The Case Against Capitalism

dear, common defense = general warfare. Sorry to rock your world.

 

The New Deal programs helped reduce unemployment especially since many of them were work programs. Before the New Deal unemployment was around 25%. Since the stock market crash, unemployment jumped from ~3% to almost 25%. Only after 1933 when the New Deal was enacted did unemployment begin to go down. Then, the pass off to America's command economy in the 1940's pushed unemployment down even further.

I claim Alaska is a socialist state because the citizens own the minerals and all the other resources there. They split the dividends on an annual basis (I may have to double check frequency of payout). The state/citizens owns those resources not any private entity. I shared a link where a law outlines how that those minerals can't be privatized because they belong to the state.

Nazi Germany doesn't have to be a shining example of anything. That doesn't mean that people can't see what policies worked there and use some of the same ideas elsewhere. As bad as they were political-wise, other countries pretty much raided them for their science, technology, and brainiacs. I simply don't see why they couldn't take in some of their economic policies as well.

Regarding your point about the study, that's a fair point. However, 4,000 people are dying daily from the pollution. I'd say that even if the EPA has the numbers wrong, pollution is a major problem in China.

In Alaska, there is public ownership of the minerals and other natural resources. The energy sector is a major part of their economy. Yes there are some private companies there, but the bulk of the economy is public ownership and share profits from the productive use of their natural resources. We may have to agree to disagree on this point. Alaska is heavily socialist and has been doing well with that model since the late 70s.

I don't see the difference between blaming the failures of capitalism on capitalism as you guys blame the failures of socialism/communism on socialism/communism. If people are starving, harmed, and killed under a capitalist system, then those deaths should be rightfully blamed on capitalism.

 

Why can't this same judgmental standard be applied to socialist/communist systems? I'd also like an a list of how you folks came up with all the people who died under socialism and communism. With citations *ahem*.

 

The New Deal command/control Soviet economic policies exacerbated a recession and turned it into a depression. If you want a primer on how a proper recovery should operate look at the Reagan recovery from the Carter administration misery index of ~ 23 in June of 1980 and how quickly the economy turned around after it was realized that the Keynesian Phillips curve was bogus.

You are completely wrong about Alaska. The states mineral rights has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. To claim that Alaska is a socialist state shows a complete lack of understanding.

What Nazi polices do you claim worked ?? Again the world has abandoned command/control socialism economics. The left continues to confuse social safety net programs funded by tax revenues generated by capitalism with socialism.

Where does that claim come from and how is it substantiated ?? China has a population of ~ 1.5 billion. Over 200,000 die in traffic accidents. The 4000 from pollution is tragic but a very small number and most likely involve other contributing health factors.

The issue is on the fatalities which result from economic policies and not on the fatalities which occur in countries which employ those various systems. Since the large majority of countries now use capitalism your logic would blame all fatalities on capitalism. That's faulty logic.

 

It's common knowledge. Do some homework if you don't believe the numbers. The failures of the Soviet and Red Chinese agriculture system are epic. Mao once had all the farmers melt down their metal tools and cooking utensils to provide "steel" for Chines industry. The resulting material was unusable and millions died of starvation.

 

only the clueless and Causeless claim that. words have meaning. there is no general warfare clause.

 

Hold on a second... After the stock market crash in '29, unemployment really jumped. It kept climbing until New Deal programs were implemented. Since the programs, which started in '33, unemployment went down steadily:

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl65"] Year
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, width: 78"] Population[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, width: 71"] Labor Force[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, width: 71"] Unemployed[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, width: 25%"] % of Labor Force[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 64"] 1929[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 78"] 88,010,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 49,440,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 1,550,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 25%"] 3.14[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 64"] 1930[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 78"] 89,550,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 50,080,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 4,340,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 25%"] 8.67[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 64"] 1931[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 78"] 90,710,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 50,680,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 8,020,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 25%"] 15.82[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 64"] 1932[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 78"] 91,810,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 51,250,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 12,060,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 25%"] 23.53[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 64"] 1933[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 78"] 92,950,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 51,840,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 12,830,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 25%"] 24.75[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 64"] 1934[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 78"] 94,190,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 52,490,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 11,340,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 25%"] 21.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 64"] 1935[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 78"] 95,460,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 53,140,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 10,610,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 25%"] 19.97[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 64"] 1936[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 78"] 96,700,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 53,740,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 9,030,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 25%"] 16.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 64"] 1937[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 78"] 97,870,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 54,320,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 7,700,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 25%"] 14.18[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 64"] 1938[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 78"] 99,120,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 54,950,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 10,390,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 25%"] 18.91[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 64"] 1939[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 78"] 100,360,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 55,600,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 9,480,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 25%"] 17.05[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 64"] 1940[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 78"] 101,560,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 56,180,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 8,120,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 25%"] 14.45[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 64"] 1941[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 78"] 102,700,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 57,530,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 71"] 5,560,000[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 25%"] 9.66[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

How am I wrong about Alaska? They call themselves the "Owner State" for a reason. Capitalism is when the means of production, distribution of wealth, etc. is privately owned. Their means of production, distribution is actually publicly owned. This is textbook socialism. Their government guarantees income for its citizens and their government is the major employer. On the scale of things, Alaska is pretty socialist despite some private enterprises operating in the state.

The world is abandoning socialism because they don't want to be squeezed or isolated economically. Communist and socialist countries have faced embargoes from capitalist countries just because of their economic philosophy. Cuba and Russia are excellent examples of this.

The 4,000 per day number is a number that has been climbing since unchecked capitalism was embraced. That number was far lower pre capitalism adoption. World government organizations are tracking these trends and news organizations report on it every once in a while. If necessary, I can try to find a citation based on any parameters you give me justifying the number of dead due to air, food, water pollution.

When you say it's faulty logic for me to blame capitalism for those who happen to die under capitalist economic models, my response is this: If people die of poverty, for example, under capitalism, then it should support my case that capitalism isn't a robust enough system to take care of many.

 

Some of the numbers thrown out there are over exaggerations. Even the ones under capitalism were quite overblown. I had to dig deeper to get realistic numbers for some in my listings.

 

Please review the data you presented. Unemployment went down and then back up again when the command/control NRA and AAA began to control the economy. The reason unemployment went down is because Hoover realized the folly of the fed tight money policy and the Smoot-Hawley trade isolationism. and slowly began to reign those policies and legislation in. Unemployment never went below 14% under FDR prior to the WWII years. How can that be claimed as a success ?? Now compare with the Reagan reforms and results.

Does anyone seriously believe and can offer evidence that the state of Alaska is an example of socialism ?? That's ridiculous. They own mineral rights just as all other states do. That is not in any way proof of socialism.

The world is abandoning socialism because central planning does not work.

What was the starvation rate pre capitalism reforms. Do some homework on Deng Xiaoping.

What capitalistic policies have resulted in the starvation of people ?? How many people are starving in China before and after Deng's reforms ?? There is your answer.

 

Dig deeper and focus on the policies resulting from command/control that resulted in the deaths under socialism. Capitalism has done more to improve the lives of the world's poor than any other economic system.

 

Central planning is what wins wars, not business deals. Why the need for such exorbitantly expensive superpower, if you really believe in Capitalism?

 

Do some homework on Bill Knudsen and get back to us. BTW, the Brits thought that since "central planning" won the war (although the US bailed them out) that "central planning" could just as easily control the economy (do some homework on William Beveridge). They considered assigning children to career paths based on test scores. Margaret Thatcher had to the bail them out of that one. But they still have the burden of the NHS.

I do again note the lack of depth of thinking from the "bumper sticker" left mentality.

 

No need. Central planning won WWII not capitalism. Central planning also won us the Moon Race not capitalism. All those of your point of view have, is a fallacy of false Cause.

 

How many children starved to death so a couple of dudes could walk on the moon?

 

danielbackwards strikes again. If true no country could have ever lost a war!!

 

this is true. World history never really changed for 20,000 years and then was utterly transformed by capitalism. It for example just eliminated 40% of the entire plants poverty when China switched to it. There is nothing remotely comparable to it in all of history. Anyone opposed to it 100% stupid and deadly.

 

Bill Knudsen is about command economics, period

 

Bumper sticker that.

