Total Posts:190|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Communists like Charles *derp* on economics

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 3:30:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
After recently doing a debate against Marx's economic ideas, I've come to realize that people who still believe in Communism basically lack a basic understanding of economics. They only understand stuff like the "means of production," i.e. they think the economy is still just a bunch of factory owners and workers. They think the workers should take over the factory. Except how the f*** would that work with someone like Elon Musk, who is so integral to his own operation. Or Steve Jobs. Are you really saying the workers of Space X, Tesla, and Apple would be better off by getting rid of these "capitalist" owners? Those companies are nothing without their founders.

Communists don't really get the need to reward invention or the need to reward the taking of *risk.* They are content to divide up the wealth we have already generated, even though in the modern economy, this wealth would instantly disappear if people lost the monetary incentive to innovate. Communists hope that people will still keep working, if they are not paid anything. Cuz we're all intrinsically motivated, right? If there were no grades in school, we'd all work just as hard, right? If our significant others never have sex with us, we will be just as happy to work hard at our relationships, right?

Communism comes from Marx's premise that the value of any good is a function solely of the labor expended in making it. If the value of a good is instead dependent on supply and demand, the other premises of Communism fall apart (that workers should overthrow their capitalist overlords because they are the ones that really create all the value in society). Except that's not true. People who come up with new ideas create most of the value. The internet. Smartphones. An electric car that people actually want to buy. Workers are important, but they can't form the basis of an economy by themselves.

Thoughts?

Donations to send charleslb to take an Econ 101 course at his local university?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 3:37:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 3:30:20 AM, bluesteel wrote:
After recently doing a debate against Marx's economic ideas, I've come to realize that people who still believe in Communism basically lack a basic understanding of economics. They only understand stuff like the "means of production," i.e. they think the economy is still just a bunch of factory owners and workers. They think the workers should take over the factory. Except how the f*** would that work with someone like Elon Musk, who is so integral to his own operation. Or Steve Jobs. Are you really saying the workers of Space X, Tesla, and Apple would be better off by getting rid of these "capitalist" owners? Those companies are nothing without their founders.

Communists don't really get the need to reward invention or the need to reward the taking of *risk.* They are content to divide up the wealth we have already generated, even though in the modern economy, this wealth would instantly disappear if people lost the monetary incentive to innovate. Communists hope that people will still keep working, if they are not paid anything. Cuz we're all intrinsically motivated, right? If there were no grades in school, we'd all work just as hard, right? If our significant others never have sex with us, we will be just as happy to work hard at our relationships, right?

The USSR found that places in the nation that gave it's workers rewards for work (money... land) were a lot more productive. Communism is based on the idea that people naturally care about the better well-being of the nation, when in practice, Communist revolutions have been done out of the betterment of one's own situation. It's based on a bad understanding of Economics and Human Nature.

Communism comes from Marx's premise that the value of any good is a function solely of the labor expended in making it. If the value of a good is instead dependent on supply and demand, the other premises of Communism fall apart (that workers should overthrow their capitalist overlords because they are the ones that really create all the value in society). Except that's not true. People who come up with new ideas create most of the value. The internet. Smartphones. An electric car that people actually want to buy. Workers are important, but they can't form the basis of an economy by themselves.

Thoughts?

Donations to send charleslb to take an Econ 101 course at his local university?
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 3:40:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Dumb argument. I'll agree there has to be motivation (but only insofar as motivation equals an inspiration of will), but your motivations are incredibly simplistic, girls and money as Econ 101, as if that's all there is. Broaden your horizons dude. Look at all the f*cking buddhist monks and sh*t. Even if it does all ultimately amount to selfishness in the end, there's still that selfless kinda selfishness. Easily feasible.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 4:13:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 3:40:31 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Dumb argument. I'll agree there has to be motivation (but only insofar as motivation equals an inspiration of will), but your motivations are incredibly simplistic, girls and money as Econ 101, as if that's all there is. Broaden your horizons dude. Look at all the f*cking buddhist monks and sh*t. Even if it does all ultimately amount to selfishness in the end, there's still that selfless kinda selfishness. Easily feasible.

We can't all be buddhist monks.

I'm pretty sure that if I asked you to help me move, I'd have better luck by saying I'd buy you drinks for the night if you helped me, than saying we could have a group meditation session afterwards.

Just knowing you
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 4:22:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 4:13:53 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/18/2014 3:40:31 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Dumb argument. I'll agree there has to be motivation (but only insofar as motivation equals an inspiration of will), but your motivations are incredibly simplistic, girls and money as Econ 101, as if that's all there is. Broaden your horizons dude. Look at all the f*cking buddhist monks and sh*t. Even if it does all ultimately amount to selfishness in the end, there's still that selfless kinda selfishness. Easily feasible.

We can't all be buddhist monks.

I'm pretty sure that if I asked you to help me move, I'd have better luck by saying I'd buy you drinks for the night if you helped me, than saying we could have a group meditation session afterwards.

Just knowing you

And you're 100% right. But alcoholism isn't genetic and nor is buddhism or capitalism.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 5:43:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 3:30:20 AM, bluesteel wrote:
They only understand stuff like the "means of production," i.e. they think the economy is still just a bunch of factory owners and workers.
It is, always has been, and always will be. Does money create products? No! It's the people who build them, from actual resources that are produced by other people!

They think the workers should take over the factory.
With present values people in general are raised with this could never happen.

Except how the f*** would that work with someone like Elon Musk, who is so integral to his own operation. Or Steve Jobs. Are you really saying the workers of Space X, Tesla, and Apple would be better off by getting rid of these "capitalist" owners?
Have you seen Apple's products? I have... they lack quality, are cheap and weak crap that are literally built to break, so you would have to buy a new one very soon. This is the result of capitalism, of living for money.

