The problem of Capitalism

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by stan1990, Mar 13, 2019.

?

Do you agree that the main problem of Capitalism is of moral nature?

Poll closed Apr 12, 2019.
  1. Yes

    33.3%
  2. No

    50.0%
  3. Maybe

    16.7%
  1. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) I have zero power to prevent others from becoming landowners. None whatsoever. There is no possible way that you can link my ownership of land, to the choices others make in regards to their ownership of land. IOW, nothing about my owning a specific parcel of land interferes with the freedom of others to choose land ownership. And yes, they can just even choose to own my piece of land, if they want it enough.

    2) I rest my case - you want others to do what you won't do. Meantime, I'm 'sacrificing' via loss of exclusive benefits of my land, and via significantly increased responsibilities. I could earn considerably more if I wasn't sharing my property (and its benefits), and would have a much easier life if I demanded domiciliary exclusivity. I'll ask again .. what are you doing besides talking?

    3) You're doing nothing but posturing. Meantime, how are you going to convince people to be 'kinder' (ie, sharing) when you won't even do it yourself?
     
  2. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nonsense. Migrants do it all the time.

    And what you call 'strength and agility' is nothing more than self-discipline. That's all it takes. When you are 100% committed to escaping poverty, you will escape poverty. It literally can't NOT happen, given that full commitment. You don't need intelligence, education, good looks, physical advantage, nothing .. all you need is determination.

    You know all of this, because you're not stupid. You know that every freely made choice to spend a limited budget on 'luxuries' is a self-inflicted wound. No one is ever forced to buy cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, big tvs, holidays, new clothes, giant refrigerators with ice-makers in the door .... or is forced to run clothes dryers and air conditioners, or visit the nail salon or hair stylist, or go to restaurants, or forced to leave their appliances on standby overnight, etc etc etc. Refusal to spend money on these kinds of things is exactly what is required to escape poverty, and that's why so many people choose not to escape poverty. They are simply not prepared to give up any or all of those things. That is a clear choice.
     
    Longshot likes this.
  3. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are many causes of poverty, even in the 1st world
    eg economic downturns; mental and physical ill health, accidents, poor parental role models, lack of support services, poor education.

    And significantly: systemic macroeconomic failure that sees 40 million stuck in ghettos in the US, a country which is wealthy enough (has sufficient resources) to bulldoze all those ghettos and replace with new housing, schools and hospitals.

    I presume Trump agrees with me, when he pointed out "you are living in poverty etc etc...elect me and I will put it right..." ( or was he just BS-ing?…)


    Many people? Well, unfortunately your 100% (extreme) individual responsibility ideology requires that you make such a ridiculous assertion.

    btw, I'm all for personal responsibility, but other issues need to be dealt with as well, as noted above.

    A pity.

    Some did it, but your mistake is to conclude all can do it.
    Ever heard of DIFFERENT APTITUDES AND ABILITIES?

    I've got a better idea...a Job Guarantee., given the resources do exist to enable a public sector program to complement the "invisible hand" profit driven private sector competition, with its winners and losers.

    No-one should lose, when it comes to participation in the economy, because all have something to offer.

    I'm not sure what you are arguing for: personal responsibility ALONE..... and let the chips fall where they will....?

    Why are you so passionately arguing for that bleak scenario?

    [Btw, I broke my rule in replying to your post, because you still haven't named those "progressive Left cities that are causing increasing inequality."....though another poster on another thread made the ridiculous assertion that 'liberal' CA is becoming increasingly unequal because it is liberal, forgetting that CA is the home of IT, the largest "wealth" creator in the US since the early 1990's, and of course many who are not in the industry have been left behind]
     
  4. pitbull

    pitbull Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    6,149
    Likes Received:
    2,857
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Capitalism is the modus in which free people trade among themselves. Why should anyone condemn that?
     
    Longshot likes this.
  5. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nobody is condemning capitalism per se. Historically it is a great-advance over what came before - barter. But all that changed historically when mankind invented money. Unlike eggs or meat, money did not rot and become useless.

