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. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What an utterly ridiculous comment. The commons ensures equal access.

    More nonsense. I merely acknowledge that land ranting is a particularly fruitless occupation. Georgists deep down acknowledge that. That is why they hate the Georgist tag.

    Comparing discrimination with a bunion just describes the hypocritical approach that you adopt with justice. We are back to a simple conclusion: you ignore issues that aren't embedded within a land rant.
     
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But not efficient allocation. So you are again proved wrong.
    More likely, they hate lies and the lying liars who tell them.
    No, it's actually a good analogy: privilege is to discrimination as cancer is to a bunion.
    <yawn> Look at the thread title, child. Discrimination is not a specifically capitalist problem, let alone the problem. It's just another one of your endless supply of red herrings.

    Land, by contrast, IS THE problem of capitalism.
     
  3. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's his last redoubt! As long as he keeps squeezing in that little bite of jargon 'supply side', he can pretend he doesn't feel all those smacks upside his head :p
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2020
  4. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,301
    Likes Received:
    1,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's the thing. I don't believe in supply side economics. In a nutshell, supply side economics holds that by government decreasing taxes on corporations it will stimulate the economy.

    I don't believe governments should exist, so it follows that the two creations of government (corporations and taxes) would not exist either.

    So yeah.
     
    Longshot likes this.
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is basic economics. Supply side economics, via Friedman and co, plays the poverty blame game. You eliminate causes of labour market inflexibility (from high welfare payments to union bargaining power) and you can reduce the natural rate of unemployment. In terms of the debate with neo-Keynesianism, its rejection of the Phillips Curve inflation-unemployment trade-off and acceptance of a vertical one reflecting the level of worker blame/failure.

    Supply side economics is the cornerstone of Thatcherism (it's used for Reagnomics, but that really was just Military Keynesianism). No lefties support it as it's used to promote class conflict. You support it, admittedly only by having a very low level economic understanding and adopting blame game cliche, but you're not a lefty.
     
  6. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no reason to assume inefficiency. Indeed, by avoiding the anti commons, we would increase econonic activity.

    Given you aren't providing any content or offering any sound critique, I find your continued churlishness amusing. You ignore discrimination because you cannot explain it. You ignore a source of rent because land rant becomes irrelevant.
     
  7. stan1990

    stan1990 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2018
    Messages:
    436
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't believe that Capitalism is a bad thing in general. But it got misquoted. We aren't living under the Capitalism system. You can call it Neoliberalism, Monopolism, but it isn't Capitalism.
     
  8. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Neoliberalism generates a type of capitalism. It cannot be used to deny the existence of capitalism. Of course there are also plenty of economic schools of thought that predict market concentration as a standard outcome in capitalism.
     
  9. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,301
    Likes Received:
    1,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL, well it wasn't meant as an insult. However, you don't have to get to the "bean counter" level of knowledge to examine where you are. All you need to answer are two things:

    1) Who should be allowed to own/control the means of production (a.k.a capital goods)?
    Is it private (capitalist), public (socialist) or government/common ownership (communist).

    2) Who owns the fruits of their labor once goods are produced? This ranges from libertarians (anarchists like me being the end of that scale, voluntaryists less so) to authoritarians (There are few instances of societies today that are not in some part authoritarian and most of the people in this thread are as well).


    I don't believe in a state, and I don't believe in democracies. We can get into why sometime if you are interested.


    The embolden part is mine.

    First, congratulations for actually living the life you espouse here. I am very curious as to how your commune makes the determinations of when someone can join, leave, etc. I think that will be a discussion for another time though.

    Second, this (the emboldened part) is precisely why @Reiver assessment of you being a supporter of "supply side economics" is inaccurate. You have a strong predilection against corporate personhood which makes it impossible for you to support supply side economics.

    But then, I took the time to ask the questions instead of making inane assumptions about you too. :D
     
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The ignorance is astounding. They have openly supported the blame game of supply side economics. Those that attempt to defend that ridiculousness is quite predictable mind you. In particular, I love the "I'm anarchist honest, so I'll defend the supply side economics to enable compliance" tone. Such pretend folk makes the Harry Potter writer appear advanced.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2020
  11. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, what do you think is going to happen when 7G people are playing Musical Chairs with enough cave space to accommodate a few thousand??
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is actually interesting. It doesn't reflect content mind you. You're both actually devoid of relevance, so how you communicate irrelevance will be great shakes!
     
  13. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are aware that there is: the absence of a link between productivity and resources controlled. Why pretend you are not?
    You are aware that it does not increase it as much as a market solution. Why pretend you are not?
    Given the uniform falsity, disingenuousness and worthlessness of your "contributions," I find your continued existence nauseating.
    You are aware that I ignore it because it is irrelevant. Why pretend you are not?
    You are aware that discrimination does not cause rent. Why pretend you are not?
     
