Social classes are effectively negated, and the entire body of people- all workers- make decisions democratically. Thus, the majority are served and most or all, rather than a few, are happy.

Your replies hit some quite important nails precisely on the head. Thank you.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 10:42:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 12:22:21 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/17/2014 7:15:32 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 11/17/2014 3:11:35 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/16/2014 8:34:32 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 11/15/2014 4:10:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/15/2014 1:24:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

That being said, unmanaged or pure capitalism doesn't work. Monopolies, labor violations, pollution, exploiting resources in the environment, etc., are all real problems. This is why we're not truly a capitalist economy (I don't believe any economy is) but rather a mixed economy of the private sector acting on capitalist principles while being managed and granted those rights by the government.


Well, the idea of a "mixed economy", of moderating capitalism, making it more safe & sane with a bit of regulation and a better social safety net is rather like, about as naive as, the idea of creating a tamer piranha by breeding one with a harmless goldfish. The quite predictable result, of course, is simply that the piranha will eat the goldfish. And this is essentially what we see happening with the European mixed economies today.

That is, developments caused by capitalism, by its inherent dynamics and drives, adverse developments such as the Global Financial Crisis and Great Recession, bursting real estate bubbles, trade imbalances, etc., have indeed had a quite destructive impact on the "European dream", and on the mixed economies that used to make the "European dream" come true for a great many workingpeople. You might say that these economies have been swallowed into the belly of the capitalist beast, except for the fact that what's really happened is of course that it's been rudely revealed that mixed economies never really escaped from the belly of the capitalist beast in the first place.

Mm-hmm, with the UK leading the way and the IMF imposing "permanent austerity", European mixed economies, like the goldfish who's passed through the belly of a piranha, are being turned to sh*t. Yes, so much for the wishful notion that a mixed economy is the way to go, is the hopeful wave of the future. Arguably, an all-out conversion to what could indeed be called communism holds significantly brighter prospects for the evolution of a truly livable and sustainable economic form of life.

You would have anything resembling a point if your post wasn't so ahistorical. The current crisis came to Europe because of the failure to impose tough regulations on banks in the US and the UK--which had started dismantling a large part of the regulatory apparatus--and of course this recklessness has affected the European economies, but it would be mere demagogy to say that the "goldfish" has been eaten in Europe, the poor of Europe--the UK aside--still have relatively high standards of living--relative to what they had before. Furthermore, no one in Germany, or France--where economic stagnation was a result of bad economic policies--has proposed anything like "permanent austerity."

The piranha is in fact the capitalist world-system. A global beast whose insatiable belly the mixed and "socialist" economies of Western Europe never actually escaped from. And it's their residence in the belly of this all-devouring capitalist beast that is indeed turning them, and the European dream, to dung.

It is a wild exaggeration to say that because the social democracies of Europe have been forced to cut spending in social programs, the Third Way has gone "to dung."

Well, the "austerity" that will more and more come to characterize life in the "social democracies" of Western Europe is certainly quite sh*tty.

Only the "austerity" measures are just temporary, and even then it is not that bad, you're just exaggerating.

And it would be suicide for Europe to escape from the "global beast" ...

Failing to do so will mean the slow and increasingly miserable demise of the "European Dream".

The only way that Europe can generate the wealth required to maintain its socialist programs is through trade and globalization, without those things Europe would be a poor continent.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 4:27:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 10:42:00 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 11/18/2014 12:22:21 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/17/2014 7:15:32 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 11/17/2014 3:11:35 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/16/2014 8:34:32 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 11/15/2014 4:10:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/15/2014 1:24:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

That being said, unmanaged or pure capitalism doesn't work. Monopolies, labor violations, pollution, exploiting resources in the environment, etc., are all real problems. This is why we're not truly a capitalist economy (I don't believe any economy is) but rather a mixed economy of the private sector acting on capitalist principles while being managed and granted those rights by the government.


Well, the idea of a "mixed economy", of moderating capitalism, making it more safe & sane with a bit of regulation and a better social safety net is rather like, about as naive as, the idea of creating a tamer piranha by breeding one with a harmless goldfish. The quite predictable result, of course, is simply that the piranha will eat the goldfish. And this is essentially what we see happening with the European mixed economies today.

That is, developments caused by capitalism, by its inherent dynamics and drives, adverse developments such as the Global Financial Crisis and Great Recession, bursting real estate bubbles, trade imbalances, etc., have indeed had a quite destructive impact on the "European dream", and on the mixed economies that used to make the "European dream" come true for a great many workingpeople. You might say that these economies have been swallowed into the belly of the capitalist beast, except for the fact that what's really happened is of course that it's been rudely revealed that mixed economies never really escaped from the belly of the capitalist beast in the first place.