There will always be leaders. But leaders must be chosen for their intellect, not lies and empty promise. Right now, in this capitalism, people see "leaders" with massive salaries and life of immense excess. They want it, no matter what, so they lie and talk their way there, they deceive people to pay them money, all the while a fake smile on their face. All for money, all because they live for money, money drives them; doesn't matter that they absolutely lack the necessary qualities a leader should actually possess. Right now if you have money you lead, no matter how big of an imbecile you are.
In a moneyless society, provided people are already raised with correct values as well, only the person's intellect would determine leadership.

Those companies are nothing without their founders.
The leader can die or leave. Someone else takes the position. Or some other's take the position. The founder is completely and absolutely irrelevant in the long run.

Communists don't really get the need to reward invention or the need to reward the taking of *risk.*
The well-being of yourself and others isn't good enough? Survival in the long run isn't good enough? You think our planet will always sustain life, us? This is all that matters!

They are content to divide up the wealth we have already generated, even though in the modern economy, this wealth would instantly disappear if people lost the monetary incentive to innovate.
Let's regard matters realistically now. There is no wealth!
There are people, there are resources, there are blocks on the path that need be removed or bypassed. Get it?

Communists hope that people will still keep working, if they are not paid anything.
Of course they would. But first people would have to be taught new and better values, the same with next generations since their birth.
When thinking how it would work you need to think more than just about the lack of money. If you removed money from everywhere right this moment, without correcting anything else, then of course everything would collapse!

Cuz we're all intrinsically motivated, right?
I am.

If there were no grades in school, we'd all work just as hard, right?
It's not just about the grades, it's as well about every other value that is directly connected to it. And the values educational system as a whole is based on.

If our significant others never have sex with us, we will be just as happy to work hard at our relationships, right?
You're regarding sex as money? Are you serious? Just try to think realistically on this... because it doesn't apply to the present topic at all.
You either fit together or you don't - this is determined by genetics. Money, capitalism, is not in our genes.

Communism comes from Marx's premise that the value of any good is a function solely of the labor expended in making it.
In this he was definitely wrong. Value of any good is determined by its usefulness toward the goal in the long run.
You can spend your entire life making something, and have no use for it ever. And you can spend an hour making something that will be needed immediately and for years to come. Which one is more valuable?

If the value of a good is instead dependent on supply and demand, the other premises of Communism fall apart (that workers should overthrow their capitalist overlords because they are the ones that really create all the value in society).
Supply and demand does not necessitate money. You can have supply and demand in a moneyless society. It's basically the foundation of any workable economy.
Presently, in capitalism, supply and demand isn't working right. People are lied about products, about their effect on health, on life, etc. And if something goes bad and wrong they are lied that it is normal, that it is supposed to be this way, that just get another one. From commercial products full of sugar (which is extremely bad to health), to modern medicine (where people are sold lies labeled as cures), to the way working itself is regarded (that people having jobs is important, yet so many live in slavish conditions, and as a result there's a problem that people don't have jobs, yet there's so much to do anywhere you look, and food and any products they need for all those not working people is plenty), etc. Ever heard of electronical devices failing after little use? Ever heard of those very expensive variants that last long? It could easily be that there are only those long lasting ones. It's profitable to produce crap that fails shortly (several month to about two years) after using it, to force people to buy new. They could so easily create and mass-produce products that last at least a decade without inherent quality issues.

People who come up with new ideas create most of the value.
It's the usefulness of the idea that determines true value.

The internet.
It is extremely useful. Even this is in many places limited, although there's absolutely no need for the limitation. And only "unlockable" if you pay extra.

Smartphones.
Built to last short to force people to buy new, and littered with pointless apps and restriction you have to pay for to use or "remove".
Otherwise very useful.

An electric car that people actually want to buy.
Successful electric cars have been invented numerous times. The "oil kings" saw it as a threat to their empire of greed. So threat was removed. How much does gas cost, especially outside of USA? And where, in who'se hands, does most of all that money end up? How much do they already have money? And they use it how, on what? Then "poverty" is a problem.
Weren't the first automobiles/cars electric?

Workers are important, but they can't form the basis of an economy by themselves.
Not can't but they do. Money in reality does absolutely nothing. People are simply raised to live by money. They hear money mentioned and their programming that began since birth kicks in.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 5:47:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Problems arise when you look our world through preconceived and, especially, biased views and labels. Without coming up with answers original to yourself. How about you broaden your scope of mind with your own original thoughts? If you don't have any then start thinking.
Preconceived ideas and such are most importantly supposed to be regarded as "guides" to form your own mind. To decide for yourself whether and why something is wrong or not. Parroting gets no one anywhere.

For example, a dictatorship is regarded as a very very bad thing. But. It is so only if a very very bad person is the dictator. What if the dictator was a very very good person? No one ever seems to consider this (only seen one person somewhere bring this extremely relevant fact of reality in, other than me, so far).
As well, dictatorships that have been and are thus far, have all been bad, because the person in charge was or is ignorant or stupid, in the least.

Now communism. The same story applies. Depends entirely on the people who are in charge.

The same applies to capitalism. You think matters are well in capitalist countries (that being all countries on the planet, by the way)? No, they are not, not anywhere close.

In all these cases there has never been truly good (smart, intelligent, truly cares about humanity, etc.) person or group in charge. Even presently there's not, not anywhere on the planet.

As well, if a truly good person or group was in charge, in a capitalist system, then... well... it wouldn't be a capitalist system, definitely not for long. Because the leaders would be so "good" that they'd see what is the best in the longest run - not money, nor any idiotic values dictated by living for money.
If you viewed matters realistically then you would see that money is of no good. Never has been, never will be. Saying it is a "motivation" for people is as good as saying people (in general) are all very stupid (which they actually are).

