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. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    E85 only exists because of the government mandate.
     
  2. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    China just switched to capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of the entire planet's poverty after libsocialism had killed 60 million. Do you understand?
     
  3. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    too bad collectivism just killed 120 million. The collective just uses govt to steal from others. It is the tyranny of the majority and nothing more.
     
  4. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    11,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe the problem is too many people. The population increased too fast, faster than the economy could expand.
    When the balance between the supply of labor relative to demand tips, wages go down.
     
  5. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But they haven't gone down, have they. Depending upon where you are in this world, they've gone up.

    See here - OECD data, Average Wages by country-member. If you "add" the US to that infographic, you will notice the BigDifference with the major European countries.

    And if we want to get dramatic about statistical data, here is the graphic of percentage of the children population that live in permanent poverty per country:
    [​IMG]

    Yes, Uncle Sam is fifth worst of all those countries.Comparatively, note also where the European countries show up at the bottom ... !
     
    Kode likes this.
  6. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    11,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was implying that wages would go down in most of the areas where immigrants headed, and would often go up in the countries they left from.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2019
  7. stan1990

    stan1990 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2018
    Messages:
    436
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    in this case, it would be a bad mandate
     
    Longshot likes this.
  8. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wow. The US is 5th in that list, -as you said, -and notice that Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Finland, and Denmark ..... all "democratic socialist" countries.... -are at the bottom!
     
    Noangsttogrind likes this.
  9. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Ethanol and the extremely high consumption of meat in the US and Canada are not the result of capitalism. Neither would be possible without the heavy subsidization and encouragement of government.

    You can't blame capitalism for the problems created by government manipulating markets
     
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. I have corrected your errors on this point many times before. China is NOT capitalist because capitalism requires private ownership of land, and all land in China is publicly owned, as it has been in Hong Kong for over 160 years. Also, China abandoning socialism in the late 1970s/early 1980s did not "instantly" eliminate 40% of the entire planet's poverty. It took over 30 years.
     
  11. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113

    No, it's all about INJUSTICE.
    No, because that's obviously just a band-aid solution. It does nothing whatever to address the root of the problem: the injustice created by privilege.
    Nonsense. You can have two economies with identical income disparities, one where income is commensurate with contribution, the other where it is determined exclusively by privilege: legal entitlements to take what others produce.
     
  12. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) it does not require that
    2) China has in effect private ownership of land which operates very much as our system does. HEre are 3 books oon Chinese capitalism with which to begin your sorely needed education

    "Capitalism With Chinese Characteristics"

    "How China Became Capitalist"

    In his new book titled Markets over Mao: The rise of private businesses in China, Lardy argues that even though SOEs still enjoy monopoly positions in some key sectors in China, such as energy and telecommunications, their role in the overall economy has diminished significantly over the years. Here are some of the facts he presents to back his thesis: in 2011, China’s state-controlled firms only accounted for about a quarter of the country’s industrial output; and their share in exports has dropped to about 11% today; in 2012, state firms were only responsible for about one-tenth of fixed investment in manufacturing. And in terms of employment, SOEs employed about 13% of China’s labor force in 2011, a dramatic decline compared with the 60% figure recorded in 1999.
     
  13. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry no, capitalism is not defined by private ownership of land. It is defined by private ownership of the means of production for private profits. Try searching for the word "land" here to get support for your claim: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp

    Lenin warned about state capitalism. China reverted to state capitalism. The public didn't own the means of production. The working class didn't own the means of production. Nope. THE STATE owned the means of production and bureaucrats acquired profit from it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2019
  14. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Isn't state "capitalism" just communism?
     
  15. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No. When discussing "communism" it is important to be very clear as to whether the subject is communist ideology and strategy, or whether it is communist society as a socio-economic system. Philosophy or conditions. Theory or economy. Most people fail to think about this and in their conversation they often switch back and forth between the two without realizing it.

    I believe you are asking about state capitalism vs. communist economy, i.e. a socio-economic system and not theory. As such, communism would be a classless society. (It would also mostly lack state "machinery".) State capitalism is, by definition, a state. And it has to have classes: those who decide how people are to interact, and the interacting people who are so governed. Those are classes. So it can't be communism.

    In addition, how did Marx say communist society would come about? He said that under socialism, people would eventually become so accustomed to interacting in the relationships of socialism that it would become "second nature", much like what we see reflected in capitalist society when the claim is made that capitalism is based on "human nature". And when this happens under socialism, the classes would gradually "wither away" as Marx put it.

    So that's something to think about!! "Wither away"!!! Communist society eventuates! Note that communism, then, cannot be imposed on a society or people because you can't legislate that people are to give up their ingrained capitalist ways of thinking and living and hoping and expecting.

    Anyway, the answer to your question is above.
     
  16. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Communism in theory is just a poor plagiarism of Adam Smith's perfect capitalism, where man would evolve to the point that all prejudice and hatred would disappear, and mutually beneficial transactions would govern man.
     