    So, people kept it and made it grow in order to have more. Always more. By lending it out! (And there you have a good lesson in the history of "banking".)

    The heart of the discussion is "who gets how much"? And, secondly, are there "too few who get too much" because upper-income taxation is inappropriately too low?

    And if medical-care was once much less costly, then why today does Uncle Sam have one of the highest-cost medical system in the world? Even though, supposedly, 91.2% (in 2016) of all Americans had coverage.

    So, the issue is not so much that Americans do not have sufficient coverage but why is it so damn costly. And getting costlier. From here:
    Which means what? Divide Spending End-value by the Start-value and what do you get? The number is 2131, which is divided by 47 (the difference between the two numbers in years). Healthcare Costs have multiplied by almost 45-times their original value in almost half a century (ie 47-years).

    That is a very, very high multiplication of health-spending. It is time we got that cost-explosion under control.


    For purposes of comparison and from here:
    *The average cost of a car in 1970 was 3.5K
    *The average cost of a car today is 36.8K
    *Or around an increase of ten times the value. So,
    *Healthcare cost increases were four-and-a-half times greater than that of an average car ...
     
  6. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Clearly false, given market socialism also refers to 'free people trading among themselves'. They do happen to be 'more free' mind you.
     
  7. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some of those are causes of initial poverty, the rest are excuses for staying in it.

    Try again.
     
  8. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have never said ALL will do it. That's your fantasy (that everyone will magically become hard working and kind). The point that you can't refute is that if even a few people do it, then clearly the conditions exist for anyone to do it. Try doing it in North Korea, or Bangladesh, and see how far your determination gets you. What's even worse for your argument is that the refugees I refer to very likely have far more challenging personal histories than the average 'poor' American.

    As for 'aptitudes and abilities', what on earth does that have to do with determination. You think the millions of Asian migrants who've made good in the First World have identical 'aptitudes and abilities'? Of course they don't. All they have in common is determination to succeed.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2019
  9. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So who would you prefer own all the land?
     
  10. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So who would you prefer be the landowner?
     
  11. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The King (aka, govt). Will be just like the good olde dayes of yore!
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2019
    Longshot likes this.
  12. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Someone's got to own it, right?
     
  13. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some of those are causes of initial poverty? Well...OK

    But let's look at poor parental role models. Excuses have nothing to do with that situation. Therefore outside (government) intervention is required.

    [Meaning some will NOT do it.... according to you, for one excuse or another...]

    But you have said all CAN do it by dint of personal responsibility ALONE, which is nonsense, as shown above. ie poor role models can only be overcome by external intervention.

    Not my fantasy: but everyone has something to contribute, despite the circumstances of their current poverty and dysfunction, when shown the way (via public sector intervention)...which is a different thing.

    And a Job Guarantee will certainly create the environment for much less 'intervention' from the criminal justice system...

    So...why are you arguing so passionately for such a bleak scenario, ie, letting the chips fall where they will, regardless of family/environmental background.

    Is it fear that your own prosperity may be negatively impacted by the required intervention noted above?

    ie in realty, the concern expressed in the constant refrain from the Right: "How will we pay for it?"
     
  14. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, best leave it to the Good King, lest the dirty peasants get ideas.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2019
    Longshot likes this.
  15. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) we choose whether we will overcome a bad history, or let it be the excuse for our failure. once again, read up on some of the stuff refugees (who've made good) have had to overcome, then try and tell me 'bad parents' are somehow worse. the suggestion is offensive.

    2) if some external force is stepping in to keep you fed and housed, then you are not overcoming anything! all that's happening is you're being fed and housed. if anything, you're likely to deteriorate even further.

    3) you can say 'everyone has to contribute' til the cows come home, but you and I know that will never happen outside of a Disney movie. and we already know how to escape poverty (don't live above your means, don't adopt bad habits, save save save), and we're not doing it. Heck, an 8 year old knows they have to save their dimes, if they want to buy that Star Wars Lego.