Successful large scale economy does not equate the presence of money!
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 9:52:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 3:30:20 AM, bluesteel wrote:
After recently doing a debate against Marx's economic ideas, I've come to realize that people who still believe in Communism basically lack a basic understanding of economics. They only understand stuff like the "means of production," i.e. they think the economy is still just a bunch of factory owners and workers. They think the workers should take over the factory. Except how the f*** would that work with someone like Elon Musk, who is so integral to his own operation. Or Steve Jobs. Are you really saying the workers of Space X, Tesla, and Apple would be better off by getting rid of these "capitalist" owners? Those companies are nothing without their founders.

Communists don't really get the need to reward invention or the need to reward the taking of *risk.* They are content to divide up the wealth we have already generated, even though in the modern economy, this wealth would instantly disappear if people lost the monetary incentive to innovate. Communists hope that people will still keep working, if they are not paid anything. Cuz we're all intrinsically motivated, right? If there were no grades in school, we'd all work just as hard, right? If our significant others never have sex with us, we will be just as happy to work hard at our relationships, right?

Communism comes from Marx's premise that the value of any good is a function solely of the labor expended in making it. If the value of a good is instead dependent on supply and demand, the other premises of Communism fall apart (that workers should overthrow their capitalist overlords because they are the ones that really create all the value in society). Except that's not true. People who come up with new ideas create most of the value. The internet. Smartphones. An electric car that people actually want to buy. Workers are important, but they can't form the basis of an economy by themselves.

Thoughts?

Donations to send charleslb to take an Econ 101 course at his local university?

I hear what you are saying. I will add this thought though. All of economics is fundamentally a study of human behavior and how collective behaviors alter economic prosperity.

Communism fails because people are not wired to behave in a manner which would make it work on a large scale. I think when people argue for it they are assuming that we can have the collective behaviors such as unselfishness and working on behalf of the larger community rather than one's self.

On the other hand, those that argue unfettered Capitalism, completely ignore human behavior and assigning any right or wrong to behavior thus no desire to regulate it. I know an individual who works for people with net worth of over 600 million and don't even offer health insurance to her because they can get plenty of qualified accountants in the market without offering it.

It is hard to swallow what capitalism means when hearing anecdotal stories like that. I think communists are either idealist dreamers or hard core mo fo's like Che Guevara who believe it is the duty. The commonality is that in both cases, the dreamer and Che, the desire tends to grow from a sense of injustice and enabling the level of control to try to guarantee economic justice.

That is why I believe it is to the benefit of good Capitalists to allow certain regulations. IE: the law that requires emergency patients to be accepted and treated at a hospital. Too much reliance on the "invisible hand" causes too much economic injustice, which in turn causes people to turn to communism and too much restriction.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 11:38:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 5:47:21 AM, nummi wrote:
Problems arise when you look our world through preconceived and, especially, biased views and labels. Without coming up with answers original to yourself. How about you broaden your scope of mind with your own original thoughts? If you don't have any then start thinking.
Preconceived ideas and such are most importantly supposed to be regarded as "guides" to form your own mind. To decide for yourself whether and why something is wrong or not. Parroting gets no one anywhere.

For example, a dictatorship is regarded as a very very bad thing. But. It is so only if a very very bad person is the dictator. What if the dictator was a very very good person? No one ever seems to consider this (only seen one person somewhere bring this extremely relevant fact of reality in, other than me, so far).
As well, dictatorships that have been and are thus far, have all been bad, because the person in charge was or is ignorant or stupid, in the least.

Now communism. The same story applies. Depends entirely on the people who are in charge.

The same applies to capitalism. You think matters are well in capitalist countries (that being all countries on the planet, by the way)? No, they are not, not anywhere close.

In all these cases there has never been truly good (smart, intelligent, truly cares about humanity, etc.) person or group in charge. Even presently there's not, not anywhere on the planet.

As well, if a truly good person or group was in charge, in a capitalist system, then... well... it wouldn't be a capitalist system, definitely not for long. Because the leaders would be so "good" that they'd see what is the best in the longest run - not money, nor any idiotic values dictated by living for money.
If you viewed matters realistically then you would see that money is of no good. Never has been, never will be. Saying it is a "motivation" for people is as good as saying people (in general) are all very stupid (which they actually are).

Successful large scale economy does not equate the presence of money!

How do you buy goods without money? How would supply and demand work without money?

Serious question: have you ever taken an econ course? Cuz I've read Marx. You should truly understand something before you reject it.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 11:53:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 9:52:48 AM, slo1 wrote:

"Communism fails because people are not wired to behave in a manner which would make it work on a large scale. I think when people argue for it they are assuming that we can have the collective behaviors such as unselfishness and working on behalf of the larger community rather than one's self... I think communists are either idealist dreamers or hard core mo fo's like Che Guevara who believe it is the duty."

Well, if communities are established by free association, then this response fails, presumably. Furthermore, calling someone an 'idealist dreamer' is quite disgusting, particularly when they actually have workable plans.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 12:26:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 11:38:04 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/18/2014 5:47:21 AM, nummi wrote:
Problems arise when you look our world through preconceived and, especially, biased views and labels. Without coming up with answers original to yourself. How about you broaden your scope of mind with your own original thoughts? If you don't have any then start thinking.
Preconceived ideas and such are most importantly supposed to be regarded as "guides" to form your own mind. To decide for yourself whether and why something is wrong or not. Parroting gets no one anywhere.

For example, a dictatorship is regarded as a very very bad thing. But. It is so only if a very very bad person is the dictator. What if the dictator was a very very good person? No one ever seems to consider this (only seen one person somewhere bring this extremely relevant fact of reality in, other than me, so far).
As well, dictatorships that have been and are thus far, have all been bad, because the person in charge was or is ignorant or stupid, in the least.

Now communism. The same story applies. Depends entirely on the people who are in charge.

The same applies to capitalism. You think matters are well in capitalist countries (that being all countries on the planet, by the way)? No, they are not, not anywhere close.

In all these cases there has never been truly good (smart, intelligent, truly cares about humanity, etc.) person or group in charge. Even presently there's not, not anywhere on the planet.

