The Capitalist System Is Decaying Because Of Its Own Contradictions

wow!! satanic mass murderers and yet you cant give your best example or even a good example of this satanic mass murder? Why so afraid?

 

ok so helping Savik makes us satanic mass murderes? Who knew. Can you tell us how on earth that makes us Satanic mass murders.

 

I don't think I've ever seen you reply to a comment with validity. That's an impressive record. Without growth, unemployment runs amok in capitalism. There is no focus on sustainability or efficiency. There is just realisation that GDP must grow to maintain the status quo.

Now I know that you don't understand supply and demand (see, for example, your confusion over minimum wage effects). But you haven't understood that this goes beyond neoclassical economics. It necessarily refers to the flaws in the economic approach, where the profit motive cannot generate allocative efficiency

 

.. and a lot of them are useless jobs, paid by increasing the public debt. Give me a trillion dollars and then I can pay ten million people one thousand dollars each, for 8 years.

How can I be a liberal when my biggest criticism goes against the leftist liberals?
But can you conceive what's going to happen when all that public debt will explode into your face?
You ever heard about the concepts like "increasing poverty", "economic crisis" or "economic collapse"? Or "The collapse of the retirement funds"?

 

gibberish non english. If a person has a private sector job why would it be a useless as opposed to useful job??

 

What then are you? I've seen a lot of similarity between your comments and British fascism. However, feel free to refer to a specific political economic school of thought

 

why would it explode?? do you have any idea?? Japan has double the debt and there is no explosion!!

 

If something is unregulated, and then regulations are applied, then that thing is regulated. If the regulations are then removed, the thing is deregulated. The financial industry was never deregulated. It has been regulated since forever.

Why would laissez-faire not be possible? Also, perhaps you can tell us about one particular regulation that will always happen, so I have an idea of what you're on about.

 

yes odd how the most heavily regulated industry in American had the most trouble. At the end Fan /Fred owned or guaranteed 75% of Alt a and sub prime mortgages

 

You're just repeating your error: laissez faire has never existed. Regulation has always existed. The issue of course is neoliberalism, which has enabled financial profiteering to run amok (itself based on the nonsense spawned by free market economics)

Because capitalism is inherently unstable. I've already referred to a simple feature that creates instability: cost-plus pricing (which makes stagflation, without government waste, a predicted outcome)

 

It's not odd. It's a consequence of state intervention.

 

I read it. How does it refute anything I said? Or have you perhaps become confused, and think that "doctors, medical researchers and pharmaceutical company shareholders" are the same as the public?

 

The financial industry hasn't been deregulated since the 1700s. Your assertion that deregulation occurred is ludicrous.

That's an interesting position. Would you like to provide an argument to support it?

Hm. I asked you would it would be impossible for a society to enact laissez-fair. You have failed to explain what would prevent such legal action.

 

No, he just got some degrees for being a Marxist. That is normal, routine, and expected. Most universities will admit Marxists to grad school regardless of ability, and give them their degrees for showing up with some sort of Marxist claptrap as a "thesis."

For spewing Marxist claptrap.

Yes, actually, it does.

I couldn't care less about his "qualifications." He's a know-nothing.

 

But almost none of it was directed to basic research or research that led to better treatments. It was almost all devoted to finding novel (i.e., patentable) drugs that were no better and often worse than existing public domain treatments, and ways of making public domain treatments patentable.

Such claims are self-evidently false and absurd. I've proved to you many times that China is not capitalist, let alone Republican.

Yeah: specifically, like the Greek god of wealth, Plutus, who was traditionally portrayed as having been blinded by Zeus so that he would confer his blessings on mortals at random, without regard for need, merit, or contribution.

What a strange version of reality you inhabit.

 

No, it is not. Ownership includes the right to benefit and dispose, not just control.

I understand you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

You seem to think deregulation means something it doesn't. It never means 'without regulation'. It does mean increased control over profiteering opportunity.

Already have. We just need cost-plus pricing within a market power perspective. Of course, speaking more generally, you would have to refer to behavioural analysis into why destructive problems such as pricing bubbles are created. The debate over Keynes often rests on the extent that he applies economic psychology. On one side we have animal spirits, but we also have heterodox economists (such as King) suggesting that he only paid lip service to psychology (but still demonstrated the crucial need for interventionism).

Find yourself a desert island and insist on laissez faire. It has never existed. We don't just have to refer to market failure. We can refer to the destructiveness of the profit motive (as shown by the generation of inequalities that even the IMF moan are destructive)

 

No it isn't. Capitalism is private ownership and control of the means of production (land and capital) for private profit. As private ownership of land inherently removes people's rights to liberty, capitalist transactions are all conducted under duress, not voluntarily, and people living in capitalist societies are not free.

Capitalism is defined by ownership and control of the means of production, not by how easy it is to do business.

Maybe private ownership of boats would be illegal in a socialist society because boats are capital.

 

sure but that does not describe its essential function ie, free people shop among free sellers to increase their standard of living at fastest possible rate. Now do you understand?

 

thats the way libcommie marxists define it. Its essential function has to do with private property and free people freely buying and selling to increase their standard of living at fastest possible. Now you've got the basics.

 

No, you are objectively incorrect:

"a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

https://www.google.ca/search?q=defi...x-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=xIoLWszrBpPt8wf0tqWIDw


"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a :a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b :a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism


"a political theory advocating state ownership of industry"
"an economic system based on state ownership of capital"

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/socialism

etc.

Oh, I know why socialists play pretend.

 

wrong, because people desperately try to use boats to escape the extreme poverty and uniformity of Marxism which has already killed 120 million, and has a concentration camp right off our shore.

 

It's a one sided argument as the author readily admits in the quote from the book.

 

when you control you do so to benefit, obviously

 

I love the 'dictionary economists'. They do make me grin. That socialism refers to worker ownership and control is just bleedin obvious. The hard stuff is on how that is delivered. Be it the notion that the socialist planner can somehow mimic perfect competition, or the more Hayekian (and there's splendid irony in that, given what Hayek original said) analysis into market socialism and how worker ownership eliminates hierarchical relationships.

By the way, did you get a first class honours in 'Dictionary Economics'? If so, well done!