    4) I'm not arguing FOR anything, I'm arguing AGAINST the counter-productive and dangerous idea that more bandaids need to be applied to the problem (a problem which doesn't actually exist in the First World). The idea that since incredible wealth, freedom, and opportunity still aren't enough for some people, that we should keep piling on more. It's like treating the symptoms of cancer while ignoring the malignancy.

    5) hilarious. I'm the one who's compromised significant personal gain and freedoms in order to share what I have. the only person here afraid of losing their capitalism derived individualist/isolationist luxury is yourself, it seems.

    6) if you're NOT concerned about how such a totalitarian scheme would be paid for, then we need to fear you deeply.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2019
    Idahojunebug77 likes this.
  16. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Choice can be rational or irrational, depending on history and environment. We have covered this before.
    Therefore your conclusions are wrong.

    [QUOTE}2) if some external force is stepping in to keep you fed and housed, [/QUOTE]

    A Job Guarantee ensures access to above poverty participation in the economy (a basic right), rather than exclusion resulting from systemic involuntary un+underemployment that we are told we must tolerate (as part of the neoliberal monetarist myth).

    [QUOTE}then you are not overcoming anything! [/QUOTE]

    False. You are overcoming the evil neoliberal monetarist dogma that has us believe a certain rate of involuntary unemployment is a necessity, to avoid inflation.

    No, you are earning your food and housing, thereby avoiding poverty, and likely a run in with the criminal justice system as well.

    Access to above poverty employment in a basic right (article 25 of the UNUDHR).

    The barrier is systemic; ie false, neoliberal monetarist dogma, designed to neuter the capacity of elected governments to engender universal above poverty participation in the economy. Neoliberal dogma is presented as truth, in order to divert more of the profits from workers to capital, by keeping wages low as a result of the unemployed pool of workers.

    not when neolberal monetarist economists a priori postulate a certain rate of unemployment...

    A pity.

    Disputed above; your utter lack of knowledge/interest in macroeconomics has been noted in previous posts. Note: in the next recession, people won't react so well to losing their jobs...we'll see some fancy footwork from central bankers then...

    You personally had to compromise significant personal gain and freedoms? See my very first point above.

    A Guarantee of a Job, as an alternative to forcing people to face entrenched involuntary unemployment, is not a "totalitarian" scheme, though it does involve a larger role for the public sector.

    And MMT, which describes the error of neoliberal monetarist dogma, tells us how we can pay for it, other than by imposing higher taxes ...which is of course your real concern, ignoring the fact that soaring wealth inequality means tax rates on the wealthy could certainly be raised. ...

    https://theglobepost.com/2019/03/28/stephanie-kelton-mmt/

    But you will be pleased to know, as Kelton says, "money doesn't grow on rich people", so you can stop worrying about "how we will pay for it".
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2019
  17. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) discussing the semantics of 'choice' will not put food on the table and pay the bills. there's your choices ... be responsible, or sit around musing on your psychic wounds.

    2) you can guarantee all the jobs you like, but you will NEVER guarantee that people take them. your utter failure to grasp this is perpetually astonishing. it's as if you think everyone is a hard working, ambitious, committed, productive, dynamo .. just waiting for that break. it's positively childlike, seriously.

    3) you can't earn your food and housing if you're not working. see #2, above. unless you plan to FORCE people to take your jobs?

    4) yes, me personally. I have forfeited considerable personal gains and freedoms to share property and its benefits. if you want to know why I would do such a thing .. I'll tell you. It's because I'm serious about my beliefs. I'm not telling the world how to fix things from my armchair, while living entirely in contradiction of that fix.

    5) instead you will force people to take (and perform, consistently) your guaranteed jobs, right? because you know full well that's the only way it will happen.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2019
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you feel you have to pretend there has to be a landowner, when you are aware of the fact that until a few thousand years ago, no land had ever been owned by anyone?
     
