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. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All of them wrong.
    But avoid economic understanding. Pluralism is only a virtue to the extent that established fact is unavailable.
    Foucault has absolutely nothing to contribute to any empirical science.
    It's a triviality compared to privilege.
    I'm ignoring it because it is of insignificant effect compared to the things I understand and you do not.
     
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I stopped here. Anyone saying such nonsense, as they ignore economic debate, is a non-economic cultist. It of course also explains why you ignore injustice such as discrimination.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2020
  3. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you want to claim I said something, include a direct, verbatim, in-context quote, as I do. Otherwise, it is a safe bet that you are just makin' $#!+ up again.
     
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then what explains your relentless attempts to divert attention from the massive injustices of privilege to the comparatively trivial injustices of discrimination, hmmmmmmmmm?
     
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That you see anyone referring to discrimination as a problem shows your irrelevance. Shame on you.
     
  6. Pag

    Pag Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2020
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    :) I did pass Econ101 and engineering economics so please "un-dumb" me in your mind.
    Suppliers provide what customers want. It's a bit trivial, when you speak in terms of a society you shouldn't speak JUST academically. What you're saying is just a definition.
    "Suppliers provide what customers want" BUT who is determining what customers WANT? Do customers have total freedom in wanting sth?
    Nowadays we are living in the world of media. It's the media that is putting ideas in the public's thoughts. AND when the customer needs sth they can only use what is been provided for them and dictated to them.
    Reasonable. There is no surprise for ordinary people because they DON'T have any choice. It's the capitalist that owns the media and advertising. So the capitalists can do as they want to people's minds and shape their habits and wishes. And it's the capitalist that owns the PRODUCTION. So either way they can and will do what they see profitable for their pockets to the people.
    Let me define capitalism , Enslaving the majority by a minority.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2020
    Reiver likes this.
  7. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    WE THE SHEEPLE

    Let's not get silly. For the most part, advertising manipulates customers to want goods/services. Pricing is a constant concern, so there IS competition. Which is also the a primary concern amongst buyers. The system works about as good as should.

    If you are looking to "blame" someone (singular or plural), look in a mirror. You are no different from the millions of others in a market-economy. You buy what others buy and hope that you can "fit in" to the consensus. Otherwise, go live in the wilds of north Alaska!

    You own a car? You're an awful "capitalist"!

    Go back and read the definitions, dammit! Capitalism is a method of exchange for goods and services (including investments! And that is all! Whether it is good or bad is how we intend it to be! (I live in a Social Democracy in Europe and capitalism aint so bad because taxation takes the bite out of massive accumulation of capital at the top. Which no longer happens in the USofA!)

    OUR PROBLEM IN THE US IS UPPER-INCOME TAXATION THAT WE STOOPIDLY LET RECKLESS RONNIE REDUCE 30 YEARS AGO!!! That act alone on his part spawned the Income Disparity that now plagues the US! (For your edification, see OECD Income Disparity comparisons amongst nations here! Note that the US is the highest of any well-developed nation and Europe is amongst the lower-group because of higher comparative-taxation!)

    An economy is neither all-good nor all-bad, and it functions according to how we-the-sheeple decide it should function. For some hair-brained reason we were all elated when Reckless Ronnie reduced upper-income taxation, and the flood of investment spawned a minor economic expansion. For which we paid the consequences in the following decade.

    Yeah, right, so blame it on "the capitalists"! Whoever they are! Wherever they are!

    It is we the sheeple that elect people to Congress, and Congress plus the Presidency manage economic-policy! Obama never had a chance to change things, because WE-THE-SHEEPLE VOTED THAT THE REPLICANTS SHOULD CONTROL BOTH THE H-OF-R AND THE SENATE AFTER HIS SECOND YEAR IN OFFICE!

    Open your eyes to the factual historical evidence of what has been happening in the US ever since we foolishly elected Replicant Ronnie into the White House ... !
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2020
  8. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A bit of Galbraith and understanding of how supply creates demand? That might help the locals ;)
     
    Pag likes this.
  9. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They are absolutely luxuries, in that they only exist in very rich and very carefully balanced capitalist democracies. Remove any of the contributing ballast and those luxuries will be the first things to evaporate. Besides, calling them necessities when others can't even find a meal, is morally objectionable. ESPECIALLY in a society in which even the unproductive are well fed.

