How does capitalism have a happy ending?

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by apoState, Oct 28, 2013.

  1. Small_government_caligula

    Small_government_caligula Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Those groups are in control of economic policy, they have no interest in the government playing its proper supervisory role. Dishonest dealings turn honest players dishonest, and no one is interested in addressing that. That's why the only way this thing that people call "capitalism" can work for the majority of Americans is if these groups voluntarily relinquished their power or disappear forever.
     
  2. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Government has been co-opted the small percentage of the graft business provides.

    How would a socialist government, responsible for much more of the economy, avoid being co-opted?
     
  3. normalguy23

    normalguy23 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Chin up buttercup. Capitalism is great. The problem really just lies in other areas. Globalization has created a problem for the US job market because now those old middle class manufacturing jobs were out sourced but we just simply have to create new middle class jobs. Our education system is really good but it is not affordable for many and needs some reform. Globalization has created some regulations issues and we are dealing with them as they occur.

    The main thing to remember is that Capitalism is kind of a survival of the fittest system. The more you work and the more skill you possess the better off you will be. Unfortunately as the human population continues to expand at an exponential pace that technology, resources, and markets cant keep up there will have to be people who go without jobs, hungry, without healthcare etc. Anybody who believes in an infinite world filled with finite resources is just living a fantasy devoid of reality.

    On the other hand you have socialism or communism where everybody pretty much gets the same thing regardless of their work ethic and ability, which might be great if your a hard believer in the everyone has to be equal theory but as we have all seen those systems always eventually fail and collapse.

    Sure Capitalism gets exploited by some people which is inevitable with everything in life but people like Madoff, Sanford, and Grupta would show that those exploiters usually pay in the end.
     
  4. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    460
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Capitalism is always wonderful when you have enough capital. Only socialism bailing out capitalism could be better.
     
  5. mutmekep

    mutmekep New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    6,223
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you are so interested check my post history but it will take some time , yes i have answer this several times.
     
  6. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Modern day socialism couldn't exist without the abundance capital provides.

    Capitalism doesn't foster corruption. It acknowledges corruption as significant component of human nature (before the industrial revolution, wealth was amassed by power and theft). Society benefits when the corrupt are pitted against each other, in the attempt to steal our money, our labor. When the corrupt are forced to compete, we get better prices, products, and working conditions.

    Market socialism, pretends to be capitalism, but with no reward for entrepreneurism, will stagnate. With compensation decided by co-workers, the firm will devolve into the politics of personality, at the cost of productivity.

    Socialism assumes the ethics between family members apply to society as a whole. That the worker and the poor are inherently good, that corruption is limited to the people currently in "power". Because socialism relies on family dynamics, it works when kept small, because like any small town, gossip will identify the corrupt. On large scale, socialism lacks the checks and balances required to keep corruption in check, so the corrupt rise in the ranks.
     
  7. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    460
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I am not sure how you arrived at your conclusion. I subscribe to the concept that socialism begins with a social contract, not a capital contract. Thus, states, via statism can manufacture forms of wealth, by government fiat.

    I thought capitalism benefits those the most, who have the most capital.

    Market socialism has built in, wealth creation features, in the US.

    Thus, our Founding Fathers provided an example of how socialism can use capitalism through capital based programs.

    I only agree that socialism requires free social morals to work better than capitalism with capital based morals.
     
  8. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How, by printing fiat money?

    Capitalism doesn't have any "capital contract", it only relies on two or more competing for my business, or my labor.

    Socialism, because it doesn't consider human nature, must have a contract. The corrupt will breach that contract without worry.

    Watch "The Men Who Built America" on the History channel. It tells the story of the biggest capitalist on the planet. They had a very high standard of living. Despite their monopoly (or near monopoly) they still encountered checks and balances that resulted in an increase in the standard of living for us all.

    Please describe how that works.
     
  9. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    460
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I subscribe to the concept that socialism begins with a social contract, not a capital contract. Thus, states, via statism can manufacture forms of wealth, by government fiat. I even provided an example.

    Can you explain how a social contract accomplishes what you claim regarding socialism?
     
  10. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You mean copywrite and patents? Government didn't "manufacture forms of wealth", it protected a property right (not socialism).

    A "social contract" requires people to act against their nature, so can only be enforced by a strong government.

    Who will populate that government, altruist, or the corrupt? The honest, or those that will tell people what they want to hear?

    How do you think a social contract is maintained?
     
  11. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    460
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Our Founding Fathers provided an example of how socialism can use capitalism through capital based programs. They created a right in private property. Our infrastructure is also a form of wealth.

    Our social contract Provides for Government.
     
  12. dnsmith

    dnsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,761
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree with your basic understanding that socialism cannot exist under a democratically elected government. For socialism to succeed the government must be autocratic or dictatorial.

