Why can't capitalism stop its excesses, greed, and other damaging characteristics?

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Kode, Sep 30, 2017.

  1. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    and oddly who is the most popular politician in America today: Bernie Sanders, an open communist who said,
    " it is silly to have 23 deodorant companies when people are going hungry" Do you think deodorant and health care are the only two industries over which he wants command and control? As I said, liberals have a strange attraction to the Soviet and Red Chinese genocides. Who can explain it, who is willing to try?
     
  2. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    31,639
    Likes Received:
    6,997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It goes back to the 30's when FDR sent "experts" back to the Soviet Union to study their economic success which of course was a colossal lie. They came back and started the NRA and the AAA both of which were declared Unconstitutional. The lovers of BIG GOV however have never let go of their delusion however. They wish for the perfect system no realizing that for that to work they need perfect citizens (all of them). And that's the fundamental problem - to enforce command/control a very strong and disciplined (ruthless) leader is required. What could go wrong ??
     
  3. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting, but maybe it goes back to Jesus and his promise of heaven. Notice that Stalin Mao Castro Pol Pot felt they had to destroy religion and heaven so people would follow them to create heaven on earth.
     
  4. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    31,639
    Likes Received:
    6,997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's faith based. Actually the destruction of the Christian religion has occurred in the countries of the EU. What the elitist leaders did not think through when allowing large numbers of immigrants from primarily Muslim countries is that those immigrants are extremely religious and favor a theocracy form of government. They also have of course very disgusting views of gays, women, and family honor. As an example and noting that rural areas of countries are normally less tolerant of alternative life styles - in the UK ~ 15% believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. In "cosmopolitan" London however ~ 30% believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. London also has a Muslim mayor.
     
  5. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    maybe but that was not due to govt policy. In USSR Red China Pol Pot's Cambodia destruction of religion was part of the govt policy that killed maybe 150 million human beings. Our issue is why liberals are so attracted to these policies which ultimately became genocidal.
     
  6. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    31,639
    Likes Received:
    6,997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Religion must be destroyed so that the state becomes the only religion in town. With that morality declines and anyone who criticizes the state is fair game. You might enjoy Benjamin Wiker's book - "Worshiping the State".
     
  7. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the first significant push back against the liberal state came when Jesus( the first conservative Republican) said, give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.
     
  8. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    U.S.A. 1929 to 1945.
     
  9. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    22,087
    Likes Received:
    5,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1925 didn't present the poverty if 1917 Russia, and 1945 had just fully entered industrialization. We didn't have the military advances of 1985 Russia. So what are you talking about?
     
  10. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    8,888
    Likes Received:
    1,834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    PROGRESSIVE TAXATION

    It can create excessive inequality - but that does not mean it automatically does create that finality. So the question to be answered is "Why?"

    The answer is the lack of sufficiently progressive Income Taxation, and I would maintain as well that a maximum limit (beyond which income taxation reaches 100%) is necessary for complete assurance that revenues will be "fair and equitable". Higher taxation permits governments to obtain revenues that are spent to assure the basic amenities of life for the poorest. Which is only right and just.

    The US was created based upon the premise that a monarchy was not a suitable political system, since all power was vested in a single person. What the US did not think in the 18th century is that taxation was necessary to assure "fair and equitable" revenues throughout the population.

    That notion had not occurred to even one patriot at that time. The American nation was on the cusp of Age Change - as the Agricultural Age was giving way to the Industrial Age. That evolution proved the ability of an economy to generate massive wealth held by a comparatively small number of families.

    Who were being rewarded - yes! - for their initiative and risk taking. But nobody thought of how much the reward would be. In fact, one was branded a Communist to think that all income should be shared equally. Yes, "the equality of income" was a certain far too much and therefore an exaggerated reaction to the massive fortunes being made at the onset of the Industrial Age.

    THE UNDERLYING NEED OF "FAIRNESS"

    Frankly, nothing has changed since - even if the US adopted Income Taxation in 1913. Today, regardless of the taxation imposed, the consequence remains this:
    [​IMG]

    What more does anybody need to understand that top 01.% of the population are obtaining the same percentage of Wealth as the bottom 90%. How as that justified?

    The unfairness of our market-economy is proven and cannot be denied. The drastic lack of income fairness is the primary reason why 14.5% of our population are incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold eking out a living. That is, more than 46 million men, women and children ...
     
  11. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    22,087
    Likes Received:
    5,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Right. So why don't we have sound, progressive taxation?
     
  12. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    8,888
    Likes Received:
    1,834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because Americans don't give a damn.

    They vote "personalities" not issues. How could almost half the voters vote for a guy like Donald Dork, who could care less about their sort. All he wanted was to become PotUS because he did not know what else to do with his life.

    And, for some curious reason, he hates Obama and wants to destroy his legacy ...
     
