Capitalism is killing our morals, our future

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Surfer Joe, Apr 28, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Virtually all "investments" relate to the secondary stock market, money markets, and government bonds and none of these provide a single dime of capital investment in enterprise which provides for the means of production that employs people. Most capital investments in enterprise are funded by the profits of the enterprise being reinvested in the enterprise. "Consumption" drives capital investment in enterprise and not "investors" that represent all of the top income earners in America today.

    While we do have some state regulations that suppress enterprise start-up they are actually very limited. For example the requirement in my state that a person requires a Contractor's license to mow a lawn or paint a house is absurd as it costs several thousand dollars in both cases to obtain the license. Federal regulations don't really create a barrier to small business start-ups. I've started several new busineses over the last 40 years and I've never found regulation to be prohibitive, most are quite reasonable and don't cost a dime to comply with, and while I can find a few cases where regulations could be eliminated I can also find more cases where we need greater regulation.

    It's not actually surprising to me that when the GOP complains about government regulation it's usually based upon "Crony Capitalism" where they want favorable treatment of a few enterprises at the expense of the American People.
     
  2. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While Democrats and Republicans support Crony Capitalism that favors the wealthy investor over hard working Americans as opposed to supporting a free market economy where all Americans are treated equally so what's the point?

    We're basically comparing one group of self-serving individuals with other groups of self-serving individuals and few are standing up for the hard working American that has the highest tax burden relative to gross income in America today.
     
  3. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Small business people generally need loans from investors to start their businesses.

    But to the point of higher taxes and regulations, those are not practical nor justifiable for an investor as it would be for a Business owner.

    Investors don't pollute the environment, they don't exploit employees for minimum wage, they don't engage in abusive employment practices, businesses use Public services more than an investor to run their business such as roads, bridges, security, etc....

    An investor should never have the same tax burden as a business owner, simply because they are on different sides of capitalism where their position is more vital to the economy.
     
  4. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I believe all they really need is a just Cause.
     
  5. Serfin' USA

    Serfin' USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    24,183
    Likes Received:
    551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The NFL is actually a good example of a meritocracy. Players are drafted and contracted according to merit. It's a successful business that way.

    Most businesses are run like that. The ones that engage in nepotism tend to pay for it in the long run due to incompetence.

    As far as family inheritances go, however, that's not a business. Inheritance is part of the principle that inspires a person to excel at his/her job. People have families knowing that what they earn passes down to their kids, so that they can go to college and have a good start in life. If you take that away, it greatly diminishes what working hard and having a family are about.

    Having an inheritance tax is feasible, but taking inheritance away altogether isn't.
     
  6. DavidQuinn

    DavidQuinn Newly Registered

    Joined:
    May 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think capitalism has been sapping the soul out of humanity for some time now. I read a book recently that's causing a bit of a buzz in the UK which hints there could be an alternative, it's about a revolutionary, visionary, humanitarian, working-class genius politician and has some great characters in it. I've just found out that it's free to download on Kindle until Monday so i recommend you check it out, called '2082: The Chronicles Of Hope'
     
  7. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Loans, such as an SBA loan, are investments by the business person as they are obligated to repay the loan. The funding for these loans overwhelming comes from banks where the "money" is created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve Bank and does not come from investors. Investors would be stupid to "invest" their money in a savings account that is paying less than 1% interest that would be used to fund a business.

    The Federal Reserve (and the US banking system) is a part of the "Crony Capitalism" in the United States and it is being unlawfully exempted from compliance with Contract Law by both Republicans and Democrats.
     
  8. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Banks participate in the financial markets, and without investors there would be no financial markets. These monies depend on each other as they are interlinked.

    The federal reserve keeps capitalism running morally, when the business men have run bad books that can't cover their expenditures its up to the Government to print money and come to the rescue to save American jobs.
     
  9. popeye_doyle

    popeye_doyle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    People understand their point. But the way to address the perceived 'evils of the rich' is not by causing mayhem. In today's economy one needs to be educated. But educated in a field where there is demand and opportunity. We went form an agrarian economy to an industrial economy to a tech economy and then to a service economy. Tech is the only aforementioned sector that has maintained it's strength. That and the health sector. It would behoove people who feel 'disenfranchised' to learn the skills needed to earn and become productive in demand sectors. Could you have imagined buggy whip makers rioting in the streets because the Model T came along and took their jobs?
     