As well, if a truly good person or group was in charge, in a capitalist system, then... well... it wouldn't be a capitalist system, definitely not for long. Because the leaders would be so "good" that they'd see what is the best in the longest run - not money, nor any idiotic values dictated by living for money.
If you viewed matters realistically then you would see that money is of no good. Never has been, never will be. Saying it is a "motivation" for people is as good as saying people (in general) are all very stupid (which they actually are).

Successful large scale economy does not equate the presence of money!

How do you buy goods without money? How would supply and demand work without money?

Serious question: have you ever taken an econ course? Cuz I've read Marx. You should truly understand something before you reject it.

You can ignore Nummi. He has the brain of a monkey. He actually thinks North Korea is capitalist, and that capitalism is literally the only economy that has poor people. He will spend days ignoring every argument you make out of idiocy, and will go to extreme stupids to ignore your case and sources. His economics preachings got him on the Weekly Stupid...
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 12:34:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 3:30:20 AM, bluesteel wrote:

"Communists don't really get the need to reward invention or the need to reward the taking of *risk.* They are content to divide up the wealth we have already generated, even though in the modern economy, this wealth would instantly disappear if people lost the monetary incentive to innovate. Communists hope that people will still keep working, if they are not paid anything. Cuz we're all intrinsically motivated, right? If there were no grades in school, we'd all work just as hard, right? If our significant others never have sex with us, we will be just as happy to work hard at our relationships, right?"

Ah. 'Incentive'. I will now illustrate why you unintentionally exhibit some unappealing qualities:

According to you, the only incentive worth considering is that of capital, probably because capital, in capitalism, is essentially just 'power', and who wouldn't want more power?

But what are the rewards of innovation in a communist society? Well, amazingly enough, the actual benefits of the innovation. What else? If you invent some technology which doubles the power captured by our solar panels, then you will be rewarded by living in a community with double the amount of solar power. If there is a scarcity of electricity, then you will have more. If you have enough electricity, then this will likely reduce the amount of work the community has to perform to obtain 'enough energy', and so the community may direct its work to improving other matters. Furthermore, you will likely be proud and adored.

How tyrannous, you say? Shouldn't you be entitled to a bit of capital every time someone else benefits from your discovery? It was yours, after all...

Well, imagine that you lived by yourself. What would the benefits be? You would either have more electricity, or you would spend less time working to obtain the same amount of electricity. There will be no one to love you for your discovery, and don't we always feel prouder when people congratulate us?

Similarly, let's say that you invent 'snake oil', and claim medicinal properties. Alone, this does not benefit you, unless you can deceive yourself to the extent that you may benefit by placebo. In a community, the only benefit would be the pleasure of deceiving other people, unless you could convince them that it was worthwhile if you dedicated all of your working time to producing snake oil. Unlikely, to say the least, in modern times.

If my analysis is correct, I see perfect incentive for innovation without private property, in that you receive the benefits of your innovation. What more could you want?

Also, let's delve a little deeper: " If there were no grades in school, we'd all work just as hard, right? If our significant others never have sex with us, we will be just as happy to work hard at our relationships, right?"

If we weren't forced to learn, would we learn? Of course, because we would educate ourselves in the things that we saw as valuable. Imagine the vibrancy and happiness of such a place of learning...
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 12:37:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How do you buy goods without money? How would supply and demand work without money?
You don't. What you need you get.

If you think about a moneyless economy/society you don't take the present one and remove money and assume it will work, because it won't. It's not only the presence of money that needs to change for it to work.

Serious question: have you ever taken an econ course? Cuz I've read Marx. You should truly understand something before you reject it.
Any course you are referring to is completely and absolutely irrelevant. All you need is an objective mind to notice, see, and comprehend the world you live in.

I haven't read marx, and I never will. It would provide me nothing of relevance. I have my own perception, my own mind. I can see the world clearly enough on my own. I don't need preconceived ideas to come up with ideas, conclusions, and solutions. I come up with my own, unbiased by any preceding ones.
Why would anyone study something some other person has said or come up with? This is fine if you use the other person's conclusions as a guide to form your own mind, but I see people parroting predecessors all the time, word for word, meaning for meaning (a relatively good example is you here). Otherwise studying another person's opinions and conclusions is as good as quoting a person, any person, without actually giving your own opinion. If this is the case then why say anything at all?

Me not knowing as good as anything about Marx and what he has said shows originality of thought, of mind. It shows I am not biased. Ideas and notions I word out might be similar to those conjured up by others before me, but they are my own. I do not parrot others.

I truly understand what I am talking about. I am not talking about something someone else has come up with. I am talking about the world I live in, how matters are here, and how they could be. And the conclusions I have come to on my own devices.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 12:48:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You can ignore Nummi. He has the brain of a monkey.
This would be possible how? Obviously you live in fantasies. Because I am a human. If I have a brain of a monkey then so do you. Or you're not a human?
Anyway, best if you found reality, so start searching.

He actually thinks North Korea is capitalist, and that capitalism is literally the only economy that has poor people.
North Korea has money, it does use it. It is as well a dictatorship of a bad kind. Make the connection between that kind of dictatorship and the influence it has on society, then add money to it and all it enables. It really is not that hard to comprehend, and I'm not doing your thinking for you.

He will spend days ignoring every argument you make out of idiocy, and will go to extreme stupids to ignore your case and sources.
Bring an example where I ignored something. Back up your claims with evidence! In this case you need to bring actual instances. Or fvck off!
You should as well consult a dictionary about "idiocy" 'cause you really don't seem to know what it means.

I ignore "sources" if they are based on lies, on inconclusive data, are biased, etc. You call that stupid? So a smart person would go for false information, to biased information? Good to know you're a total moron.

His economics preachings got him on the Weekly Stupid...
As if this means anything... You are delusional, literally.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 1:03:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 12:26:32 PM, donald.keller wrote:


You can ignore Nummi. He has the brain of a monkey. He actually thinks North Korea is capitalist, and that capitalism is literally the only economy that has poor people. He will spend days ignoring every argument you make out of idiocy, and will go to extreme stupids to ignore your case and sources. His economics preachings got him on the Weekly Stupid...