  17. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Certainly "communist society" is a theory that may or may not develop, but if it does it would be many generations in the future. If it develops it would be wonderful. If it doesn't develop it would be because it is another unobtainable idealistic theory. But it is nothing like "perfect capitalism" because, by definition, capitalism is class society and communism is classless society.

    But I've long asserted that we shouldn't waste our time discussing communism because it is nowhere on the horizon.
     
  18. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    What is so inherently wrong with social classes? I revere being a white trash, blue collar redneck.

    I could certainly understand an objection to legally enforced classes, such as the aristocracy of old, but that is for the most part long gone
     
  19. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Note that a "class" described as "white trash, blue collar redneck", or as being those with income between $40,000 and $80,000 per year (or whatever) is all completely arbitrary. Either could just as easily include more or fewer people by modifying the definition just a little without any material change to essential personal characteristics. Drop the word "trash" or increase the minimal annual income to $42,000 and you have a different group of people. IOW it's arbitrary.

    Instead, "class" is properly used to indicate a person's relationship to the economic life of the country. That is how I use the word. So my answer to "what is so inherently wrong with social classes?" is that social classes are mainly working class, small business class, and capitalist class. And the problem is that they arise for the purpose of permitting and as a consequence of exploitation. And it is the exploitation that is the problem along with the function of preserving an economic system that is in decline, is creating more problems than it can solve, and is at the base of most of our existing social and economic problems.
     
  20. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    If your definition of working class is that I wake up every morning to perform dangerous, exhausting manual labor, then I am working class.

    If your definition of capitalist class is someone who has no need to work, and can enjoy the finest things in life, I am that too.

    If you're saying we should go give every idle, spoiled rich kid a swift kick in the ass, I'm all about that.
     
  21. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not saying any of that. None.
     
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, it does, by definition.
    Nope. Flat false. China leases out public land to private users, totally UNlike our system of private landownership.
    I've seen them. They do not address the fact that capitalism requires private ownership of land, which China does not have. They merely mistake private ownership of products by their producers and market allocation of land, capital and labor for capitalism. Capitalism is defined by OWNERSHIP, not markets.
    Private ownership of products by their producers and market allocation of land, capital and labor =/= capitalism.
     
  23. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Land and capital (i.e., producer goods), which together constitute the means of production.
    Meaning land and capital. Ownership includes the rights to control and benefit by, so "for private profit" is redundant.

    Investopedia is not the authority on what capitalism is.
    State capitalism is an oxymoron. Lenin was just contriving an excuse for the failure of socialism, which he plainly witnessed because he enabled and participated in it.
    Nope. There's no such thing. "State capitalism" is a term made up by socialists to disavow -- and blame capitalism for -- the failures of socialism. Most obviously in the case of the USSR, socialists the world over hailed it as a socialist success for decades. Then when it became undeniable that it was a vast prison camp and utter economic failure, they disavowed it and said, "Oh, no, that wasn't socialism after all, it was state capitalism." Despicable.
    Sure it did, collectively, which is the definition of socialism.
    Socialism doesn't require the working class to own land and capital, just collective ownership of them; if it were possible (it's not, as a "class" can't own anything), working class ownership of land and capital would be syndicalism.
    I.e., it was socialism. How would it be any different if "the working class" owned the land and capital? You'd still have political operators in charge, and using their power to enrich themselves.
     
  24. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The "means of production" that Marx and Engels objected to was the basis of the exploitation of the working class. Private ownership of the MoP is the basis of that exploitation. And the exploitation itself is due to private ownership, employment, and privatization of profits resulting from employment. Exploitation is ended by worker ownership and control of the MoP. It is ended by a fundamental change in the relationship of worker to his/her production. In socialism, the worker's relationship to his/her workplace and production is ownership rather than employment for a wage.

    You said "Ownership includes the rights to control and benefit by, so "for private profit" is redundant." If "private profit" is redundant, what happens to the concept when workers own and control the factory where they work and together decide by a vote what to produce, when to produce, how to produce it, and what to do with the profits? Those profits are no longer private when all those who produced those profits control those profits. So your statement, here, is false.

    In state capitalism the relationship of the worker to his/her work remains unchanged. The worker works for the state which owns the MoP and the profits produced, and the worker remains exploited since s/he has no say in what is produced, when it is produced, how it is produced, or what is done with the profits. Without the necessary change in that fundamental relationship, exploitation continues and a form of capitalism persists since it is not socialism, which is marked by worker ownership and control. In state capitalism, the workers continue to fund the ownership, but they still don't own.

    Declaring socialism to be an economic system in which the state owns the factories is false, because it leaves the workers lacking ownership and control.
     
  25. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You contradict yourself. You said ownership includes the rights to control and benefit, but now you say state ownership is public ownership yet the "public" does not have the right to control and benefit.
     

Share This Page