The problem of Capitalism

Again, this is a red herring. You are "probing" for opinion. I refer directly to what their economics informs. Now, if your "probe" was correct, they'd be referring to heterodox economics. They aren't. Bit obvious really, so I'm not sure why you're still playing kiss chase with right wingers.

A nonsensical return. That they referred to supply side economics, repeatedly, is just obvious right wing comment. How would supply side economics be anything but?

This amused me, given you don't actually make any economic comment. Its not for me to decide which economic approach is correct. Is it Marxist? Is it Post-Keynesian? Is it Institutionalist? They all have their relevance in tying to understand economic outcome. What I do know, without any doubt, is that someone peddling supply side economics is not left wing. It doesn't take much insight. Its feckin obvious.

I don't really care about your stance. I just know that you don't use economics to support it. You're therefore irrelevant.

 

I'm not a 'they', I'm a SHE, but thanks for thinking of me in your private moments

Meantime, if you think capitalism is condemned by everyone left of centre, that just shows you don't understand the Left.

The average Lefty is so far from condemning capitalism that they might as well sport forehead tattoos declaring their love of the filthy lucre. I'd go so far as to posit that less than 1% of them would ever give up the freedoms, choices, and privacies of personal capitalism in the interests of socialism. IOW, they're total fakes. What they call themselves and how they actually behave are two entirely different things.

As for the less than 1% who are genuine .. for them the bottom line is ALWAYS pragmatics. IOW, 'what feeds the most people', and 'what facilitates the feeding of those people the most'. The answer is capitalist democracy. Democracy provides the freedom to choose people instead of luxury - capitalism provides the opportunity to own the property needed to do that.

 

Keep up building the record against the violent sociopaths. I assume this forum will be available thousands of years from now, as will the drivel of the truncheon-wielding sociopaths.

 

Capitalism is an economic system that is controlled by price moves.
"Basic Economics" - Thomas Sowell

In a Free Market, individuals act in their own self-interests to the benefit of others.
"Basic Economics" - Thomas Sowell

Many markets, other than Free Markets, are capitalistic. Not all Free Markets are capitalistic.

An easy to understand example of Free Market Capitalism is the illegal drug trade.

 

Good point !

Who knows, we might live long enough to see them get the totalitarian enforced 'redistribution' they dream of. Can you imagine how funny that would be? Sittin' in his/her cushy, private, capitalist-funded armchair, reading that legal demand just delivered by those scary looking New Military dudes, advising them to: 'Report to Potato Farm #357 at 6am next day. No personal items allowed (basic provisions will be issued upon arrival in your allocated dormitory)'

 

Omg, that made me actually LOL

 

When I'm feeling particularly pee'd off with the berserk demands of fake socialists, I like to indulge a little "I hope you get it". I enjoy picturing the middle class white poseur being bodily removed from their overpriced home in their acceptably hip city .. red framed glasses torn from their face, glass of 2010 New Zealand shiraz knocked from their hand, copy of The Guardian carelessly trodden into the mud by New Military boots .. then loaded into the back of a truck with the uneducated rednecks they'll be dorming with at the Potato Farm.

 

I give you credit for being way more patient than I have ever been.
But future generations will see this and will understand why it's wrong to be a violent sociopath.

 

I suspect I'm driven by the abiding anger of seeing the Left hijacked by posturing boojies.

 

I know that we don't agree on everything, but I find you to be a decent person and one who is truly interested in an exchange of ideas.

 

A good thing about socialism is that production will directly satisfy demands. A question how does the companies will work in socialism and who owns them?

 

EXIT POVERTY

Look up the word "socialism". You will find that it means "production of goods/services is provided by state-owned enterprises". Which exists profoundly practically nowhere in any developed economy.

As a general consideration, there are two KEY public services:
*Defense of the nation - meaning the DoD, and
*Healthcare of the nation (which is demonstrably key to human life-span).