    Exactly. Because far too many people demand all of these luxuries, calling them 'necessity'. If we didn't keep demanding more more more, those people without enough to eat might have a chance. The worst of it is, we keep adding to the list of demands. It's not good enough to have freedom of choice, safety, free education, free healthcare, clean water, etc .... we now insist that the unproductive are feted, too. The irony is that it's the very people who claim to 'care' who keep demanding more. They're not sacrificing their First World freedoms and lifestyle - no no, they want more of the same.
     
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only according to supply siders. The rest of the world deem them necessities.
     
  11. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That IS the injustice. Privileged First Worlders demanding ever more feting and freedoms, while people starve.
     
  12. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Arguing with insulated, spoiled, culturally-limited, posturing First Worlders is like talking to an only child - of rich parents.
     
  13. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem is that you've allowed your supply side economics to cloud your ability to appreciate basic logic. Right wing economics for you.
     
  14. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Look .. Lovey, we live in DEMOCRACIES. As long as democracy reigns, we're all free to manage our participation in the system (the system which coincidentally gives you the freedoms and luxuries you appear to take for granted) as we see fit. Remove that freedom to choose, and you remove justice, equity, fairness, and the opportunity to protest. You will never be able to opt out if you find you don't care for your necessarily reduced circumstances, or suddenly realise that the new regime reduces the human condition. Your 'important thoughts' will never be heard, because democracy will have been lost.
     
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is this supposed to be a justification for supply side economics?
     
  16. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know you read it, and thought about it.

    We're past pretending to that degree aren't we, Reivs?
     
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't dodge now. It's strange that the only economics that you actually refer to is supply side economics. How can you justify that?
     
  18. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can ALWAYS justify capitalist democracy. It's the very breath of yours and my existence.
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no such thing. Crikey, we can't even isolate the market to capitalism. Bunging two words together to pretend political economic knowledge is far from cunning. In your error, you also dodged again. Why do you think supply side economics is the bee's knees? What has determined your focus on right wing economics?
     
  20. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no right wing or left wing economics. There is only economics.
     
    crank likes this.
  21. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We have capitalism. We have democracy. Ergo ... capitalist democracy.
     
  22. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Such naivety. There is no need for them to go together. A capitalist country can be undemocratic (e.g. state capitalism). A democratic country can be anti-capitalist (e.g. market socialism).

    In political economy, there is no capitalist democracy analysis. There is, however, differences in three studied economic paradigms: social democracy, liberal democracy and Anglo-Saxon. The last one typically describes market fundamentalism, with high poverty generated through supply side economics. Dont dodge now, why do you support the same economic approach adopted by right wing ideologues and pretend to be left wing?
     
  23. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,301
    Likes Received:
    1,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The usage of such terminology reveals an economic stance that is not based upon factual assessment but that based upon idealogy.

    I disengaged when I realized that @Reiver didn't understand that @crank view of anarchism falls under the umbrella of heterodox economics (there are two branches- authoritarian like Reiver and libertarian like me). Crank isn't necessarily as knowledgeable on economics as you and I (no offense meant Crank, we all had to start somewhere), and once I realized this I engaged with her to figure out approximately where she falls.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2020
  24. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I disengaged with Ted when he couldn't offer an economic argument on an economics forum. That he pats the right wing fake libertarians on the head, despite merely parroting the economics fed to them by big business, is all I need to work out how the anarchist efforts are illusionary.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2020
  25. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why .. thanks TITS, I think! Seriously though, please ... dear god ... don't inflict an 'economics education' upon me. I've spent my life avoiding bean counters, and spreadsheets make me want to die :D

    As for where I fall personally, probably commie. I'm a firm believer in common purse within the collective, provided every member is on the same page - IOW, there is no room for non-productivity, or resource hogging, or discretional spending. I don't have a particular preference in relation to the fine details of state economics - as long as it's capitalist democracy. That's the only model which allows both freedom of choice (the freedom to succeed OR fail), and the foundations for success it buys via social programs like public education and healthcare.

    Edited to add that my only 'anarchism' is probably my determination to avoid putting anything back into the system. I've spent the majority of my adult life doing whatever possible to keep limited assets out of corporate hands, and in the hands of the collective. We're determined not to give it away to fat cats - via a dependence upon external infrastructure (we're off grid, and grow food, etc), or via discretional spending. We're determined to preserve and build upon what already exists, so that it will continue to house and feed people for generations. Assuming, of course, that those generations don't blow it all by choosing full reliance on the system and/or forfeiture of the lands in favour of discretional spending. So far, so good!
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2020

Share This Page