  10. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Can you re-state your position? Money has value merely as a medium of exchange.
     
  11. NetworkCitizen

    NetworkCitizen New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    5,477
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Another progressive does not understand that state money, state interest rates, state regulations, state taxation, state central banks, state politics, and state military all have something in common with the state and nothing in common with free exchange.

    Shocking development.
     
  12. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Fiat money has value as a medium of exchange in our republic as a public good and public service. In any case, the Fed is a private sector bank.
     
  13. NetworkCitizen

    NetworkCitizen New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    5,477
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, the Fed is not a private sector bank. It is the central bank of the United States. Its leaders are appointed by the United States. It is called to hearings by the United States. If it was a private bank, it would have gone bankrupt by now or been bailed out by God I guess.
     
  14. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    How did you reach your conclusion?

     
  15. NetworkCitizen

    NetworkCitizen New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    5,477
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your own definition from wiki explains that it is partially non-private. So calling it private is a mistake.

    Public-private partnerships. It's called crony capitalism or the scary word fascism. Central banking is a state function. Yes it is endorsed by private interests, because uh they like private gains and dumping losses on the public.

    It's a complete joke of an idea sold to the public as a necessary arrangement. We know how they were established and we know why all of the king's men and cronies write in the papers and talk on the news in support of their conspiracy.
     
  16. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There must be confusion here, as the federal reserve is a safety net for crony capitalism, not a sponsor of crony capitalism.

    If the system were left unchecked then the last recession would have brought America to its knees, people are complaining now but that printing of money saved a lot of jobs that would have been lost to the market's failures.

    The federal reserve is privately run with some federal oversight, because it is an insurance policy for the mistakes of the private sector.
     
  17. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    So, to the extent it is private it is indistinguishable from the private sector. That is the only point I need to make.
     
  18. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That without bank participation in the financial markets there would be no investors is absolute poppycock.

    I would like someone to explain how issuing promissory notes with no intention of ever fulfilling the "promise" of the note is moral. In fact if anyone other than the Federal Reserve does this they are prosecuted for fraud. A Federal Reserve note is a promissory note redeemable in "Lawful Money" under Title 12 and the only "Lawful Money" we have in the United States today are American Eagle coins. Federal Reserve notes are not, nor have they ever been, "money" but instead are a promise of payment in "money" issued by a private (albeit government authorized) banking institution that is NOT required to comply with either "contract law" or statutory requirements for redemption as specified in Title 12. "Money" doesn't "promise" anything and American Eagle coins are the "money" of the United States today as they don't promise anything. They are what they are.

    I would also question how a private bank (the Federal Reserve) creating more promissory notes that by inflation reduces the purchasing power of past labor expended by the individual (i.e.the "theft of labor" from the individual) can be called moral.

    Capitalism does not require and does not allow for banks to issue unbacked promissory notes nor does it require any government role except to protect the Rights of Property and Person in society. Capitalism doesn't even require "lawful money" for it to exist and flourish in society.

    The foundation of Capitalism is the "barter system" where commodities are exchanged for commodities and labor is exchanged for commodities on a voluntary basis and "money" is merely a common commodity used to facilitate the voluntary exchanges. Gold and silver have long been established as the "preferred common commodity" in facilitating the exchange of commodities for commodities and labor for commodities in Capitalism and "lawful money" is nothing more than government certified tokens made of "money" (i.e. gold and silver) where the weight and alloy of the "money" is known by the person. The government cannot create "money" as it cannot create gold or silver and it is limited to the authority to "coin money" (i.e. make certified tokens from the money) for use in commerce.

    Ignorance of "Capitalism" and what money really is can be cited as one reason we have "Crony Capitalism" in the United States today. The economy does not 'belong to the US government' and it's role should be expressly limited to protecting the Rights of Property and Person of the Individual in our economy ensuring a level playing field where all individuals have equality of opportunity and where no favoritism by government exists.
     
  19. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Money is capital.
     
