The Capitalist System Is Decaying Because Of Its Own Contradictions

Avoidance is making others pay more tax. You don't find that morally wrong? Rich man making poor man poor more tax...

 

liberalism is based in pure ignorance so how can they present capitalism's supposed contradictions? This is why they start threads and run away, and why you never see much support here for liberalism from the liberals. They snipe around the edges but lack IQ for more. Liberalism ( I care more than you) plays extremely well in mass media but not in intellectual realm where it is a complete joke.

 

How?

 

others pay more or less depending on tax laws. everyone pays what is required by law and it is not called avoidance it is called paying your taxes 1+1=2.

 

for 3rd time: if you have evidence I don't know what the laffer curve is I'll pay you$10,000. Bet?

 

to a libcommie avoidance is when corporations pay only what the law requires. You see, libcommies pay more than what the law requires.

 

For sheer illogic and thus idiocy, you are accorded an A++ ... !

 

ECONOMIC FAIRNESS

Cost-plus is relevant only the context of a market-economy, and not in terms of economic philosophy. In the latter it is a given - in the former it is a manipulation of the market-place. Which in the US has been oligopolized such that costs increase because competition decreases.

The "plus" in cost-plus is product margin and then sales price and thus profits.

It is the Economic Philosophy of a nation - as interpreted by levels of taxation and thus government expenditure - that is key. A nation with low taxation of high-incomes and very low government market-intervention reducing competition is a Wealth Generator for those who have the means of owning the production mechanism (whether of profits or financial market-margins).

Because taxation is a key political choice. Either you leave it minimal and the rich get richer, or you tax high-revenue at a level that provides government funding for services that the market-economy cannot possibly deliver for an acceptable cost. (Which is like both healthcare and education today.)

Better yet is when national-taxation is somewhere in-between and serves both purposes - a return on risk-taking but economic fairness in the outcome. And that is not the US today, as Replicant machinations regarding taxation show.

It's that simple ...

 

As I've asked once before, please, anyone, name one: Here's my definition: Free men trading freely that which is theirs for that which they want. Where is the contradiction?
Or if you prefer, what is yours, or anyone else's definition--without definitions, how can there be a contradiction, let alone many?

Ayn Rand: "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html

Ayn Rand: "In a free economy, where no man or group of men can use physical coercion against anyone, economic power can be achieved only by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement of all those who participate in the process of production and trade. In a free market, all prices, wages, and profits are determined—not by the arbitrary whim of the rich or of the poor, not by anyone’s “greed” or by anyone’s need—but by the law of supply and demand. The mechanism of a free market reflects and sums up all the economic choices and decisions made by all the participants. Men trade their goods or services by mutual consent to mutual advantage, according to their own independent, uncoerced judgment. A man can grow rich only if he is able to offer better values—better products or services, at a lower price—than others are able to offer."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_market.html

Starjet: Please note the prohibition against the use of the initiation of force in my definition, in Ayn Rand's comments on Capitalism, and the free market. But because American politicians constantly interfere in the marketplace--and remember,the government is the power of the gun--and though there are some elements of capitalism in our economy, we are not a capitalist economy, we are as most nations, a mixed economy, some economic freedom, but mostly controlled by regulations and regulators created by our statist politicians--who keep getting voted in by bribing us with our own stolen money, i.e., taxes.

The Morality of Capitalism - executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, Yaron Brook


What a free market loves: Talent
As in Byran Larsen Paintings@ http://cordair.com/artists/larsen/works/the-unknown-awaits/index.html

 

You said the contradiction, and did not even recognize it. Why? Because it is personal and cannot be generalized. In your little world the primacy is with the Individual and not with the Collectivity in which the Individual finds him- or herself.

You are saying that "free men trade freely", which is a simplification beyond imagination. The purpose of the phrase is simply to identify yourself as an individual whereby YOUR RIGHTS are more important than anybody else's. That cannot be!

You live and work in a market-economy. YOU CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT IT. Reread "Robinson Crusoe"! (Or, you can subsist perhaps on a island, but not much else.)

When anyone finally understands that "independence" is a national trait not a personal circumstance, then they begin to comprehend that the market-economy community is more important than any individual who works (and thrives or not) within it. Because alone you are nothing.

All your wants and needs are defined within the community, you simply make choices amongst the various offerings (jobs, where to live, where to buy, what you buy, etc.) To do this, and not that - with the hope that the return will be beneficial to you AND YOUR FAMILY.

When you understand that you are just one clog on a wheel in a mechanism of a thousand million wheels, they you might begin to understand your real significance. Individually it is nothing, but together it's unbeatable!

The better off the community in which I exist, the better off I am likely to be as well. We all share the benefits and woes-of-circumstance in a society in which we pursue our lives working and living in a market-economy.