Thanks for the heads up.

I mean, he really is exhibit A for this post. He says he's never studied economics, but he rejects it using his own common sense, which is more anti-intellectual that most members of even the Tea Party.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 1:26:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 1:03:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/18/2014 12:26:32 PM, donald.keller wrote:


You can ignore Nummi. He has the brain of a monkey. He actually thinks North Korea is capitalist, and that capitalism is literally the only economy that has poor people. He will spend days ignoring every argument you make out of idiocy, and will go to extreme stupids to ignore your case and sources. His economics preachings got him on the Weekly Stupid...

Thanks for the heads up.

I mean, he really is exhibit A for this post. He says he's never studied economics, but he rejects it using his own common sense, which is more anti-intellectual that most members of even the Tea Party.

I've never studied the dismal science either ;)
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 1:50:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 1:03:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/18/2014 12:26:32 PM, donald.keller wrote:


You can ignore Nummi. He has the brain of a monkey. He actually thinks North Korea is capitalist, and that capitalism is literally the only economy that has poor people. He will spend days ignoring every argument you make out of idiocy, and will go to extreme stupids to ignore your case and sources. His economics preachings got him on the Weekly Stupid...

Thanks for the heads up.

I mean, he really is exhibit A for this post. He says he's never studied economics, but he rejects it using his own common sense, which is more anti-intellectual that most members of even the Tea Party.
So that someone's opinions could/would be taken into account the person has to first study the opinions of so many others and just parrot what they have said? Without providing absolutely anything new, any new perspectives or views original to the new person? Gotcha...
How about you try to begin thinking realistically from now on.

You are yet another perfect example of utter prejudice and stupidity, and narrow-mindedness as well. Ain't it funny if someone has one, he/she tends to have others as well?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 2:09:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 1:50:29 PM, nummi wrote:
At 2/18/2014 1:03:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/18/2014 12:26:32 PM, donald.keller wrote:


You can ignore Nummi. He has the brain of a monkey. He actually thinks North Korea is capitalist, and that capitalism is literally the only economy that has poor people. He will spend days ignoring every argument you make out of idiocy, and will go to extreme stupids to ignore your case and sources. His economics preachings got him on the Weekly Stupid...

Thanks for the heads up.

I mean, he really is exhibit A for this post. He says he's never studied economics, but he rejects it using his own common sense, which is more anti-intellectual that most members of even the Tea Party.
So that someone's opinions could/would be taken into account the person has to first study the opinions of so many others and just parrot what they have said? Without providing absolutely anything new, any new perspectives or views original to the new person? Gotcha...
How about you try to begin thinking realistically from now on.

You are yet another perfect example of utter prejudice and stupidity, and narrow-mindedness as well. Ain't it funny if someone has one, he/she tends to have others as well?

No, I took your opinion into account. It's incoherent because you fail to understand how the world works. You can't "educate" people to work for the good of society when they have no self-interest in working. You can't "educate" people to ask only for what they need, not for what they *want.* You can't educate human nature out of people, or else gay conversion camps would work.

Your opinion is stupid, after I took it into account and considered it. Now I'm just trying to explain to everyone else why it's so stupid and it's because you have studied neither the opposing viewpoint [Neoclassical economics] nor authors that espouse your own viewpoint [Communism].

So your opinion appeals neither to common sense nor to authority. It is thus not surprising that your logic is utterly unappealing.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 2:12:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
One cannot claim that an idea is wrong before first understanding it. - Mark Twain

-Michael Scott
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 2:29:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 11:53:14 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 2/18/2014 9:52:48 AM, slo1 wrote:

"Communism fails because people are not wired to behave in a manner which would make it work on a large scale. I think when people argue for it they are assuming that we can have the collective behaviors such as unselfishness and working on behalf of the larger community rather than one's self... I think communists are either idealist dreamers or hard core mo fo's like Che Guevara who believe it is the duty."

Well, if communities are established by free association, then this response fails, presumably. Furthermore, calling someone an 'idealist dreamer' is quite disgusting, particularly when they actually workable plans.

First, that is why I specifically used the term"large scale". Generally speaking when we get to the size of a country there is no such thing "free association". You get what you get with your country and economic system as the barriers of leaving a country are quite large.

Communism is not a longer term workable plan when we get to a populations size which is representative of the diversity of the population at large because of how humans are motivated as a whole.

Secondly, you vilify the words "idealist dreamer". That should not be offensive or disgusting. The best people on this earth who are the most kind, generous, loving are idealists. They can cut through all the terrible things people do to each other and still see good.

Communism can only work if people have a choice and willingly join the community. It can not be forced because the tendency of human behavior is to primarily work for a individual gain. I call people who believe in it idealists because they ignore the fact of how most humans are motivated.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 3:41:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No, I took your opinion into account. It's incoherent because you fail to understand how the world works.
It looks incoherent to you because you fail at understanding the world. You have been taught, since birth (indoctrinated) to follow one specific way of thinking and living. A result is you ignoring and demeaning any alternatives that go against your specific indoctrination. You did not take my opinion into account.

You can't "educate" people to work for the good of society when they have no self-interest in working.
Why do they have no self-interest? Why do you think they have none?

You can't "educate" people to ask only for what they need, not for what they *want.* You can't educate human nature out of people, or else gay conversion camps would work.
Hello "human nature". Saying it is "human nature" is as good as saying "god made it". If you say either of these that's all you will settle with, without really thinking any further on the subject. It is not "human nature"! There are specific causes why people think the way they do, and it is not "human nature"!

Are people born with capitalism in their genes? No! Are they born with some religion in their genes? No! Are they born with some delusions or biases? No! All of these are taught and the results of the environment they grow up in!

