Capitalism is economic tyranny Socialism is economic democracy.

at some point, this will be our reality

 

Ops, that's what I thought I said.

Not even close to being true. Capitalism DEPENDS on people working and buying services and products. "Oligarchs" happen when an individual conceives of a unique product or service, or how to improve on an existing one. And then busts butts, delays gratification, endures setbacks and eventually introduces his product and people start buying it - that's the key: have to WANT the product. If the product is successful competitors will strife to enter the market so our original guy has to work to deal with that. And for all that work and stress he's allowed to make a profit. And if his product is REALLY GREAT he makes a LOT of money, if not he goes broke.
Along with that he creates jobs, pays taxes and worries everyday how to do better.

 

Nonsense. I don't think you have clue #1 about what "corporatism" really is or how it works. You've been brainwashes by semi-socialists.

 

seems you are the one lacking knowledge to me

I said "greedy Corporatism" not just "Corporatism"

excessive foreign imports, excessive foreign outsourcing and soon AI, is gonna destroy capitalism

 

<yawn> What an absurd load of nonsense. If you think government is the problem, try no government. There are certain things governments cannot do as well as the private sector -- like allocate resources and determine prices in a competitive market -- but there are also a lot of things that the private sector cannot do as well as government, like deliver superior goods and services at low cost in natural monopolies like transportation and water supply infrastructure. When private businesses get a monopoly, natural or artificial, they just reduce production, service and quality to the point of maximum profit.

What about when they succeed by aggravating scarcity to extract monopoly rents?

That is a bald falsehood, and has been proved false many times. Private roads almost always go bankrupt, and the failure rate reaches 100% if they don't get government help. When Margaret Thatcher privatized water supply systems in the UK, quality and service went down while costs went up. In the USA, on average, electric power is provided at lower cost and with better service reliability by publicly owned power utilities than private ones. Health care and education cannot be provided efficiently by the private sector as those who get the service are not exactly the same ones who decide on it or who benefit from it. All such cases of market failure -- which you do not know anything about as you do not know any economics -- are best handled either by strong government regulation, public funding, or public provision.

While there are plenty of socialists who have this immaturity (or dishonesty) problem, many are just ignorant, foolish, and/or misled.

 

It is definitely true, and we are seeing the proof of it every day.

Right. But it also manages to legally entitle the privileged, especially landowners, to take a growing fraction those services and products without contributing anything to producing them.

No, that's false. Oligarchs happen, overwhelmingly, when privilege yields rents that can then be used to buy more privilege in a positive feedback loop. That is always the situation under capitalism.

That describes the entrepreneur. But under capitalism, privilege holders like the landowner take a portion of the wealth that others produce, and do not have to contribute anything to the production of wealth in return. Indeed, the entrepreneur you are incorrectly claiming is the only wealth accumulator under capitalism must first pay landowners -- and often other privilege holders -- just for permission to produce his new product.

Unless he holds a patent that legally entitles him to remove others' liberty rights to produce similar products....

Your kindergarten notion of what oligarchs typically do to obtain and aggrandize wealth under capitalism is of no actual relevance to actual capitalism, sorry.

 

IF we didn't have government interventions, capitalism would work as it's supposed to. The intervention is all there for the benefit of the employees; they have the votes politicians covet.

HOW could I succeed when you think you can't? Most of all- attitude.

 

I've seen how the military changes people's character; it's one of the few ways that happens. And it does take a level of control that is basically not available in the private sector. But the alternative is major crisis; that too can cause people to make fundamental changes. Other than that, role models also have power, but that takes a lot of time. Right now, it's the one means I think we have available to avoid major crisis, and that is why its the core of my objectives. Nothing to lose by trying!

 

You're talking LW mantras and fairy tales. The think was capitalism is that "greedy" rarely enters the equation; most corporations have competitors that want to steal their competitors by selling for less or offering more for the dollar. Yes, profit IS objective of business but if a company overprices its product or turns out an inferior item they won't last long.

 

NO NO. Socialism cannot exist except in an authoritarian government. There are zero examples of socialism in a free society. Capitalism is the only successful economic system on the planet. It works in both authoritarian and free societies. Think about it. You may come around to the truth.

 

why does the right support excessive foreign imports and excessive foreign outsourcing?

 

the means of production is innovation and labor. If people aren't allowed to own their innovations or labor that is tyranny and that is why socialism is always end in famine starvation or genocide. No one can control their innovation so essentially no intellectual property exists. So there's no innovation. Eventually the means of production that exists slowly become no longer profitable.

they don't though. Within capitalism because you can own the means of production you can use your experience from working for someone who is a landowner to become a landowner yourself. Socialists don't have a word for entrepreneur.

that's the biggest load of **** I've ever read. Poverty isn't caused by landowning in capitalism. It's caused primarily by skills changing and workforce being unable to adapt.

that's socialism government is a servant for capitalists not the arbitrator of all things.

