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. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Above all, s/he refuses to exchange with those who are pedantically boring and who INSIST they are right - because they have a deep psychological need for such personal reassurance ...
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2019
  2. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Warren Mosler boring?

    That's on whom I base my ideas on macroeconomics, and I thought you - as a mainstream economist, might be capable/interested in debating them (given his credentials, see below).


    <<“He [Warren Mosler] represents a rare combination: someone who combines an exceptional knowledge of finance with the wisdom and compassion required to get us an array of policies that will bring us back to sustainable full employment.”

    - MARSHALL AUERBACK, GLOBAL PORTFOLIO STRATEGIST, RAB CAPITAL AND FELLOW, ECONOMISTS FOR PEACE & SECURITY.>>

    and

    "The best reason to read this book is to ensure that you can recognize a fraud when you hear one. And in his clear and precise style. Mosler will introduce you to the correct paradigm to develop an understanding of the world in which we actually live.”


    - L. RANDALL WRAY, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI - KANSAS CITY, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR FULL EMPLOYMENT & PRICE STABILITY, SENIOR SCHOLAR, LEVY ECONOMICS INSTITUTE, AUTHOR OF UNDERSTANDING MODERN MONEY, THE KEY TO FULL EMPLOYMENT AND PRICE STABILITY AND EDITOR, CREDIT AND STATE THEORIES OF MONEY: THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF A. MITCHELL INNES>>
    and

    Warren is one of the rare individuals who understands money and finance and how the Treasury and the Fed really work. He receives information from industry experts from all over the world.”

    - WILLIAM K. BLACK, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS & LAW, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI - KANSAS CITY

    [btw, this is an economics, not a psychology forum].


    .
     
  3. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Your deep psychological need for personal reassurance leads you to INSIST on being right, and anything that goes against the source (the bible, the quran, yourself) is labelled mere heresy and dismissed without further logical examination. How troubling if any of what you preached all those years was inadequate, or even entirely wrong.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2019
  4. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, socialism is a DIFFERENT economic model, predicated on non-surplus collective subsistence. ie, no profit, and no wages in return for labour. You will understand eventually, if you're serious about this stuff. So far it looks like you're entirely NOT serious, hence clinging to disneyesque notions of socialism and capitalism.

    Once again, many capitalist enterprises DO.NOT.OWN.LAND. Check any large industrial estate or downtown retail preccinct - I guarantee that 90% of business are in leased properties.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2019
  5. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Given you will NEVER get a nation to vote in favour of your Grand Plan, the only way you will ever have that 'rule of law' is at the point of a gun.
     
  6. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    See your error?

    You stated "any universality is totalitarian"

    I demolished that proposition, by pointing out that the principle of rule of law is required to balance the competing self-interest of individuals.

    Now, whether rule of law is extended to the international realm is another thing.....though it might be considered desirable in certain circumstances (eg, an impending climate catastrophe, or looming nuclear war).

    But your original statement was wrong. I accept your concession.

    [BTW, Trump wants to impose his view of climate change onto the state of CA.

    But the difference between Trump and a UNSC without veto is that policies adopted by the latter would be arrived at by majority vote in the SC...as indeed Trump will similarly have to face if the Californians take Trump to the USSC, where the competing interests will decided under a regime of rule of law. But you are blinded by the "individual sovereignty" myth, so I don't expect you to understand any of this].



    .
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2019
  7. stan1990

    stan1990 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2018
    Messages:
    436
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    ever heard about staying out of Operation room because you don't have money. Ever heard about your health considered a commodity for Mega-Pharma corporations so they can buy expensive yachts and 30 room mansions?
     
  8. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Practice reading.

    Irrelevant.
     
  9. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope, never where I live.

    Because there is a National Healthcare System, subsidized by higher-taxation than exists in the US. And the people who live in European Union accept it willingly. They may refuse the jobless floating in from North Africa, but - nope - not their healthcare system.

    Ranking studies of HC-systems depend upon the questions asked. The answers almost always give different answers from study to study.

    For instance, from here:
    Which countries have the best healthcare systems?

    Here's the result of one study (with its own set of relevant questions):
    And here are the results of yet another study:

    In no country studied by a variety of questions-asked does the US come up first, and the reason is that the statistical base in the US is incomparable with state-systems elsewhere. The studies above were done on a comparative basis. And, yes, the US has 92% of the population with healthcare - as has been indicated in some reports. But what is the comparable coverage. That's the key question.

    The comparison is no longer a matter of a percentage but something called "quality" - that is, the nature of healthcare coverage in terms of the most prominent types of illness.

