Potential Alternatives to the Capitalist System

Gov expanded in the twentieth century. The model was the Soviet Union which was dishonestly claiming large economic growth through central planning. The truth is no known. Capitalism is the best economic system for improving the standard of living. The standard of living was much lower in the 19th century but annecdotal claims that this was the result of capitalism are dishonest. Compare the relative progress of the standard of living in the US against other economic systems. It is vastly superior. Incidentally the UK also had a Golden Age in the 19th century due to an economic system based on free market capitalism.

 

you mean like when capitalism instantly lifted 40% of the planets poor out of poverty when China switched to it. A liberal is anti science and anti reason. He will look at East/West Germany and want to copy west Germany. He will look at FL/Cuba and want to copy Cuba. Liberalism is too stupid to be legal in America. In fact it is the opposite of everything America was founded for.

 

Not all of China is polluted, but most of it is.

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/air-quality/map.php

Speaking of Mao, as unfortunate as the deaths that occurred under his reign was, he is not the only one to have a number of deaths occur under his watch. Famines, genocides, and other atrocities were committed under capitalism and Western powers too. So, it's unfortunate people died, but bringing up death tolls under socialism/communism as if they don't occur under other systems is another double standard in which pro-capitalist judge other modern systems versus how they judge this one.

 

Looks mostly moderate to me and the map is of fine particulates of which the data used by the EPA to justify policy in the US has not been made available for external review and other measurements do not agree with.

The deaths under Mao were a direct result of his policies. Same for Little Joe. That is the correct metric with which to judge.

 

You really never heard of the suicide nets and the people dying at work in China?

 

We obviously have different ways of qualifying improvement of living. Your mention of 60 million deaths under China and USSR is 1) a gross exaggeration and 2) not applicable to every place that implemented communism. We should be able to parse economic systems from the government policy so that we can evaluate either the best combination of economic systems and governing or a whole 'nother idea for a new system.

 

Capitalism is the private ownership and control of productive assets. The state committed genocide, not private owners of productive assets.

 

Capitalism isn't for improving the standard of living. It is simply a wealth generator for the owner of production and distribution. Matter of fact, many people in the 19th century were still poor while they were working. Even now in the 21st century, we have millions of people who work, but they are supplemented with government assistance. The capitalist system simply isn't robust enough to take care of anything or anyone outside its profit margins. This is why government is usually demanded to step in time and time again to relieve suffering from the masses. Adam Smith, the "Father of Capitalism" said as much himself:

“Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions.”
― Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
​

Many people don't know this, but the (federal) government is like the largest employer in the United States. Government picks up a whole lot of slack from capitalism, which is why I don't understand why capitalism is defended so heavily.

 

Ted, we been through this and I've yet to receive a direct answer from you. Capitalism is a great wealth generator, especially in short-term bursts. Now, in China, if they can't get the pollution under control within 15 years, because heaven forbid entrenched capitalist allow alternative energy methods to develop, what happens to the poverty level when there's no air, food, water to use/consume?

Meanwhile, I'm not advocating a copying of anything. What I want to do is host conversations on possible alternative economic systems to capitalism and a possible method of transitioning. If I have to defend unapproved systems to keep the conversation open, I'll do it without blinking.

 

Who is preventing nuclear energy from being implemented, capitalists or the state?

 

But the result of captialism is the highest rate of improvement in the standard of living. There is no question about the fact that capitalism has moved more people out of poverty than any other economic system. And that most of the globe's countries have abandoned command/control economic systems and adopted capitalism. The US federal gov is paid for from the wealth created by capitalism. The fact that it is so large is a testament to capitalism despite the parasitic nature of big gov.

 

China's economy has slumped to a gdp growth rate of ~ 6% due to capitalism. They will clean up as the standard of living improves. They have made the decision to continue placing economic growth first and "promised" to start reducing CO2 emissions starting on ~ 2030.

 

I believe it is pretty safe to say that China has an air pollution problem. Air purifiers and face masks are common commodities in many parts of China. Air pollution really is a serious problem.