Want and need should be very close to each other. People must learn to know themselves, what fits them, what not; what they are good at, what not - this should be covered in "education". And knowing oneself should determine want and need. If you don't even know yourself then what are you doing?

Your opinion is stupid, after I took it into account and considered it.
This is merely proof of your indoctrination and bias. Otherwise, prove me wrong.

Now I'm just trying to explain to everyone else why it's so stupid and it's because you have studied neither the opposing viewpoint [Neoclassical economics] nor authors that espouse your own viewpoint [Communism].
1)
"Problems arise when you look our world through preconceived and, especially, biased views and labels. Without coming up with answers original to yourself. How about you broaden your scope of mind with your own original thoughts? If you don't have any then start thinking.
Preconceived ideas and such are most importantly supposed to be regarded as "guides" to form your own mind. To decide for yourself whether and why something is wrong or not. Parroting gets no one anywhere.

For example, a dictatorship is regarded as a very very bad thing. But. It is so only if a very very bad person is the dictator. What if the dictator was a very very good person? No one ever seems to consider this (only seen one person somewhere bring this extremely relevant fact of reality in, other than me, so far).
As well, dictatorships that have been and are thus far, have all been bad, because the person in charge was or is ignorant or stupid, in the least.

Now communism. The same story applies. Depends entirely on the people who are in charge.

The same applies to capitalism. You think matters are well in capitalist countries (that being all countries on the planet, by the way)? No, they are not, not anywhere close.

In all these cases there has never been truly good (smart, intelligent, truly cares about humanity, etc.) person or group in charge. Even presently there's not, not anywhere on the planet.

As well, if a truly good person or group was in charge, in a capitalist system, then... well... it wouldn't be a capitalist system, definitely not for long. Because the leaders would be so "good" that they'd see what is the best in the longest run - not money, nor any idiotic values dictated by living for money.
If you viewed matters realistically then you would see that money is of no good. Never has been, never will be. Saying it is a "motivation" for people is as good as saying people (in general) are all very stupid (which they actually are).

Successful large scale economy does not equate the presence of money!"

2)
"Any course you are referring to is completely and absolutely irrelevant. All you need is an objective mind to notice, see, and comprehend the world you live in.

I haven't read marx, and I never will. It would provide me nothing of relevance. I have my own perception, my own mind. I can see the world clearly enough on my own. I don't need preconceived ideas to come up with ideas, conclusions, and solutions. I come up with my own, unbiased by any preceding ones.
Why would anyone study something some other person has said or come up with? This is fine if you use the other person's conclusions as a guide to form your own mind, but I see people parroting predecessors all the time, word for word, meaning for meaning (a relatively good example is you here). Otherwise studying another person's opinions and conclusions is as good as quoting a person, any person, without actually giving your own opinion. If this is the case then why say anything at all?

Me not knowing as good as anything about Marx and what he has said shows originality of thought, of mind. It shows I am not biased. Ideas and notions I word out might be similar to those conjured up by others before me, but they are my own. I do not parrot others.

I truly understand what I am talking about. I am not talking about something someone else has come up with. I am talking about the world I live in, how matters are here, and how they could be. And the conclusions I have come to on my own devices."


How about this time you don't ignore them and actually put some individual thought into it? And you call me stupid while you don't consider anything at all I say. Hypocrite on top of everything else.

So your opinion appeals neither to common sense nor to authority. It is thus not surprising that your logic is utterly unappealing.
Of course you would say something like this...
Your opinion is below common sense. You don't even know what it is. Or mine is above. No other options because you are dead wrong.
Apparently neither do you know what objective thinking/logic is. Good luck finding reality.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 3:57:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 2:09:23 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/18/2014 1:50:29 PM, nummi wrote:
At 2/18/2014 1:03:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/18/2014 12:26:32 PM, donald.keller wrote:


You can ignore Nummi. He has the brain of a monkey. He actually thinks North Korea is capitalist, and that capitalism is literally the only economy that has poor people. He will spend days ignoring every argument you make out of idiocy, and will go to extreme stupids to ignore your case and sources. His economics preachings got him on the Weekly Stupid...

Thanks for the heads up.

I mean, he really is exhibit A for this post. He says he's never studied economics, but he rejects it using his own common sense, which is more anti-intellectual that most members of even the Tea Party.
So that someone's opinions could/would be taken into account the person has to first study the opinions of so many others and just parrot what they have said? Without providing absolutely anything new, any new perspectives or views original to the new person? Gotcha...
How about you try to begin thinking realistically from now on.

You are yet another perfect example of utter prejudice and stupidity, and narrow-mindedness as well. Ain't it funny if someone has one, he/she tends to have others as well?

No, I took your opinion into account. It's incoherent because you fail to understand how the world works. You can't "educate" people to work for the good of society when they have no self-interest in working. You can't "educate" people to ask only for what they need, not for what they *want.* You can't educate human nature out of people, or else gay conversion camps would work.

I encourage you to read Plutarch's "Lycurgus."

Your opinion is stupid, after I took it into account and considered it. Now I'm just trying to explain to everyone else why it's so stupid and it's because you have studied neither the opposing viewpoint [Neoclassical economics] nor authors that espouse your own viewpoint [Communism].

So your opinion appeals neither to common sense nor to authority. It is thus not surprising that your logic is utterly unappealing.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 4:26:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As to "gay conversion camps would work". Being gay has to do with the quality of food a species of animals has had over several generations. The worse quality the more gays.
Look at human "food", and how it has changed over generations. More and more processed, more and more unnatural and damaged. And all the while more gays have emerged. Coincidence? No. Cause and effect. Sure, other factors as well but nutrition is the main contributor.
In short, being gay is being sick just as obesity is a disease.

Just wondering, what is your diet? Could explain your incomprehension and all the rest to a significant degree.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 4:45:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 3:41:40 PM, nummi wrote:
durka durka durrr.... . . . . ..... durka durka durrrrr

You sound like any other nutjob preaching on a street corner. They are all preaching about something they simply perceived of their own mind. No need for real world testing. They *perceived* it.

