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

When you write "capitalist", I think you mean "statist".

A central bank is not capitalist. A central bank is statist.

 

That comment does not reflect what I wrote at all. It just substitutes a different discussion.

 

You said that a central bank is capitalist. A central bank is a creature of statists and the state. So, essentially, you're totally wrong.

 

Nope. What I SAID is contained in your quote to which you replied, and to restate it, I said....

"As I added a bit too late, nothing government does stands against the top capitalists in any fundamental way regarding their perceived "right" to keep accumulating private profits and private wealth. So the government, no matter what it does, is not anti-capitalist. Their actions may not be exemplary of "true capitalism" but neither are those actions in direct, fundamental conflict with private ownership and private profit for the accumulation of private wealth. The accumulation of private wealth continues."

 

If a person supports a central bank then they aren't capitalist. They are statist.

A central bank is a statist, not a capitalist, institution.

 

Since there is no known, viable plan/program/political force for statism, it isn't contrary to capitalism and you haven't proved central banking is harmful to the interests of top, rich capitalists and undermines them while being favorable to any other class and offering an alternative to capitalism.

The VA isn't "capitalism" either but it doesn't threaten the top, richest capitalists.

 

A central bank isn't harmful to the statists that want it. That's why they had the government institute it. It's harmful to capitalists, though.

 

Let's remember that this whole argument evolved from a comment in post #1000 by "Natural Citizen" who said "We do not have capitalism. We have a planned economy. " Accordingly, my argument has not been one regarding the nature of the central bank or central banking or the VA (although I raised that as an example). Rather, my argument has been consistently that your arguments are not about forces that threaten to overturn the wealth and power and direction and the continuation of the accumulation of wealth and power by the top corporate elite. And that means we don't have an economy that is contrary to a "right" to private profits. As you yourself have said, a person is quite free to start a private business and hire 10, 20, 100 or more people to work "for" him. So capitalism continues to be our economic form even while in crisis and the claim that "we do not have capitalism" is false.

 

We don't have capitalism. We have a planned economy.

 

A capitalist economy with planned features. A "planned economy" is not the name of a type of economy, like feudal, capitalist, socialist, or communist. It just an expression of an aspect of the functioning of the economy in one corner of it.

 

It's not capitalist. It's statist.

 

Shoulda just gimme a sticker and say NattyC wins the Interwebs.

 

Milton Friedman was ok with a central bank and he was hardly a statist. Central Banking conspiracy theories abound as much as UFO theories. Friedman's idea was that a gold standard (like one in place when Great Depression started) or fiat standard both required a lot of management and both could succeed equally as long as through good management they avoided inflation or deflation.

 

Right. right. Just keep repeating yourselves over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, and then just stand your ground "I'm right and you're not". I thought that ended in the 5th grade.

 

A central bank is not a free market thing. It's a state thing. Are you a statist or a free market person?

 

Let me just put it this way. If there were no state, then there would be no central bank. The two go hand in hand.

 

Friedman was most influential free market person in human history

 

I think that anyone today would do themselves well to study economic theory and monetary policy. It's necessary to have an understanding of them, if only a remedial grasp, it will lead to a better interest in trying to understanding eventually. This is the shortcoming of so many young people today.

That's just my personal thought on it. But I only come around here briefly every year or so.

 

Don't forget the central bank's collection wing, the IRS. Haha. It's no coincidence they were both created in 1913 along with the 16th Amendment.

 

Definitely one of the best.

 

Definitely a statist concept. Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises, Murray Rothbard and most recently Dr. Ron Paul illustrated this beautifully.

Central banking should be thrown on the trash heap of history.

 

The VA is not a free market thing either. It's a VA thing. Are you a "VAist" or a free market person?

 

But again, this doesn't prove whether we have capitalism or not.

 

Oh then you're the guy to answer this for me.... I was reading remarks at the 54th Annual Economic Forecast Luncheon by John C. Williams, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. He said:
"The challenge for policymakers is that at present our two goals, maximum employment and price stability, are somewhat in conflict with one another. As I’ve explained, with such strong employment numbers we would normally expect to start seeing inflationary pressures building. But the unusually low prices of certain goods and services, combined with the lagged effects of the economy on inflation, means we have this unexpected situation where we’re acing one goal, while struggling with the other. .... The usual remedy for undesirably low inflation is to keep interest rates low."

Ignoring for the moment that the CPI is a gimmick designed to drive the cost of government pensions and "entitlements" down over time and so gradually slides backward in relation to real inflation (underestimates it), and therefore the real inflation rate has been quite a bit higher than what the CPI tells us, please explain to me how the inflation rate can be "undesirably low".

 

Well, first of all you're going to have to demonstrate that you comprehend the difference between CPI and Chained CPI if you're going to ask questions like that. That is to say that i will be helpful for me to explaine inflation to you if you can demonstrate that you understand the nature of you own question. Okay?

If you could demonstrate a grasp on the difference for us, we can talk about illusionary highs and lows and why they're allowed to lie about inflation as a consequence of one or the other. I know which one, for the record. The question is do you. And judging your question, I dont think you do. And that's okay. We're here to learn. Right?

By the way, the GOP just adopted chained cpi into the recent tax bill. Heheh. That's going to put the working class into a higher tax bracket eventually and combined with the fact that our 4 cent dollar will be further debased thus lowering purchasing power even more. That'll be a monster. It's actually a tax increase but nobody will see its full effect until 8 year from now given it's gradual increase over time.

But anyway. Forget about that for now. Show us you know the difference between cpi and chained cpi and we can go from there. Thanks!