Mm-hmm, with the UK leading the way and the IMF imposing "permanent austerity", European mixed economies, like the goldfish who's passed through the belly of a piranha, are being turned to sh*t. Yes, so much for the wishful notion that a mixed economy is the way to go, is the hopeful wave of the future. Arguably, an all-out conversion to what could indeed be called communism holds significantly brighter prospects for the evolution of a truly livable and sustainable economic form of life.

You would have anything resembling a point if your post wasn't so ahistorical. The current crisis came to Europe because of the failure to impose tough regulations on banks in the US and the UK--which had started dismantling a large part of the regulatory apparatus--and of course this recklessness has affected the European economies, but it would be mere demagogy to say that the "goldfish" has been eaten in Europe, the poor of Europe--the UK aside--still have relatively high standards of living--relative to what they had before. Furthermore, no one in Germany, or France--where economic stagnation was a result of bad economic policies--has proposed anything like "permanent austerity."

The piranha is in fact the capitalist world-system. A global beast whose insatiable belly the mixed and "socialist" economies of Western Europe never actually escaped from. And it's their residence in the belly of this all-devouring capitalist beast that is indeed turning them, and the European dream, to dung.

It is a wild exaggeration to say that because the social democracies of Europe have been forced to cut spending in social programs, the Third Way has gone "to dung."

Well, the "austerity" that will more and more come to characterize life in the "social democracies" of Western Europe is certainly quite sh*tty.

Only the "austerity" measures are just temporary, and even then it is not that bad, you're just exaggerating.

And it would be suicide for Europe to escape from the "global beast" ...

Failing to do so will mean the slow and increasingly miserable demise of the "European Dream".

The only way that Europe can generate the wealth required to maintain its socialist programs is through trade and globalization, without those things Europe would be a poor continent.

Can you prove that "Europe would be a poor continent"? And also, by what do you mean "poor"? A poor lower class, middle class, upper class, or all classes?
You can call me Mark if you like.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 5:21:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 4:27:41 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:42:00 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 11/18/2014 12:22:21 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/17/2014 7:15:32 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 11/17/2014 3:11:35 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/16/2014 8:34:32 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 11/15/2014 4:10:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/15/2014 1:24:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

That being said, unmanaged or pure capitalism doesn't work. Monopolies, labor violations, pollution, exploiting resources in the environment, etc., are all real problems. This is why we're not truly a capitalist economy (I don't believe any economy is) but rather a mixed economy of the private sector acting on capitalist principles while being managed and granted those rights by the government.


Well, the idea of a "mixed economy", of moderating capitalism, making it more safe & sane with a bit of regulation and a better social safety net is rather like, about as naive as, the idea of creating a tamer piranha by breeding one with a harmless goldfish. The quite predictable result, of course, is simply that the piranha will eat the goldfish. And this is essentially what we see happening with the European mixed economies today.

That is, developments caused by capitalism, by its inherent dynamics and drives, adverse developments such as the Global Financial Crisis and Great Recession, bursting real estate bubbles, trade imbalances, etc., have indeed had a quite destructive impact on the "European dream", and on the mixed economies that used to make the "European dream" come true for a great many workingpeople. You might say that these economies have been swallowed into the belly of the capitalist beast, except for the fact that what's really happened is of course that it's been rudely revealed that mixed economies never really escaped from the belly of the capitalist beast in the first place.

Mm-hmm, with the UK leading the way and the IMF imposing "permanent austerity", European mixed economies, like the goldfish who's passed through the belly of a piranha, are being turned to sh*t. Yes, so much for the wishful notion that a mixed economy is the way to go, is the hopeful wave of the future. Arguably, an all-out conversion to what could indeed be called communism holds significantly brighter prospects for the evolution of a truly livable and sustainable economic form of life.

You would have anything resembling a point if your post wasn't so ahistorical. The current crisis came to Europe because of the failure to impose tough regulations on banks in the US and the UK--which had started dismantling a large part of the regulatory apparatus--and of course this recklessness has affected the European economies, but it would be mere demagogy to say that the "goldfish" has been eaten in Europe, the poor of Europe--the UK aside--still have relatively high standards of living--relative to what they had before. Furthermore, no one in Germany, or France--where economic stagnation was a result of bad economic policies--has proposed anything like "permanent austerity."

The piranha is in fact the capitalist world-system. A global beast whose insatiable belly the mixed and "socialist" economies of Western Europe never actually escaped from. And it's their residence in the belly of this all-devouring capitalist beast that is indeed turning them, and the European dream, to dung.