 

"In January 1942, Knudsen was commissioned a Lieutenant General in the U.S. Army, the only civilian ever to join the Army at such a high initial rank,[9] and appointed as Director of Production, Office of the Under Secretary of War. In this capacity, he worked as a consultant and a troubleshooter for the War Department.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Knudsen"

too long for a bumper sticker.

 

"Please review the data you presented."

What I presented was a timeline of the unemployment rate going down from its highest since the New Deal was enacted in '33. Even though unemployment climbed for two of those government interventionist years, unemployment continued to drop right after the government addressed a few problems in the Deal(s). Still, even though unemployment climbed for those two years, that rate was still lower than it was when the Depression took off.

I call it a success because prior to intervention, unemployment was climbing until a quarter of the workforce was unemployed. Since intervention, unemployment dropped steadily (save for the 2 years of course).

"Does anyone seriously believe and can offer evidence that the state of Alaska is an example of socialism ??"

I don't know what more evidence you'd need. Alaska is basically petro state. Its main economy is energy unlike the vast majority of the US. Hardly any of the resources, including land, are privately owned since most are state/publicly/citizens owned. They have a fund that redistributes wealth generated from these resources.

My support: https://books.google.com/books?id=e...=alaska public ownership of resources&f=false

www.northrim.com/home/fiFiles/static/documents/econ_whoownsak.pdf

Alaska is not a capitalist state.

"The world is abandoning socialism because central planning does not work."

Some abandon socialism because they can't survive the sanctions. Others adopt socialism, but call it something else to avoid ostracization.

"What was the starvation rate pre capitalism reforms..."

They were much higher. Of course they were much higher pre other modern models too. The overall point is highlighting the gaps and flaws in the capitalist economic model. Yes it's a wealth generator, but it is not robust enough to address all those neglected and deprived under it.

"What capitalistic policies have resulted in the starvation of people ??"

It's more of its refusal to address markets, regions, and people that won't provide profit.

 

actually, a Depression would not be considered a success!! 1+1=2!!! FDR prolonged Depression into a world war that killed 60 million.

****Here's what Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury (the man who desperately needed the New Deal to succeed as much as Roosevelt) said about the New Deal employment stimulus: "We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"

"The New Republic"( at the time a FDR greatest supporter") noted. In June 1939, the federal public works programs still supported almost 19 million people, nearly 15% of the population" [page 313]

In fact in 1939, unemployment was at 17%, and there were 11 million additional in stimulus make work welfare jobs. Today when the population is 2.5 times greater we have only 8 million unemployed. Conclusion: legislation to make Democrats illegal
is urgently needed

 

most importantly China abandoned socialism after it had slowly starved 60 million human beings to death in the greatest tragedy of human history and then adopted capitalism which became the greatest economic miracle in human history. Liberals who lack the character to accept this obvious fact are as deadly as those responsible for the 60 million who slowly starved to death.

 

Capitalism has done more to extract wealth for private profiteers. Government interference, including the infusion of money, into the markets have done more to improve the lives of the world's poor than any other economic system.

 

Ted, Ted, Ted, Ted, Ted. The Great Depression started in 1929. At that time unemployment was around 3%. The next year unemployment jumped to around 8%. Each year after that unemployment jumped until it reached around 25% in 1932. Now, enter major government "Deals," or recovery programs, in 1933. Since 1933, unemployment began to go back down. When the economy went into command mode, unemployment was pushed down even further.

You can spin it as a government failure, but when the government decided to not intervene, the unemployment rate jumped upward year after year with no hope of it ending in sight.

 

1) actually it was called a Great Depression because it was a great depression. A depression is a very bad thing. As per usual socialist measures prolonged it for 16 years including a world war which led the FDR administration to say:

"We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"

"The New Republic"( at the time a FDR greatest supporter") noted. In June 1939, the federal public works programs still supported almost 19 million people, nearly 15% of the population" [page 313]

In fact in 1939, unemployment was at 17%, and there were 11 million additional in stimulus make work welfare jobs. Today when the population is 2.5 times greater we have only 8 million unemployed. Conclusion: legislation to make Democrats illegal
is urgently needed