 

Some parts do as do many areas in developing countries. The Chinese had to shut down coal fired power plants which have no pollution controls for weeks prior to the Bejing Olympics.

 

Capitalist like Leopold II was responsible for millions of deaths just so he could extract rubber for the markets and make a profit. He was the private property owner of all the productive resources when he extracted his rubber. He's just one example of deaths occurring under a capitalist, but he's never mentioned when talking about capitalism. People in charge can have terrible methods when implementing their systems or engaging in some pursuit. However, imho, implementation methods should have little bearing on the idea of an economic system, though they may serve as a cautionary tale for a certain type of government. I feel safe saying this because there are examples of communism and socialism that weren't implemented violently.

 

Neither. Both are involved with developing technologies for its renewable energy, but people in general seem pretty apprehensive about the idea of the production of civilian nuclear power.

Renewable energy in general has to overcome major economies of scale, which is something that naturally occurs in capitalism. Renewable energy markets are pretty unattractive to capitalist and would serve as direct competition to existing energy markets. To solve for this, government tries to offer incentives for development. As they do this, industry leaders in the (non-renewable) energy sector lobby against it.

 

How did this Leopold dude acquire his rubber plantations? Did he purchase them from their previous owners like a capitalist would?

- - - Updated - - -

Are you trying to claim that the state doesn't prevent the implementation of nuclear power?

 

He bought out other private investors.

- - - Updated - - -

I won't claim the state isn't hesitant about implementing nuclear power for civilians. They are reluctant yes, but the state is the reason why nuclear power use was expanded in the first place even to provide energy to civilians. The U.S. government allows, supports, and even funds research, development, & implementation of nuclear technologies. It's just that the government likes to have major oversight over it, which makes sense to me considering the technology is literally radioactive. The government gets pressure from concerned citizens over the use of nuclear energy too, so I can't claim the government prevents the implementation of nuclear power.

 

The 'big gov' is not parasitic, this is something you are seriously wrong on. Government is an integral part of capitalism, it ensures that private property is defended from worker agression. On to command economies, it is also a branch of capitalism with aspects of socialism strewn onto it on an ideological basis.

 

Of course gov is necessary for any nation. But gov in the US has grown to the point that it is parasitic. Bill Clinton stated that the age of big government is over and did indeed slow the growth although he was not able to stop the growth. Bureaucracies do one thing very well - they grow and continue to put out regulations justifying their existence which serve questionable purpose and stifle economic growth. Total gov expenditures now are approaching 40% of gdp. That is a parasitic condition. Since the late 20th century there has been a global move away from command/control economics because command/control consistently fails to deliver adequate economic growth.

 

It is the most basic principle of America but you have to be literate to know it:

"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."

-- Thomas Paine

 

the issue is whether govt supports capitalism or whether it supports libsocialism and Obamacare to move away from capitalism toward single payer communism.

 

Do you understand that it's still a non sequitur?

But owning land IS more profitable than owning other things, and its ROI is higher, which is why millions have become rich by buying land, while very few ever become rich by buying stocks or other assets. Assets tend to be accurately valued in the market, but risk aversion means returns in the indefinite future -- which dominate the returns to land, unlike other assets -- are heavily discounted.

Wrong -- in the real world from which you are so obviously estranged, different asset classes have widely various returns, as already noted -- but your claim is ignoratio elenchi in any case. The fact that owning slaves might not have been more profitable than owning other assets doesn't mean owning slaves wasn't a racket for thieving parasites.

 

Why do you do this to yourself?

You are 100% wrong, as usual, sunshine:

http://nrn.com/blog/why-mcdonalds-wont-ever-get-rid-its-real-estate

http://blog.wallstreetsurvivor.com/2015/10/08/mcdonalds-beyond-the-burger/

"Instead of making money by selling supplies to franchisees or demanding huge royalties…the McDonald’s Corporation became the landlord to its franchisees.

They bought the properties and then leased them out – at large markups."

You are destroyed.

Again.

 

if so then Apple IBM Facebook and a million other corps would sell other things or everything and buy land. 1+1=2. Feel silly now?