It is a wild exaggeration to say that because the social democracies of Europe have been forced to cut spending in social programs, the Third Way has gone "to dung."

Well, the "austerity" that will more and more come to characterize life in the "social democracies" of Western Europe is certainly quite sh*tty.

Only the "austerity" measures are just temporary, and even then it is not that bad, you're just exaggerating.

And it would be suicide for Europe to escape from the "global beast" ...

Failing to do so will mean the slow and increasingly miserable demise of the "European Dream".

The only way that Europe can generate the wealth required to maintain its socialist programs is through trade and globalization, without those things Europe would be a poor continent.

Can you prove that "Europe would be a poor continent"? And also, by what do you mean "poor"? A poor lower class, middle class, upper class, or all classes?

Poor in the sense that Europe doesn't have much oil, or coal, or steel, or copper, or a lot of other natural resources which are imported into the continent from other lands and which have allowed the economies of Europe to flourish.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 5:23:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 5:21:21 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 11/23/2014 4:27:41 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:42:00 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 11/18/2014 12:22:21 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/17/2014 7:15:32 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 11/17/2014 3:11:35 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/16/2014 8:34:32 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 11/15/2014 4:10:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/15/2014 1:24:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

That being said, unmanaged or pure capitalism doesn't work. Monopolies, labor violations, pollution, exploiting resources in the environment, etc., are all real problems. This is why we're not truly a capitalist economy (I don't believe any economy is) but rather a mixed economy of the private sector acting on capitalist principles while being managed and granted those rights by the government.


Well, the idea of a "mixed economy", of moderating capitalism, making it more safe & sane with a bit of regulation and a better social safety net is rather like, about as naive as, the idea of creating a tamer piranha by breeding one with a harmless goldfish. The quite predictable result, of course, is simply that the piranha will eat the goldfish. And this is essentially what we see happening with the European mixed economies today.

That is, developments caused by capitalism, by its inherent dynamics and drives, adverse developments such as the Global Financial Crisis and Great Recession, bursting real estate bubbles, trade imbalances, etc., have indeed had a quite destructive impact on the "European dream", and on the mixed economies that used to make the "European dream" come true for a great many workingpeople. You might say that these economies have been swallowed into the belly of the capitalist beast, except for the fact that what's really happened is of course that it's been rudely revealed that mixed economies never really escaped from the belly of the capitalist beast in the first place.

Mm-hmm, with the UK leading the way and the IMF imposing "permanent austerity", European mixed economies, like the goldfish who's passed through the belly of a piranha, are being turned to sh*t. Yes, so much for the wishful notion that a mixed economy is the way to go, is the hopeful wave of the future. Arguably, an all-out conversion to what could indeed be called communism holds significantly brighter prospects for the evolution of a truly livable and sustainable economic form of life.

You would have anything resembling a point if your post wasn't so ahistorical. The current crisis came to Europe because of the failure to impose tough regulations on banks in the US and the UK--which had started dismantling a large part of the regulatory apparatus--and of course this recklessness has affected the European economies, but it would be mere demagogy to say that the "goldfish" has been eaten in Europe, the poor of Europe--the UK aside--still have relatively high standards of living--relative to what they had before. Furthermore, no one in Germany, or France--where economic stagnation was a result of bad economic policies--has proposed anything like "permanent austerity."

The piranha is in fact the capitalist world-system. A global beast whose insatiable belly the mixed and "socialist" economies of Western Europe never actually escaped from. And it's their residence in the belly of this all-devouring capitalist beast that is indeed turning them, and the European dream, to dung.

It is a wild exaggeration to say that because the social democracies of Europe have been forced to cut spending in social programs, the Third Way has gone "to dung."

Well, the "austerity" that will more and more come to characterize life in the "social democracies" of Western Europe is certainly quite sh*tty.

Only the "austerity" measures are just temporary, and even then it is not that bad, you're just exaggerating.

And it would be suicide for Europe to escape from the "global beast" ...

Failing to do so will mean the slow and increasingly miserable demise of the "European Dream".

The only way that Europe can generate the wealth required to maintain its socialist programs is through trade and globalization, without those things Europe would be a poor continent.

Can you prove that "Europe would be a poor continent"? And also, by what do you mean "poor"? A poor lower class, middle class, upper class, or all classes?

Poor in the sense that Europe doesn't have much oil, or coal, or steel, or copper, or a lot of other natural resources which are imported into the continent from other lands and which have allowed the economies of Europe to flourish.

Ah, thank you for clarifying. That's all I wanted to know.
You can call me Mark if you like.