  20. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolute BS. Fewer than 5% of US banks were in trouble during the 2008 recession and the Federal Reserve and US government really did nothing except indemify the wealthy investors in the banking system. Had all of those banks been allowed to fail they their assets would have been purchased by other banks (which happened anyway) and the wealthy investors in the banks would have basically lost their investments. The TARP funds were exclusinvely about bailing out wealthy investors in the banking system and didn't contribute one iota towards the recovery from the mortgage crisis. It can accurately be stated that TARP actually made the financial crisis worse than it would have been without TARP because the banks were not forced into renegotiation on the mortgage notes they held. TARP allowed the banks to foreclose as opposed to renegotiating the mortgages because it removed the financial incentive for the banks to renegotiate the loans.

    In truth government interventionism in 2008 did nothing for the American People but in 2009 with the "Stimulus Package" it did provide some limited mitigation to the recession. The problem is with the 2009 mitigation what it did was provide some limited relief at a long term loss to the overall economy.

    This can be explained in "personal" terms. A person can lose their job and live off of their credit cards for awhile. The credit card mitigates the loss of the job but in the long term the interest on the borrowed money will cost the person more than if they didn't borrow and suffered a greater "short term" loss while being unemployed.

    In 2009 when the "Stimulus Package" was being discussed the CBO projected that in 10 years that GDP growth would be reduced from about 3.5% to 2.5% if the borrowing was not repaid and there have been no proposals to pay back the borrowing over the last four years which has ballooned even beyond what the Stimulus Package borrowed. That loss in future GDP growth is cummulative and the loss of future jobs because of the lower GDP growth rate will dwarf the job losses related to the 2008 recession. We're not talking about a few million people suffering relatively short term unemployment that was actually extended by the Stimulus Package but instead many tens of millions of Americans suffering long term unemployment.

    Remember that Keynesian economics which advocates government interventionism requires the government to collect excess revenues during times of prosperity to use during times of recession and our government doesn't do that. It borrows during prosperity and borrows more during recessions.

    The 2008 Recession is officially over and we should be collecting enough in taxation to pay for all government expendatures today even if it's not enough to pay off the borrowing in 2008 and 2009 but we're not and the reason we're not is because of favoritism in our tax codes based upon Crony Capitalism.
     
  21. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    From one perspective and in that alternative, if the wealthiest can means test and qualify for multimillion dollar bonuses, then the least wealthy must qualify for true witness bearing regarding a federal doctrine concerning employment at will, as a privilege and immunity in modern times.
     
  22. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Captial is "financial assets" and "promissory notes" that cannot be redeemed are not truly assets. If I was, for example, to give someone the title to a car that I don't own they can't actually consider that title to be an asset because if they try to take possession of the car they can't do that. They can't take control of the asset so they have no "capital" even though they have a fraudlent title to a car.

    Only if the person can take control of the "asset" does it become true capital. If I could exchange a $50 Federal Reserve note for a $50 American Gold Eagle then I could take possession of the "asset" but since I can't I'm really being delusional if I consider the Federal Reserve note to be a real asset.

    Of note the wealthy actually own "assets" as they generally own enterprises as stockholders. Working Americans have few "assets" as they don't own very much. Inflation is highly adverse for those without actual assets that instead have their "wealth" in promissory notes that cannot be redeemed in "assets" on demand as required by law.
     
  23. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Isn't your claim regarding our fiat money disingenuous. Money is fungible and ten one dollar notes can be redeemed for one ten dollar note. In any case, our fiat money is good for all debts, public and private (in our republic) while gold may not.
     
  24. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The monetary system is not backed by the gold standard anymore but promises, and those promises are guaranteed by the military. Since the United States has the worlds Premier Military, those promises are indeed Moral.

    A country like England for example cannot make such promises due to an inferior Military, that is why the American Dollar is the Reserve Currency from around the world, and during the European recession capital flight ends up in the United States as the safe haven of the world.

    Furthermore, this Morality of the United States Government is why it can be justified in Printing Money without it being considered "Fraudulent", and subject to "Prosecution". That money may make bankers and speculators richer, but it also saves jobs whereas capitalism cuts jobs to correct itself. So when capitalism chooses to be immoral, it cannot be blamed on the Government as that is the Savior..
     
  25. PrometheusBound

    PrometheusBound New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0


    The Occupuppies are spawn of GOPer idols. They are Heirheads born in the 2-10% who are afraid that the 1% will start excluding them too. Just like the Magna Carta, this is a conflict within the ruling class and is not relevant to the population as a whole.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page