It isn't capitalism that ruins its corporatism. Nobody owns the rights of others and private property is not causing poverty.

 

. Who is this "right" you're referring to? Look closer, it's left wing corps like Apple that are doing the most off-shoring.
P.S. The Biden syndicate is definitely not right wing

 

Your poll is ridiculous. "Socialism and democracy or capitalism"? Why not Capitalist democracy (what we actually have) or socialism? Why not just capitalism or socialism? We know the answer ... you had to make socialism appear to be the only democratic model. The irony being that state socialism is the least democratic model possible.

And that's without getting anywhere near the financial absurdities of your propositions.

 

Strange you missed that people can start their own businesses and become evil capitalist overnight thereby escaping your dystopian economic view.

 

both parties support foreign outsourcing sadly, both parties want to blame the other, the corps are laughing all the way to the bank

 

Those are money issues and big governments tend to be absolutely corrupt and ultimately self destructive.
The corrupt bipartisan ruling political class supports that sort of thing.

 

Let's look at some of these ...

1) No private sector. Who's going to do all the profit-driven innovation? Who's going to fund the purchase of all industry and agriculture? How will the Govt which owns everything, realise sufficient profit to continue funding everything, when they charge cost/materials only for their products?

2) Total unionisation. Why would you need unions if all work is for Govt? Without a private sector, there are no other employers but Govt.

3) Affordable housing. A horribly unjust and unfair concept. Straight out of the Grifter playbook. Who qualifies for those urban properties in prime locations? The hard working stiff who earns just a little too much, and therefore lives where he can afford? Or the entitled brat who demands premium urban housing just for existing? Affordable housing means housing you can afford, not housing you want.

And where is the money coming from to support 'better pay and lower prices' (not to mention premium real estate for cheap)? No private sector operating at maximum profit to fund it, so please do tell.

 

I should preference this wish how the public sector is run. Every industry will have a committee that is run by experts in the field. Those committees are in charge of figuring how much everything costs to run, individuals can apply to start their own businesses under the rules of the committees and get funding if they are trying to do something new or innovative. Profits are capped at 200% of costs. Which might sound low but lets say you make a new product for $500 in costs you can then earn up to $1000 on that product, and if your business sells $1000 your business reaches $1,000,000

Because they keep the committees or authorized businesses in check, they have one goal and that is to get the highest pay and benefits for their members as possible as well as make sure working conditions are good. Any of the approved minimal profit companies will be forced to share the wealth fairly between its workers because the industry wide unions will only approve fair contracts.

There will be no "luxury" apartment's they will all look a bit different to reduce the concrete jungle feeling but they will be basically the same size per bed/bath. As for location they will be decided by where people work. People get first pick of apartment's in their zone approximately 30 minutes from place of employment in all direction. So it will go like this.

• On a specific day each year "Leasing season" starts. It's 2 weeks.
• On Day 1 everyone who wants to move puts their apartment's up as intending to be available.
• On Day 2-4 everyone will be given a chance to confirm available or keep their apparent based on current availabilities.
• On Day 5-9 it will be first come first serve for apartment's in your zone.
• Day 10-14 everything will open, if multiple people want the same apartment's (that fits their family size) they will "bid" for their monthly price starting at the minimum rate.
• After everything is done 2 weeks later offical moving day will commence and all those who agreed to move will move out and move to their new appartments.

From the committee calculations the cost of recourses and labor will be calculated and then the combined total devided by number of units for a specific product will be the price. Meaning prices will be lower because no upcharges for excess profits. Even the approved minimumal profit companies will still only be at 200% of cost which is much cheaper than things are today.

 

What, there's some "Corporatism" political party being formed?

 

This would be more effective if you learned to use the quote function.

 

No, that is false, as I proved in my post, which described the actual economic mechanisms at work in capitalist economies.

No it isn't. It's a kindergarten notion of how certain sectors of a capitalist economy work in theory, and has no relevance to actual capitalism, which I described far more accurately.

And do try to learn how to use the quote function.

 

Mondragon proves you wrong on both counts.

Nope. China and HK have proved the geoist system is fully successful and actually superior to capitalism. It works in both authoritarian and free societies. Think about it. You may come around to the truth.

 

You proved nothing - just standard LW nonsense.

Nonsense, all you did was regurgitate standard LW swill.

'scuse the hell out of me.