  13. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,960
    Likes Received:
    900
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It does unless it is countered by extreme government interventions.
    The answer has been known for centuries: privilege, especially landowning, which capitalism requires by definition. Additional privileges have been added under modern finance capitalism, especially the banks' privilege of issuing money and IP monopoly privileges.
    Nope. Wrong. Progressive income taxation is just a band-aid treatment that relieves the symptom but does not cure the disease. It is always inherently wrongful and will always be ineffective in securing justice and prosperity because it does not distinguish between income earned by commensurate contribution to production and income taken by dint of privilege, in return for no contribution to production.
    Income taxation can inherently never be fair or equitable, as proved above.
    Wrong again. Higher taxation of wages enables government to spend more on desirable services and infrastructure, but the entire value of that spending is taken by landowners, as the Law of Rent and the Henry George Theorem prove. The more the productive must pay in income taxes to finance public services and infrastructure, the more they also have to pay landowners for land, for access to the same services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for. The result is greater, not reduced, inequality. Therefore, income taxation can never solve the problem, only make it worse. Get that through your head once and for all: your "solution" is PART OF THE PROBLEM. You just don't understand how.
    Wrong again. The Founders knew perfectly well that taxation of land value was necessary to liberty and justice, which is why they made a land value tax the only source of federal government revenue in the Articles of Confederation. Rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners just refused to pay taxes on their land, and threatened to start and finance a civil war if the federal government attempted to collect them. The result was the Constitution, which bans the only possible solution: direct taxation of privilege.
    Wrong again. See above.
    That is inevitable under private landowning, as the Law of Rent and the Henry George Theorem -- and all history -- prove.
    But as Mill pointed out, the landowner takes it all, without any need for initiative or risk taking.
    Why do you claim it is fairer to tax the productive according to how much they contribute to society, rather than taxing the privileged according to how much they take from society?

    Please answer that question.
    That should tell you something. But I'm guessing it won't. Japan is far more equal than the USA, but its income tax is lower as a fraction of GDP. According to your "theory," that's impossible.
    That is false. Taxation of the rents of privilege guarantees reduced inequality. It has done so everywhere it has ever been tried, to the extent that it has been tried.
    You will never address that inequity by taxing income, because most of that wealth consists of uncrystallized capital gains that have never been received as income.

    GET IT???
    Because it is not a FREE market economy but a privilege market economy. Private ownership of land is inherently a subsidy given to the landowner at the expense of everyone else, and can therefore never be part of a free market economy.
    Wrong again, as proved above. It is PRIVILEGE, not income inequality, that is the enemy and the cause of the problem.
     
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,960
    Likes Received:
    900
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. That is a false dichotomy fallacy. Liberty, justice and truth is also an alternative to capitalism.
    More importantly, their theft of capital reduces the amount of capital available for productive use, reducing society's wealth, while the capitalist theft of land does not reduce the amount of land available for productive use. That is why capitalist societies are inevitably wealthier than socialist ones.
    But why empower them to take even more through privilege, as capitalism does?
    No. Capitalism makes opportunity that would otherwise be available into private property, depriving everyone but its owner of it unless they meet the owner's extortion demands.
    Refuted above. Capitalism is better than socialism, communism or feudalism, but that is damning with faint praise. It doesn't mean it is the best system possible.
     
  15. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,960
    Likes Received:
    900
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because the US never had nation-wide poverty. But Meiji Japan far surpassed Soviet "success:" by taxing land, it went from a poor, feudal backwater to a global superpower capable of defeating Russia in a single generation.
     
  16. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,960
    Likes Received:
    900
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to Marx's cretinous fantasies, that is...
     
  17. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    22,087
    Likes Received:
    5,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It comes down to the people, doesn't it. I have to admit that I'm very troubled by the extent to which the average American voter is brainwashed by propaganda and also doesn't care to examine and reconsider that propaganda. Not only were the votes for the Child in Chief shocking, but also the continuing defense and support is indefensible and portends a grim future. But a grim future will finally awaken the people, even if a bit too late to solve the problems simply and easily.
     
  18. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    22,087
    Likes Received:
    5,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeahright. But when we talk about socialism or communism whose analysis comes to mind? To whom do we attribute these ideas mostly if not Marx? The first thing people think of when those are mentioned is "Marxism". That being the case, what did I say that was incorrect? And is there any known political theorist who claims communism can be imposed on a nation?
     
  19. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    8,888
    Likes Received:
    1,834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Marxism is so out-of-date, why harp about him? He's history.

    But, what you describe above is the RabidRight trying desperately to link Social Democracy to the far-Left and sink it in acrimony. It is stoopid defense of the status-quo necessary to keep Upper-income Taxation spigot full-open for Donald Dork and his class.

    With the richissime Koch Brothers calling the shots from behind the scenery ...

    NB: There is no Communist-Party run country left on this planet - aside from the spoiled-brat in Pyongyang. China is an "autarchy" communist only in semblance, given the rise of the plutocrat-rich in that country. It is the second richest country on this planet, and has became so by introducing capitalism. (And exactly like the US, most of the riches go to a select percentage of the Rich Class, who are buying homes in Vancouver (and the West Coast) to send their kids to school there.)
     