It is that economy that allows us a standard of living. And that economy consists not of JUST YOU but millions upon millions of people (of all types and kinds).

WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY

Is that "I am an individual and I decide what is best for me, me, me (and my family)". True enough, but the extent to wish you either succeed or fail depends upon the community as a whole within which you live. And the arithmetics of such a communal existence is that some are going to win, some are going to lose - BUT it is only by the rules that their is fairness and equitability of the outcomes.

Meaning quite simply this: There are neither millionaires nor billionaires on a deserted island. In a market-economy our well-being (social, economic, income-wise) depends upon the whole much more than it depends upon the individual amongst the whole. If everyone were a millionaire a cup of coffee would cost a kilobuck ...

NB: Which does not mean that we should all be making the same salary and sharing all the same goodies. Because, some of us humans tried that and found out much to their dismay that it doesn't work!

 

100% wrong of course. Socialism is when govt owns the commanding heights, not when it pays the army.

 

According to libcommie logic we must be a communist collective because the individual alone is nothing?
But, without individuals there is no collective; so that line of reasoning offers no answers whatsoever. A society or collective is only as strong as the individuals who comprise it. Lafayette is back in kindergarten.

 

total BS of course. we got from the stone age to here mostly because individuals invented new things. Even today Gates Jobs Musk Brin Page Bezos Bloomberg Ellison, the richest men in today's world individually invented great new stuff to keep us moving forward. Layfayette is from France( 30% of our standard of living without American inventions) where they invent nothing but rather leech off American inventions so of course he lacks ability to understand capitalism.

 

He's lying. That is normal for Marxists.

LOL! Ridiculous.

Except about the basic lie that Marxism shares with modern mainstream neoclassical economics.

I've seen it. I've had Marxist professors who were such absolute dimwits, they couldn't conduct an adult conversation about anything other than their precious Marxist claptrap.

I don't ask you to believe me. I ask you to admit you know what you already know, and Marx lied about.

 

Capitalism works quite well. The ONLY problem I see is the growing number of collectivists who continue to demand a larger piece of a pie which they have contributed very little or nothing at all in the production of.
Until we accept the fact that THE problem is population, it will only grow worse.
People, quite like our fiat currency, do not increase in value as a result of increasing in number without even taking into account productions diminishing need of human labour.

 

Right. You see no difference between someone owning someone else's right to liberty and that someone having their right to liberty without having to buy it from its owner. You literally see no difference between freedom and slavery, because to you, property rights include the "right" to own other people's liberty rights.

 

"Collectivists"?? Don't you mean rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic capitalists?

Nonsense. There are poor crowded countries and rich crowded countries, poor empty countries and rich empty countries. We have no overpopulation problem. We have under-honesty, under-wisdom, under-knowledge, under-honesty, under-courage, under-liberty, under-justice and under-honesty, but no overpopulation.

In fact, empirical research has found that labor supply has a synergistic effect such that larger populations in a small area like a city result in higher average productivity.

 

I have used dictionaries professionally, so I know a little more than you about what makes a good one.

No, neatly demonstrates my objective correctness, and your error in ignoring dictionaries.

Of which I am not one...

No, that it refers to COLLECTIVIZATION and not necessarily UNIONIZATION. You can't just change the meanings of words to suit your disingenuous purpose of pretending that unambiguous socialist failures -- which is every socialist society to date -- somehow weren't really socialism.

Wrong again.

 

No it wasn't. It was control of the means of production per se, whether by workers, capitalists, bureaucrats, trustees, priests, or anyone else, and the predictable characteristics thereof.

You are obviously just makin' $#!+ up as you go along. As usual. How would you know whom workers would control the means of production for the benefit of? Have you ever been part of a worker-controlled enterprise? Have you ever even been a worker?

 

At least I know how to use a dictionary.

Why read books about socialism that contradict what it is in a dictionary?

 

Because the private property that others are buying and selling includes their rights to liberty, which have been forcibly removed and made into others' private property.

 

is that logical English?? what does it mean to say, selling private property includes their rights to liberty? If I sell my car I am selling my rights to liberty? So if buy a car I am buying my rights to liberty. Why not sit with your Mom before you post and ask her if what you write is clear. Then you can edit for clarity before you post and the conversation can move along.

 

so if I buy a car it contain's someone else's rights to liberty in the form of private property,..... in the trunk or glove compartment?? Utter perfect libcommie gibberish I"m sure. Where else do you find such perfect irrationality?. Sorry.

 

Because people who write dictionaries are not economists and in fact very very far from it. 1+1=2

 

yes, its grade school skill, but sadly for you cant provide enough conceptual information to settle economic arguments