  14. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) Whoever is sufficiently willing to own any given 'means of production', as per our current democracy. Democracy which currently reveals just how few of us are sufficiently willing. The vast majority don't want that much drama in our lives, preferring instead to be 'wage slaves'.
    So 'private', yes. Public ownership isn't a thing, I don't think. Govt ownership sure is, though.

    2) In a capitalist democracy, we choose how the fruits of our labour are returned to us. We can own a business and have it returned as profit. We can be a sole trader and have it returned in 'living' cash. We can be wage slaves. We can go off grid and live directly - reaping the literal fruit of our labour .. and so on. The important thing is that we cannot be legally prevented from pursuing whatever appeals to us. In answer to your question .. we own the choice.

    a) Thanks! As for the mechanics of the collective .. it's all 100% voluntary. If you want in - or want to stay in - you accept that you're going to have to participate and produce. You accept that there are no free lunches. We've had a couple of people fail in this regard over the years, but they were both quite dysfunctional people generally .. and tended to **** up most things. The majority much prefer it to flying solo, as it obviates the struggle, uncertainty, and lack of community that so many deal with in the 21stC. It's very freeing, and very empowering - as counter intuitive as that may sound.

    b) Yes you did ask, and I appreciate it :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2020
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why aren't you honest? Why aren't you dismissing the anti-commons and its impact on efficiency? Try again!

    You aren't coherent. The anti-commons is an attack on the efficiency of private ownership. I love, mind you, how Georgists replicate the orthodoxy of good ole Henry!

    Back to your non-economic rant! Discrimination generates underpayment. It is an example of market power and how, as fully illustrated by Marxist analysis (but ultimately confirmed through Institutionalism), the severe consequences for inefficient wage determination.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2020
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right wingers do find common ground ;)
     
  17. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So your beliefs are delusional.

    1. If there is more than one individual in the world, contract enforcement via rule of law established by government is necessary, to avoid anarchy. [Note 'anarchy' as opposed to your fantastical 'Anarchy'; humans are naturally competitive - through unconscious motivation - rather than naturally cooperative, through conscious motivation.

    2. Since reward is related to the efforts of others, through use of existing and developing community knowledge and infrastructure, taxation is a necessary component of economic justice within the community.

    No doubt your extreme Libertarianism amounts to economic self-interestedness AND disinterest in economic justice for others which recognises the contribution of others to your economic wellbeing, as described above.

    Meanwhile, MMT offers a better solution to funding a GND without prior taxation; you ought to be interested, despite the fact you think (absurdly) we can build communities without government ....

    "How can we pay for it?



    (start at 5.00 mins).

    "The beaver wants to build a dam. What does he do? He goes to River Bank Corp. to borrow some money. (laughter).
    No, he goes to the river-bank and collects the resources he needs to build the dam, he has the ability and knowhow to build the dam...….he doesn't need to borrow money from River Bank Corp. to build the dam".

    IOW, the BIS can 'fund' the pumped hydro storage required to transit from fossil-based to green electricity, if the resources and know-how exist, without any cost to you.....

    [Interestingly, at Davos the BIS said: "central banks might have to buy the coal industry" (if financial losses due to climate change keep mounting].

    BTW, I love this example. It describes your world with one independent individual who doesn't need money, perfectly.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2020
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
    Because I know better.
    You are aware that that is false. Why pretend you are not?
    Are you really claiming that all private ownership is equal wrt efficiency? Really???
    But not rent.
    But not rent.
     
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that is not injustice, let alone the injustice. The injustice is privilege: legal entitlements to benefit from the abrogation of others' rights without making just compensation. The starving are certainly victims of injustice, but that injustice has nothing whatever to do with typical middle class people in advanced democracies seeking respect for their rights.
     
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong! Underpayment from discrimination is indeed economic rent. The only issue is the extent of that rent. For example, the Marxist approach will suggest all workers lose out. This would ensure much higher rates of rent than, say, an institutionalist perspective.
     
  21. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It has a great deal to do with it. But I understand your deep affection for the freedoms and privileges you have as a middle class First Worlder .. all the glorious boons, advantages, and opportunities of a capitalist democracy. I can understand why you would prefer to think it has nothing to do with you, rather than forfeit any of those wonders.
     
  22. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Just accept your lot and be thankful" is the standard supply sider's means to ignore class conflict...
     
  23. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The problem of Capitalism is the same problem of Socialism, Communism ... and everything in between: CORRUPTION
     
  24. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually corruption is most problematic in capitalism, given rent seeking is naturally accentuated by the inefficient inequalities that it creates. You could refer to corruption in state ownership, but that isnt a feasible socialist outcome. Market socialism, in comparison, actually reduces discretionary state power and focuses it on protection of property rights.
     
  25. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Communism is easily corrupted from the top down. Capitalism is easily corrupted from the side ... awarding kick-backs to the top with some trickle-down.
     

Share This Page