So what is "all the rest"? There's a lot of stuff in that phrase, which most of us tend to overlook. Principally, however, the two key elements* for any truly "functional economy" is (1) a National Healthcare Service* to provide a healthy workforce and extended lifespan.
(2) Free Tertiary-education to assure workforce-competence in the skills that a highly developed nation absolutely needs nowadays (as we leave the Industrial Age and enter the Information Age).

Which the EU has in abundance and the US does not! And it is why taxation is so high in Europe compared to the US, where one must pay for what they get in terms of many crucial social-services provided by private companies/institutions. Moreover, in the US, of the Total National Discretionary Budget, close to 57% goes to one component - the DoD (see here).

Which means that if you want a free-education in the US, you do military service and IF YOU SURVIVE you get a free education to obtain the necessary skills for a good job. One has to be a "very young fool" to take that chance. And yet, there are many who must do just that - given that at a state-university a 4-year diploma costs $14K per year! How do you want a family of four earning the Poverty-Threshold income of $25K a year to send their kids to university to exit poverty ... ?

 

That's very true. I believe so too that US's system works for wealthy. But let's not concentrate on the flaws of one country and discuss on the ideologies.
One of the problems I see in capitalism is the private ownership of major industries. These industries are shaping humans' lives and they have thousands of workers working for them. These workers have families and millions of people are using their products and even dependent on their products.
So imagine that these industries are owned by a very small number of individuals (maybe just hundreds) .
First of all these individuals will earn almost all the income from these industries and just pay a very small percentage to the workers (sth maybe between 5 to 10 percent). When infact that's the workers who are doing the job. THEY are the ones who are producing and are essential to the industry and not the owners. But at the end of the day that's the owners who will put billions in their pockets and throw a little portion very unwillingly for thousands of workers and their families who actually got the job done.
Second , since they own these companies they can follow whatever policy they want. And since millions of people are using their products they can manage these people in whatever way they see profitable for their pockets.
So these capitalists have the power to dictate.
Some countries nowadays are bragging about their so-called democracy. Where you can choose your destiny by vote.
But the unfortunate fact is that no matter what the results of the elections are these are the capitalists that dictate the course of actions to the governments.
Unless the result of the election is someone who defies the capitalism itself.

 

Look at you attacking the left again! Kinda cute

 

Early market socialism was focused on the economic planner mimicking the Walrasian auctioneer, delivering "perfect competition-plus". We know that won't wash, with the practicalities of quantity-based planning generating allocation problems (and a stunted economy). The answer is ironically provided by Hayek. We need worker ownership of large firms, eliminating the need for the economic planner who is hampered by distributed knowledge (which is only solved by maintaining the market). We also need to maintain the entrepreneur's tacit knowledge, such that SMEs continue to drive technical progress.

 

(As usual, your analysis is totally erroneous....and that's being generous; I have already exposed your "race to the bottom" fallacy).

No, the "average Lefty" wants to see fair (not equal) sharing of the "filthy lucre".

https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahki...ottom-50-of-country-study-finds/#427db20e3cf8​

"Bezos, Gates and Buffett held a combined fortune of $248.5 billion in mid-September, when numbers were locked in for the 2017 Forbes 400 list. Since then that figure has risen to an estimated $263 billion, thanks largely to Bezos, whose worth has jumped more than $13 billion as the result of a surge in Amazon’s share price".

IOW, while 3 Americans have as much wealth as the bottom 50%, the average Lefty (say, Biden) reckons we can raise more in taxes in order to improve social services for the working class, and perhaps also infrastructure that benefits the entire nation. And indeed both Gates and Buffet have said they should be paying higher taxes.

[An aside: as you know, I'm an MMT'er who would direct the government to issue the currency to pay for desirable social policies, limited - not by the money tied up in the accounts of those 3 people, along with the other 500 billionaires in the US - but by the available resources and productive capacity of the economy).

Most clearly expressed in this statement:

One of the most staggering revelations of MMT is that taxing or borrowing from the private sector is NOT necessary, that money is inherently a public resource, created by the federal spending decisions of a currency-sovereign state, and thus there is no requirement to siphon money back from private hands before vital social and environmental programs can be implemented.]