    Meaning the extent of coverage as measured in the above studies can be very different. But it remains that only a state-provided HC-provision can guaranty at a reasonable coverage-cost because it SETS THE PRICES ... !
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2019
  10. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    PS: Healthcare is not a service that should be provided by private enterprise. It is far too important that its cost be managed by a state and that all citizens should be able to join because it is national-taxation that will eventually pay the cost.
     
    crank likes this.
  11. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Ha ha .. no you didn't, but fun try !

    Competing interests are what you get in a democracy. You will ALWAYS get that in a democracy, that's the point of a democracy - constant checks and balances by those 'competing interests'.

    If you want aligned interests, you will need to bring out your guns, and dispense with democracy.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2019
  12. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And what is democracy without equality before the law?
     
  13. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We have equality NOW.
     
  14. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So your original statement - any universality is totalitarian - is wrong. Glad you agree.

    Back to "the problem of capitalism" - the topic of the OT.

    You said you weren't interested in macroeconomics, which is the study of how the economy in aggregate functions (as opposed to the economy of individual households).

    You thereby automatically consign as irrelevant your contributions to the OT.

    FYI

    capitalism
    /ˈkapɪt(ə)lɪz(ə)m/
    noun: capitalism:
    an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

    ie the aggregate of the private owners
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2019
  15. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Oh that is why I say your half right about the point of totalitarian regime. I don't consider you an idealist but a realist.


    I think the world is actually further away from any reduction in poverty let alone peace due very much to the points raised here. There is actually a movement considering that humanity is de-evolving much to the point of the total and complete self-absorption of desires of the relative needs of the group.

    That is to say, while humans think they are showing greater humanitarian and civilised beliefs and standards by trying to show support for various so called environmental or righteous movements, their own personal desires by far out strip any personal sacrifice.
     
    crank likes this.
  16. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Wow... just Wow...


    Look, I can applaud your effort not to demand capitalism infringes on your rights to own land but your single narrow minded focus in pedantic issues at is meets your argument and disregarding those very same pedantic when it does not suite.


    Just in this post itself, you pedantically ridicule the comment made then make a point of vague and general to claim capitalism demands ownership of land. I certainly wonder, since you decided it is “Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. Land is one of those means, therefore it being privately owned is a defining characteristic of that economic system.” How you consolidate that with the comment you stated here that “somebody owns the land

    However, you busy trying to suggest the definition of what land is in capitalism. Since production on the land does not require ownership of the land, just as fishing in the sea does not require ownership of the ocean, you are drawing a long bow here.

    Division of the land as a commodity is made by government NOT capitalism. Government may decide (in national interest) that land remains the property of the people (the government) and simply rent the land at market rate to the enterprise or people. At no time does an enterprise require ownership of land to produce on the land. Ergo, the point that “Some individual, family, or company owns the land their business operates on” is irrelevant due to the fact they are not necessarily the ones who are carrying out the enterprise.

    When it comes to the ownership of land in a capitalist market, that the market sets land value based upon demand for the land (for whatever purpose) AND the opportunity to own the land is open to all who meet the requirement to purchase the land. Should the governing body determine land is a commodity to be bargained.


    What you have to understand, capitalism does not determine what commodities are to be owned, purchased or bargained. The people decide that through the freedoms of capitalist economics. But it does set out a method of market principle to bargain for the commodity…
     
  17. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When your breathing space becomes very, very tight due to air-pollution, you might want to consider further that "so-called" opinion ...
     
  18. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    IMO, people are biologically too similar to allow for such large accumulations of wealth into the pockets of a small percentage of the population, without there being artificial barriers of entry / legal entitlements.

    I have a hard time imagining even a standout 160+ IQ man with all the correct personality traits fairly gaining a net worth of billions of $.
     
  19. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you LIKE the capitalist democracy we have now?

    Why didn't you just say so .. instead of all this stuff about A Better World?
     
  20. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have it EXACTLY right. Thank you!
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2019
  21. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's your mistake, then.

    The thing we agree on is that humans are alike .. but only insofar as we all take the path of least resistance. Your personal disinterest in making billions is irrelevant. It is no measure, other than 99% of us share your antipathy for that level of commitment.

    And we 'allow' it because we each choose our path. If yours isn't aligning to your own expectations of humanity .. you have issues with yourself, no one else.
     
  22. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    What does this entire sentence even mean? Did you mean: "to demand capitalism doesn't infringe on your rights to own land"? "right to own land", huh? I claim that there is a natural right to USE land, not to OWN land. OWNING land is in fact precisely what abrogates that natural right, and even is used to justify this abrogation and all the proceeds from it. I want a system of land tenure where land is LEASED at the market rent, which precisely constitutes the compensation owed for depriving other people in the community of it.

    ???? There is no contradiction or inconsistency.
    The land being privately owned in a capitalist economy doesn't mean that the business that operates on it has to own it. Simple.