    I don't agree with your comment about a social contract, as ANY LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND AUTHORITIES IN A COUNTRY is a social contract. Social contracts exist in all countries with a constitution or a compact which outlines how the government is to be run. There is nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, in our constitution which implies, infers of suggests socialism. That is Daniel's little dream world.

    so·cial con·tract
    noun
    noun: social contract; plural noun: social contracts; noun: social compact; plural noun: social compacts

    1. an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection.​

    - - - Updated - - -

    Yep! And neither the contract or the government suggests socialism. That is part of your imagination.
     
  13. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    460
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Not at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance which prevents you from recognizing socialism whenever you encounter it.
     
  14. dnsmith

    dnsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,761
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There you go again, misusing cognitive dissonance again. That only applies if one holds conflicting opinions at the same time. I always have the same opinion about socialism, THAT BEING THAT SOCIALISM IS A DISMAL FAILURE. It is obvious you have delusions about what socialism really is in spite of my having posted reference book definitions proving what socialism actually is.

    It is customary for an individual to link the thread to some support when that support is requested. I have asked you for links which define socialism as you seem to believe it is and you have yet to do so. That suggests you don't understand what you are saying and don't want to even try to get support.
     
  15. Tommy Palven

    Tommy Palven Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,560
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Who do you have a Social Contract with, Kemosabe?
     
  16. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is a very weak argument because it depends too heavily on interpretation. Menial-labor jobs may not be needed as much. I just watched a corn harvester follow a GPS-planted row using those same coordinates picking, separating and shucking hundreds of square acres of corn. Only about 10 workers were needed to work on the rig.

    Capitalism, as an economic and political system, strives to retain private owners of profit instead of the State. Using the scenario I outlined above, that means that hundreds maybe thousands of laborers are not now needed to support the corn harvest. Many of these laborers were probably non citizens as well however, many of those workers have transited to semi-skilled labor such as construction, automotive, etc. as the market dictates. (Remember the Market is private owners of capital.....which is every free person).

    Those who are able to control more of their capital will be most successful however, will still need to use their own private capital in order to live the life style they are relatively comfortable with. As they spend their capital, suppliers make money, manufacturers, their workers, etc. There is no better happy ending with any other economic system.
     
  17. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    460
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    We have already established that your line of reasoning only holds true in your vacuum of special pleading.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Our supreme law of the land is a social Contract, and, it is even in writing.
     
  18. dnsmith

    dnsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,761
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not at all. We have already established that you accuse me of special pleading, ie presenting assertions without support or good argument, but in fact it is you who have never supported your strange assertions about socialism without a shred of proof.
    Yes, our constitution can be considered a social contract, and it is clearly written. Yet not a word of that social contract suggests, infers or implies it is directing us as a socialist country or economic system. Your confusion rests with the world "social" which in your strange way think means socialism. Social is nothing more than a word to describe the citizenry. We could as effectively call it a "citizenry" contract, or we can call it what we have in the US since the first days of our independence, a Constitution. It is not a "socialist" document. It is a statement of intent as to the rights, privileges, and authorities by which our citizenry are governed. It is a contract by virtue of those living here choosing to accept its authority.
     
  19. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    460
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You keep claiming that; but you have yet to provide a rational argument for your special pleading definition of socialism. How do you arrive at the criteria that makes a State socialist versus communist?
     
  20. dnsmith

    dnsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,761
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have presented the only rational argument I need. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

    Full Definition of SOCIALISM
    1
    : 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
    3
    : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
    Full Definition of COMMUNISM
    1
    a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
    b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
    2
    capitalized
    a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
    b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
    c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
    d : communist systems collectively
     
  21. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    460
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Simply appealing to a dictionary definition is not equivalent to describing any rational for that definition.
     
  22. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you saying a dictionary definition is irrational?

    Hate to burst your bubble, but Merriam / Webster has a bit more credibility than your interpretation of the Constitution.
     
  23. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    460
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I am saying those of the opposing view have no sound line of reason as to why the dictionary definition, defines what it does in the manner it does.
     
  24. dnsmith

    dnsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,761
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is nothing in your wild imagination which comes even close to those dictionary definitions. Even the wiki link you tried to palm off on us says the same thing in different words. You simply will not accept reality since you are stuck in your little dream world. You want more reason? Find it and link it; then I'll read it and explain it back to you.

    - - - Updated - - -

    BECAUSE IT IS FACT, and I have experienced it and I not only agree with the definition I understand how much of a dismal failure socialism is and how it destroys good people, specifically the ones doing the work that supports the malingerers. What better more sound line of reason could there be? You got one stuffed up your sleeve? Link us to it. Show us your line of reason. You have yet to show us anything Daniel. Either put up or give up.
     
  25. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    460
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    a fact of what and based on what metrics?

    socialism begins with a social contract and creates government.
     

Share This Page