But no-one has to give up anything, that's just your intellectual deficit speaking (I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's only an intellectual deficit, and not something more sinister, such as a desire to maximise your OWN access to the nation's available resources, goods and services).

Pass...

IOW, Utilitarianism?: ie the greatest good for the greatest number?

Back to your ideologue mode...

???
Democracy gives people a vote in the election of a government.
You didn't specify WHOSE luxury you are referring to (certainly not the 60% who cannot find $1000 from their savings in an emergency).

??? .....needed to do what?....

Ownership rights are protected under Article 39 of The Property Law of the People's Republic of China, which gives the owner (or lessee in US terms?) the right to possess, utilize, dispose of and obtain profits from the real property. ... In general, rural collectives own agricultural land and the state owns urban land.

 

That depends upon the country. and the nature of the relationship with politics. It's very tight in the US due to funding of electoral outcomes (which always has a "payback"). Less so in Europe but neither is Europe wholly without its exaggerated wealthy.

The problem being that we allow politicians a very long career thus allowing politicians to manipulate taxable revenue thus enhancing their Net Worth. (Especially when a Donald Dork reduces upper-income taxation, and that extra-money flows back into his reelection campaign fund!) A real democracy does not need "professional politicians". In fact, the greater the turnover in politics, the less "politics" interferes with Markets and thus the lives of people without the ability to manipulate politicians.

The experience with Communism, however, shows that we can't have it the other way around either. The bent of humans to "control and profit personally" is a tremendous force, and with the demise of Communist regimes those who ran the regimes became "overnight capitalists" and now enjoy enormous wealth.

And it will always be that way for as long as we, the sheeple, permit it to happen. That people get rich is likely an unstoppable outcome in any economy. But that they become "filthy rich" and pass it on to their family inheritors is not the best solution either. That money of Exaggerated Wealth should be taxed far more heavily and re-inter the economy by means of government services (like, for America, a National Healthcare System) instead of wending its way to banks in Switzerland or elsewhere ...

 

Good thing is, we don't have to agree - or share politics - to get along

But thanks for the kind words. Appreciate it!

 

You certainly share economics. Supply-side economics seems to get everywhere, from anarcho communists to right wing libertarians

 

1) Redistribution is never 'fair'. I refer you back to my assertion that 99% of Leftists are raging capitalists.

2) Yes, they do. A socialist state means giving up almost everything the middle-class Lefty adores. Freedom, individuality, privacy, discretional spending, work choices, housing choices, travel, shiraz. If you think all of that stuff will be retained, then you're not talking about socialism. You're talking about capitalism with a name change. Socialism means relative poverty for all - not more for a few people, less for another few, and the same as always for everyone else.

3) The sustenance of all members of the collective, yes. That requires pragmatics above all else.

4) LUXURY as in freedom of choice, freedom of movement, freedom of work choice, privacy, discretional income. All the things every citizen of the First World has access to. None of which come with a price tag, and all a matter of CHOICE. Let's look at that word again ... choice - precisely what you won't have in a socialist state. Nor privacy, nor any say in how your life plays out. You won't have the LUXURY to choose success or failure. Moving on from those luxuries you apparently don't even recognise as such, there is the added (immense) luxury of social programs like welfare and public education.

5) Needed to secure the sustenance of the most. Wholly owned property is essential to the long term security of any collective.

 

Being honest about us, you mean. You should try it some time.

 

Yes, that is the idea. Subsistence.

 

By ensuring their kids are prepared well in advance for an education that will allow them to exit poverty. That's 100% free, and requires only full parental commitment in time and focus, from day one.

That's how all poor families escape poverty. They don't do it by drinking beer, watching tv, and complaining.

 

I take it you're ready for your certain poverty? Ready to give up all your freedoms etc?

 

Us? I know of no lefty that supports supply side economics. It necessarily leads to an attack on labour rights and intensifies wealth concentration.