    1) crank's claim that ownership is irrelevant is COMPLETELY ABSURD.

    OWNERSHIP: "The ultimate and exclusive right conferred by a lawful claim or title, and subject to certain restrictions to enjoy, occupy, possess, rent, sell, use, give away, or even destroy an item of property."
    http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/ownership.html

    ^^^^
    HOW CAN THIS NOT BE RELEVANT to the economic system being capitalist??????

    2) According to crank's post, the state could own all enterprises, make profits, pay its employees wages, and we could still call it "capitalist", even though that setup wouldn't be inconsistent with socialism:

    SOCIALISM: "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
    https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=socialism

    So, according to crank's claim, there is an economic system that can be called "capitalist" as well as "socialist". COMPLETELY ABSURD.

    "definition of what land is in capitalism"...?

    ????
    I agree. Private ownership of land and natural resources is not necessary for them to exist and to make productive use of them.


    Sounds better than the current system. Wouldn't consider land the "property of the people" though. That implies: no property no rights. Land, atmospheric air, or the natural sunlight shining upon our planet need not be anyone's "property" for there to be a natural right to enjoy.

    ????
    Who are you responding to?
    That doesn't disagree with anything I wrote.

    "requirement" could just as well be a placeholder for "extortion demand", consisting of years of wages, IMO.

    "Open to all" LOL! Generally speaking, you have to outpace economic growth in order to buy land where you work and live. This is mathematically impossible for most people.

    Meanwhile, the land title, also called "license to steal" (by informed people), gets the owner more and more something for nothing for what would be there anyways...the land. All the landowner does is charge others for permission to access the advantages the government (infrastructure and services), the community, and nature provide at that location.

    Are you serious...? Illogical. Circular.
    Capitalism would already have to be established before "the people" could decide through "the freedoms of capitalist economics".

    Government establishing what can be owned, and by whom, is ALREADY crucial BEFORE a system can even be considered capitalist in the first place:

    OWNERSHIP: "The ultimate and exclusive right conferred by a lawful claim or title, and subject to certain restrictions to enjoy, occupy, possess, rent, sell, use, give away, or even destroy an item of property.

    Ownership may be corporeal (title to a tangible object such as a house) or incorporeal (title to an intangible object, such as a copyright, or a right to recover debt)."
    http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/ownership.html

    In capitalism that can of course include land, natural resources, intellectual property, and even humans, if convenient. No shits are given about the natural rights of others.
     
  23. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Put 100 Jeff Bezos' on an island. Give one of them a property title to it. Will all 100 Jeff Bezos' get equal results, or will the island owning Jeff Bezos becomes by far the wealthiest merely by charging them for permission to use his island?

    By that logic, we shouldn't ever change anything for the better, because whenever there is an egregious systematic injustice, the problem cannot possibly be the system itself, right? I want to improve my society, and keep on improving it more, and more, and more.

    "Why can' women vote? They're humans just like us.", said the young man, to which came a rather cranky reply, "They chose their path. Women have issues with themselves. As long as that is the case, they won't be able to vote."

    "Look at those slaves getting whipped. This isn't fair. This shouldn't be." proclaimed the young man, to which came a rather cranky reply, "You have issues with yourself. You just don't share the same level of commitment to have your own slaves. The slaves allow it. They have issues with themselves as well."
     
  24. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The fact is, this one comment exemplifies the point I made... Apparently the belief today is that the air will get so thick life will choke out of existence… The “so called” belief.


    So far above your head I would suggest you start again. The "so called" aspect remains to the belief you show here that the issue is matter of fact. Even 5 million years previous to now, the world had far greater concentrations of CO2 and temperatures were considerably higher (by the alarmist measure) than today, yet life existed.,,,



    When it comes to this environmentalism or the “SO CALLED” belief, nothing will deter that belief. Failure in theory, failure in predications failure in fact. The so called aspect remains that it must be true, because somebody said so…

    ALL completely irrelevant to the thread and subject at hand, but I guess the a thread to discuss capitalism would not be a thread until somebody bashes others about the head with theology of beliefs. Get back to me when you want to address the subject and not your own personal Gospel of your idealism.
     
  25. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We are equal before the law. That's the 'universality' principle, which is in no way totalitarian.

    We are not equal in regard to accessing the necessities of life
    (including awareness of the issues involved, owing to different levels of access to education)…….actually resulting in falling life-spans in the affected groups.

    Absolute simplistic nonsense.

    Bezos is a retailer (!), one of the first to exploit access to the world market.....on the back of the invention of the internet, and labour
    and equipment supplied by numerous transportation companies around the world.

    Nothing to do with antipathy on the part of 99% of us.
     

Share This Page