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why are you pretending that land all has to be owned by someone? Are you not aware of the fact that no one owns the oceans, the atmosphere, the sun, the alphabet, or Antarctica?
     
  20. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are fully aware it has not. That is why you know you cannot point to a criticism I have not refuted.
    I've always had a right to anyone's property that consisted of my rights.
    I am demonstrably right. The indisputable historical fact that slaves had the right to take their rights to liberty from their owners proves me right.
    <yawn> Is that what happened when abolitionists took slave owners' property from them?
    That has already been proved false, because it is indisputable that slaves still had a right to their liberty when their rights were property.
    Chanting that formula like a mantra when you know it has been comprehensively and conclusively refuted is puerile and disingenuous.
     
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it's quite rare. Most migrants either never become landowners, or come from families that owned land.
    Garbage. It also takes intelligence, luck, sufficient good health, etc.
    GARBAGE. That is nothing but a religious claim with no basis in fact. Indeed, it is not even objectively meaningful because it is unfalsifiable: "You just didn't pray hard enough."
    I know it's false because I'm not stupid.
    More garbage. You obviously have no idea what real poverty is like. Try reading Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed" and get the beginning of a clue.
    Nonsense. Read Ehrenreich. The poor aren't permitted to keep enough of what they earn even to be in a position to make such choices. More importantly, being raised in poverty causes specific forms of brain damage that make the victims neurologically unable to undertake the extreme self-denial you claim is a matter of choice.
     
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That claim is just objectively false. You have the same power every other landowner has: the power to demand payment for your permission to use the land you own.

    GET IT??
    Wrong again. If there is a thug on the street outside my house who demands I pay him for permission to use the sidewalk there, you may say he has zero power to stop me from using all the other stretches of sidewalk. But when each stretch of sidewalk is occupied by its own thug demanding payment for his permission to use it, the thugs collectively have the power to stop everyone else from using any sidewalk.

    GET IT???
    Refuted above. Having the "liberty" to pay someone for permission to do something is not the same as actually having the liberty to do it.

    GET IT?????
    I.e., if they meet your extortion demand for your permission.
    Your ad hominem filth continues to be false. All I want others to do is respect everyone else's rights, and I am very willing to do so myself. What I'm not willing to do is what you claim I have to do to be sincere: make up out of my own resources -- which I have had to obtain in the face of injustice -- the injustice that people have suffered at the hands of the privileged who have also victimized me. No. Buying slaves from their owners to free them does not solve the problem -- indeed, it makes it worse, by increasing their market value and thus the incentive to enslave even more victims.
    Something incomparably more effective than what you are doing: telling people the truth that will set them free.
    <yawn> No doubt you would say the same of Thomas Paine, who also told the truth that will set people free.
    I'm not trying to convince anyone to be kinder or to share. I'm trying to convince them they have rights to whose uncompensated abrogation they should no longer submit.
     
  23. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So I can come and plow up your potato field? And you can't do anything about it?
     
    crank likes this.
  24. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because they didn't have title deeds you think they weren't fighting each other to the death over territory?
     
  25. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) Wrong. In my country, migrants are statistically more likely to own property than 'natives', especially if they're non-white. That's why they come here, because they don't have such freedoms and opportunities in their places of birth. They're also statistically more likely to take advantage of our incredible education opportunities, FTR.

    2) Intelligence and "luck" have nothing to do with brute determination. The simplest mind still understands the animal force of hard work and determination. Interesting that you invoke 'luck', though. The old standby of those not interested in hard work ... blame the fairies.

    3) No, it's a claim premised on the reality that in a First World country with free healthcare, free education, and generous welfare - it takes real effort to remain 'poor'. You have to be quite determined to avoid self-discipline.

    4) I was born to poverty. My husband was born to parents who were very poor (and Third World migrants with difficult histories).

    5) Nonsense. Extremely poor refugees and migrants can suck up their (far worse) traumas in order to take advantage of the opportunities in the West. If they can, someone with nothing worse than a shitty mother can do it.
     

Share This Page