  20. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "The " liberty justice and truth" economic policy. I've heard of capitalism, Keynesian, socialism, communism but I never heard of yours before. Just make it up?
     
  21. TheNightFly

    TheNightFly Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    18
    It's not capitalism that has problems, it's the market- the system of laws that regulate capitalism and human activity in general. There are two very different kinds of capitalist markets- free and captive. The defining characteristics of free markets is the absence of monopolies and a high degree of self employment. There is no ownership over art and technology in free markets and therefore no exclusive rights. Real (physically tangible) property is all that matters. The defining characteristic of captive markets is the domination of manufacturing and publishing monopolies and a very low degree of self employment. Modern monopolies don't own and control entire industries, they just own and control all the art and technology. Artists and inventors deserve recognition for their contributions but recognition means giving credit where credit is due, not monopolism.

    So, the solution to our economic problems is to liberate the captive market by abolishing monopolism but, the laws in the US are unnecessarily complicated and unnecessary complexity is the hallmark of incompetence and corruption. All of the economic problems that working people suffer with are due to bad legislation and bad legislation only comes from bad legislators.

    There are many kinds of government but they all fit on a scale that represents how concentrated or distributed legislative power is in a society. Monarchy is the best example of totally concentrated legislative power. Democracy is the best example of totally distributed legislative power. A republic fits somewhere in between based on the percentage of citizens who participate in it. The legislatures of the United States have very tiny percentages of participation and therefore sit very close to the dictatorship end of the scale.

    So, before we can liberate the economy, we must empower ourselves to do so by abolishing this multi-layered union of corrupt legislatures and replacing it with a single constitutional democracy.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2017
  22. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    22,087
    Likes Received:
    5,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Countless groups and organizations on the left focus on Marx and look to Marxism as their source of class analysis. Marx is not "out-of-date" to them and he won't be as long as capitalism rules the planet. Rather, it is the top-down approach of seizing state power by force that has failed. That approach is what characterizes the communist parties of the world and that approach has failed for identifiable reasons. Starting at the top doesn't work.

    Above you said the problem with taxation is that people don't give a damn and they vote personalities, yet you speak of social democracy and democratic socialism, both of which will require the intelligent vote of the voters. But the worst part of those two approaches (SD and DS) is that they continue the failed strategy of starting at the top and then are supposed to establish socialism while capitalists are still in control of the economy, and so they start out with "socialist-type" programs as the New Deal did. And we see what has happened to The New Deal as the capitalist class has chipped away at it and now stands positioned to deliver the final blow that eliminates every last significant vestige of it. Every gain has required that it be continually fought for to preserve it and still we've lost in the end.

    The lesson of the top-down approach is that it doesn't work for known reasons. The new strategy is to build socialist economy NOW, starting at the bottom with worker-owned, worker-directed cooperatives. A Rutgers study found they boost productivity by an average of 4% and boost profits by a whopping 14% on average. That is a formula for success and no capitalists are involved. -Neither is communism or a communist party involved.



    The NK "communist party" is not Marxist and NK is not a socialist country just for the record (I'm not saying you claimed they are).


    And they will collapse into economic failure eventually once their country has extracted what it can from the capitalist system.
     
  23. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    22,087
    Likes Received:
    5,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But capitalism, or whatever you would want to label it, is following the precise path of degeneration described and predicted by Marx.
     
  24. TheNightFly

    TheNightFly Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Capitalism is the freedom of individuals to profit from selling whatever they chose to produce with their real property- land, crops, livestock, tools, and materials- thereby permitting individuals to employ themselves and maintain their financial independence from banks and governments. There's nothing degenerative about it.

    Parliaments and republics, on the other hand, are degenerative when they create laws that protect monopolies from competition by prohibiting individuals from employing themselves.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2017
  25. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    8,888
    Likes Received:
    1,834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    WE ARE LIKE CHILDREN

    You are making some exaggerations. First understand the foundational definition of a Social Democracy. Which is this (from here):
    Humanity has evolved its existence into market-economies where capitalism is a means of exchange, like barter once was. If capitalism is smeared also with the blame of unfairness, that is unfortunate. But that notion is a human mistake, and not intrinsically of capitalism per se. Textbook definition of 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.

    If the share-out of business profits has been grossly incongruous, and it has (!), then that is the fault of the politicians who have designed taxation mechanisms. Social Democracies tax heavily income, and arrange for key services to be provided towards obtaining an egalitarian society. The US far too lightly taxes upper-income.

    Moreover, by what law are Management Benefits uniquely management's. Why not apply the distribution of benefits top-to-bottom in varying degrees as a consequence of hierarchical responsibility?

    And if Americans would stop having conniptions every time the word social is applied (in a context other than "church social") the country could move ahead and leave the Donald Dorks to their well deserved demise. But, the American people are not ready for that passing.


    Making a megabuck
    is still the nation's "dream come true". We are like children ...
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2017

Share This Page