We're both just making assertions back and forth now. I think your system is boo-hocky because "to each according to his need" means everyone lives a subsistence lifestyle and has no incentive to work even for that. I could elaborate further, but in this format, I'm just arguing to a stone wall. A really dumb one at that.

Either debate me on this, or we're done talking.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 5:57:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 2:29:20 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/18/2014 11:53:14 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 2/18/2014 9:52:48 AM, slo1 wrote:

"Communism fails because people are not wired to behave in a manner which would make it work on a large scale. I think when people argue for it they are assuming that we can have the collective behaviors such as unselfishness and working on behalf of the larger community rather than one's self... I think communists are either idealist dreamers or hard core mo fo's like Che Guevara who believe it is the duty."

Well, if communities are established by free association, then this response fails, presumably. Furthermore, calling someone an 'idealist dreamer' is quite disgusting, particularly when they actually workable plans.

First, that is why I specifically used the term"large scale". Generally speaking when we get to the size of a country there is no such thing "free association". You get what you get with your country and economic system as the barriers of leaving a country are quite large.

Communism is not a longer term workable plan when we get to a populations size which is representative of the diversity of the population at large because of how humans are motivated as a whole.

Secondly, you vilify the words "idealist dreamer". That should not be offensive or disgusting. The best people on this earth who are the most kind, generous, loving are idealists. They can cut through all the terrible things people do to each other and still see good.

Communism can only work if people have a choice and willingly join the community. It can not be forced because the tendency of human behavior is to primarily work for a individual gain. I call people who believe in it idealists because they ignore the fact of how most humans are motivated.

Your objection, as I understand it, is that people will be born into communities and then unable to leave them due to national or economic boundaries. So, I imagine the picture you're painting is that if I was born into the 'Federation of Britain' or whatever, I might not be able to leave, and so would be forced to associate with this society, and so my dreams of a free society would be ruined. It's not a bad point, and one I really want to investigate.

Let's say I may not leave this island. Presumably my option would then be to negotiate my separation from the community in which I live, and go live by myself, unless others wished to join me. I could then live my life in peace, tending my little garden and otherwise working out how to provide for myself.

Interestingly, this seems for the most part to be against the individual's purely selfish desires, since it is obvious that a couple hundred of people can produce a better life for each person than they could alone.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that anarchists are intensely suspicious of all kinds of authority, and hence we can treat any claims that anarchist societies would intrude upon personal liberty as quite extraordinary ones indeed, for that reason and because anarchist society lacks a real means of doing so.

Also, what I meant was that I find it disgusting when people criticise others as being 'idealist dreamers', pretty much for the reasons you've given.

Again, if you are not satisfied with your community, then leave it. I also do not understand this concept of 'individual gain'.

1. Live and work alone
2. Work voluntarily as part of a community of equals
3. ???

Presumably option 3 is 'Exploit fellow man through private property'? Sure, that's 'individual gain', but it's not fair. Why apologise for this behaviour?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 6:54:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 3:30:20 AM, bluesteel wrote:
After recently doing a debate against Marx's economic ideas, I've come to realize that people who still believe in Communism basically lack a basic understanding of economics. They only understand stuff like the "means of production," i.e. they think the economy is still just a bunch of factory owners and workers. They think the workers should take over the factory.

Except how the f*** would that work with someone like Elon Musk, who is so integral to his own operation. Or Steve Jobs. Are you really saying the workers of Space X, Tesla, and Apple would be better off by getting rid of these "capitalist" owners? Those companies are nothing without their founders.

Communists don't really get the need to reward invention or the need to reward the taking of *risk.* They are content to divide up the wealth we have already generated, even though in the modern economy, this wealth would instantly disappear if people lost the monetary incentive to innovate.Communists hope that people will still keep working, if they are not paid anything. Cuz we're all intrinsically motivated, right? If there were no grades in school, we'd all work just as hard, right? If our significant others never have sex with us, we will be just as happy to work hard at our relationships, right?

Communism comes from Marx's premise that the value of any good is a function solely of the labor expended in making it. If the value of a good is instead dependent on supply and demand, the other premises of Communism fall apart (that workers should overthrow their capitalist overlords because they are the ones that really create all the value in society). Except that's not true. People who come up with new ideas create most of the value. The internet. Smartphones. An electric car that people actually want to buy. Workers are important, but they can't form the basis of an economy by themselves.

Thoughts?

Donations to send charleslb to take an Econ 101 course at his local university?

Might respond to this later.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 8:38:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 3:30:20 AM, bluesteel wrote:

Thoughts?

Donations to send charleslb to take an Econ 101 course at his local university?

Well, it's adherents of market fundamentalism or any worldview that features capitalism as a viable, not to mention ideal, system who seem to be in dire need of a bit of schooling, as they seem to not grok or appreciate that capitalism profoundly and chronically suffers from a host of fundamental and ultimately fatal problems:

1. Asymmetrical information vitiates the ability of real-world economic systems to measure up to the market fundamentalist's idealized image of capitalism.

2. Externalities likewise vitiate capitalism's ability to work in practice the way we've been given to expect by neoclassical economists.

3. Imperfect competition, i.e. the anti-competitive MO of real-world capitalists and capitalist firms ensures that the market will never be the beautifully efficient and fair mechanism that it's cracked up to be by its "libertarian" boosters.

4. The vagaries and glitches that the market occasionally encounters too easily upset its stable functioning.

5. It's imperative that "learning" always occurs, swiftly and surely, when the market encounters a glitch, but alas it only does so in the ivory-tower free-marketarian theory of its true believers, not in the empirical real world.

6. Malfeasance, it must be virtually nonexistent; capitalists must play the game of "free enterprise" by the rules with little or no regulation guaranteeing that they do. Talk about unrealistic!

7. According to neoclassical orthodoxy human beings, at least when engaged in economic behavior, are thoroughly rational creatures, who always go about maximizing utility in a splendidly rational, sensible fashion. Lol!

8. Also, according to neoclassical doctrine, despite all of the above capitalist markets are supposedly pretty good at maintaining equilibrium, but those of us not separated from reality by ideology alas know otherwise.

9. "Schumpeter's gale", i.e. creative destruction, produces too much destruction. Even Schumpeter himself was of the view that creative destruction, and because of it capitalism, will eventually prove unsustainable.

10. Capitalism's incessant drive for accumulation and growth produces behavior, a sociopathically competitive MO, and scenarios that wind up in economic crises and destructive ecological consequences. Quite simply, the inbuilt, inexorable dynamics of a capitalist economy scuttle and sink it, leaving working-class folks drowning in a proverbial ocean of debt and tears; capitalists simply behaving like capitalists results in pain and a planet facing imminent environmental catastrophe.

11. The epidemics of crime, drug use, and anomie, i.e. the social and moral decline inevitably produced by a system unabashedly based on amoral economic drives and an egoistic ethos; the immiseration, exploitation, alienation, and dehumanization, i.e. the all-around anti-human existential conditions endemic in capitalism, render it profoundly unsustainable, socially and spiritually.

Or, perhaps you're a free-marketarian denier of all of these endemic flaws and evils?
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.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 9:07:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 8:38:12 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/18/2014 3:30:20 AM, bluesteel wrote:

Thoughts?

Donations to send charleslb to take an Econ 101 course at his local university?

Well, it's adherents of market fundamentalism or any worldview that features capitalism as a viable, not to mention ideal, system who seem to be in dire need of a bit of schooling, as they seem to not grok or appreciate that capitalism profoundly and chronically suffers from a host of fundamental and ultimately fatal problems:

lol +1


1. Asymmetrical information vitiates the ability of real-world economic systems to measure up to the market fundamentalist's idealized image of capitalism.

2. Externalities likewise vitiate capitalism's ability to work in practice the way we've been given to expect by neoclassical economists.

3. Imperfect competition, i.e. the anti-competitive MO of real-world capitalists and capitalist firms ensures that the market will never be the beautifully efficient and fair mechanism that it's cracked up to be by its "libertarian" boosters.

4. The vagaries and glitches that the market occasionally encounters too easily upset its stable functioning.

5. It's imperative that "learning" always occurs, swiftly and surely, when the market encounters a glitch, but alas it only does so in the ivory-tower free-marketarian theory of its true believers, not in the empirical real world.

you had me until here. Where we disagree is whether Communism is a more viable system. As always, you compare your ideal to my real world. Communists want to fiat away human nature and past failures with the wave of a magic wand.

6. Malfeasance, it must be virtually nonexistent; capitalists must play the game of "free enterprise" by the rules with little or no regulation guaranteeing that they do. Talk about unrealistic!

Regulatory capture is a serious problem. But saying "no regulation" is extreme. Antitrust law imposes heavy penalties for not playing by the rules of free enterprise.

7. According to neoclassical orthodoxy human beings, at least when engaged in economic behavior, are thoroughly rational creatures, who always go about maximizing utility in a splendidly rational, sensible fashion. Lol!

No, the models that economics uses assume full rationality. A model = a simplification. A modern economics education includes coursing questioning the assumption of rationality. But less than rational consumers doesn't negate the realities of supply and demand.

8. Also, according to neoclassical doctrine, despite all of the above capitalist markets are supposedly pretty good at maintaining equilibrium, but those of us not separated from reality by ideology alas know otherwise.

This sentence is meaningless. Markets do maintain equilibrium prices pretty well . New car prices, for example, rarely change.

You're falsely conflating the technical term "equilibrium" with the lay definition of "general stability." But your knowledge of economics is slightly better than some of the others on this site.

9. "Schumpeter's gale", i.e. creative destruction, produces too much destruction. Even Schumpeter himself was of the view that creative destruction, and because of it capitalism, will eventually prove unsustainable.

Schumpeter was a Marxist - I don't see why your "even Schumpeter" argument makes any sense, even as an appeal to authority. "Even Einstein believed that quantum mechanics was wrong..." = equally valid as a form of argument.

I don't buy your conception of creative destruction. It confuses "innovation" with something pernicious, i.e. purposeful destruction of current wealth.

10. Capitalism's incessant drive for accumulation and growth produces behavior, a sociopathically competitive MO, and scenarios that wind up in economic crises and destructive ecological consequences. Quite simply, the inbuilt, inexorable dynamics of a capitalist economy scuttle and sink it, leaving working-class folks drowning in a proverbial ocean of debt and tears; capitalists simply behaving like capitalists results in pain and a planet facing imminent environmental catastrophe.

Communism wants everyone to drown in poverty. You glorify "to each according to his need," i.e. bare subsistence living for all. Your method of allocating resources is based on a bare subsistence cut-off.

Environmental destruction happens because of *lack* of property ownership (tragedy of the commons), not actual ownership. If you look at the amount of CO2 that state-owned Communist factories in China generate versus likely reductions under a cap-and-trade system, you can compare the Communist solution (do nothing, appeal to humans to live better) to the capitalist approach (provide market incentives to reduce pollution).

11. The epidemics of crime, drug use, and anomie, i.e. the social and moral decline inevitably produced by a system unabashedly based on amoral economic drives and an egoistic ethos; the immiseration, exploitation, alienation, and dehumanization, i.e. the all-around anti-human existential conditions endemic in capitalism, render it profoundly unsustainable, socially and spiritually.

Stalin.

People do sh**ty things, not economic systems. Your words are just empty rhetoric.

Or, perhaps you're a free-marketarian denier of all of these endemic flaws and evils?

No, I'm a regulated market believer.

If you find this fun to discuss Charles, let's debate it. You're typing it all out anyway.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)