It's Capitalism, Not Globalism

Capitalism is always about profit and it's the job of the government through policies to mitigate this issue and somehow brings forth a balance as to keep business afloat while providing good salary and stable jobs for the working class who kept it going. Somehow in a global scale some countries tried to defy this supposed ideal notion by sacrificing the labor cost as to entice the capitalist. The competition is all about who will get the bulk of the investment.

 

Actually, the capitalist world system is not at all a good thing for billions of economically disenfranchised and immiserated human beings in the Third World whose economic disenfranchisement and immiseration it's principally responsible for. But hey, why allow an inconvenient fact like that to get in the way of spouting cliched rhetoric to tout the goodness of capitalism.

 

Oh, so all that you have to offer is the old rubbish that the deviations of our system from the ivory-tower model of capitalism are the only causes of its evils; and that the remedy for the actually intrinsic, and actually quite incurable, pathology and toxicity of capitalism is simply more pure capitalism! Once again, apparently I need to inform a true believer in free-market utopianism that actually-existing capitalism, with all of its considerable rottenness, is the thoroughly dystopian reality that capitalism inexorably presents us with.

 

Well, actually, the form of society that I advocate would entail the complete abolition of the capitalist ruling class, aka the controlling moneyed interests.

 

Firstly, authentic socialism has indeed always been the same thing as authentic and comprehensive democracy. Secondly, given my explicitly expressed anti-capitalist viewpoint I'd hardly say that defining globalism as the globalization of the hegemony of capital and its elites is polishing globalism up to look nicer. And lastly, the trouble with the use of the word "globalism" is that it fails to make explicit that the evils of globalism are in fact the evils of capitalism, and instead facilitates the xenophobic nationalist's error of painting the economic and political integration of humanity per se as the problem and the etiology of all of our economic ills. That is, the word has the unhelpful effect of misdirecting our critical attention away from the capitalist system, and of tragically promoting an unenlightened nationalistic mentality that opposes progressive change.

 

You simply hew to official, ideological (in the Marxist sense of the word) definitions to deny inconvenient and unlovely realities.

 

LOL! Mm-hmm, blame everything, except the ultimate and glaring source of capitalism's dysfunctions and decline, the capitalist system itself, and its inherent contradictions and defects.

 

Yes, I can certainly relate to how you feel. Trying to communicate a critical point of view on capitalism to its willfully dense and inveterately dogmatic defenders can be quite exasperating if one allows it to be. Simply be happy when you succeed in getting through to one of them, however don't ever get your hopes up, as they tend to be quite thoroughly self-brainwashed.

 

What's going on as we speak?

Jobs being exported to foreigners, and importing foreigners to do jobs for cheaper, at our expense.

 

Franco's Nationalism achieved the fastest economic growth in 20th century Europe.

 

Imagine the quality of life of a person in 1870. Now, complain about government's welfare system depressing wages through the subsidizing of illegal immigrants cash income. Don't give credit to capitalism for the quality of life difference and blame capitalism for the immigrants low wages. You see what type of logic dance it takes to get to your position?

 

You had a good post going until you used the term "xenophobic". Sorry, I do not buy into the liberal progressive mythology. Any god created by progressives lately has "phobic" on the end of its name. In the old days they just put "ist" or "ism" on the end of the myth, such as "racism" or "sexism".

 

All revolutions are led by moneyed interests. No group of revolutionary citizens are going to overthrow the moneyed interests.
No government officials are going to overthrow the moneyed on your behalf. For sure they wouldn't be sharing the spoils with you.
Not a chance. Sorry to rain on your parade of dreams.

 

this is the source of all market distortion and massive government privilege that advantages select entities to the detriment of everyone else.
Thank your government which has given these entities vast power, in exchange for personal gain.

 

FDR achieved the best economic growth in 20th century America, and Franco achieved the best economic growth in 20th century Europe.

Just goes to show the economic viability of a government which manages an economy within a Capitalist framework.

 

I see what kind of logic dance the greedy elites have played, and they've busted our balls, by first bringing in Blacks, and now Hispanics to recklessly maximize profits, at White America's expense.

 

So, if we completely destroy an economy, the government can then create a growth rate greater than the free market had the market not been destroyed. This doesn't convince me to choose the central authority option.

- - - Updated - - -

Excuse me, I thought I was actually dealing with someone reasonable. I apologize for the waste of your time.

 

No, Communism is slightly worse than Capitalism.

But, if we work with a managed economy, within a Capitalist framework the best results can be achieved, like in Franco's Spain, or FDR's America.

 

What's the benefits of having illegal Hispanics flood the U.S.A?

Only one benefit to line the pockets of greedy Capitalists from cheap labor.

The rest is just a detriment, including cutting down wages, putting less into the tax system, taking more in welfare, putting extra pressures on schools, police, and jails, and of course their dangerous neighborhoods, and the demise of White America.

If this is what Capitalism is about, then I say NO TO CAPITALISM.

 

When businesses attempt to gain more market share, customers gain value. When governments limit competitors or provide one competitor with an advantage, customers lose.

Calling the EpiPen greed and constantly railing against it to create legislation limiting profit margins will postpone future healthcare breakthroughs by limiting payback on large R&D costs. Also, the gap between provider and customer filled with a 3rd party fraught with government intrusion creates a false elasticity of this product.

You assertion on the value comparison of refrigerators was terrible and zero value add. Refrigerators are more complicated due to the public demanding more options. Also, the capacity and functionality of refrigerators have greatly expanded. I haven't seen a relative table describing the percentage of a person's income that a refrigerator consumes in a timeline comparison, but that doesn't really matter considering most refrigerators aren't purchased to replace a broken one.

I will gladly invest in your bank if you open one and pay higher than market savings account rates. Also, what is free market about Fed Reserve interest rates?

I don't know your point.

Government involvement in education loans has fueled that bubble the same way it did the housing bubble. Those that created the housing bubble openly admit their goal and the means to get there if you simply want to find it. The lesson is manipulation of the market renders less quality results than the market.

I am going to need a link stating these diseases are on the rise and not just the identification of these diseases due to expanded testing and treatment procedures. There are now several studies showing that fracking isn't the boogy man your hyperbole makes it out to be. Pick one.

What would you have a sane person do when presented with so much falsehood?

 

Can you cite what you base this opinion of the role of government upon? I can cite those that disagree with the premise of those that you will cite if you can cite them.

 

Huh? Capitalism has led to the plight of 3rd world countries? I simply can't follow this assertion.

 

For how long? Those with wealth create and expand government to protect said wealth. Those without wealth create and expand government to confiscate said wealth. In a free society, there will be haves and have nots.

 

Here you go. https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_7?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=road+to+serfdom&sprefix=serfdom%2Caps%2C152

That was written about 75 years ago and explains the problems with a managed economy pretty well. The communication of prices and the allocation of scarce resources are very simple, but still not solved in a centrally managed economy.

 

You seem to believe that capitalism, being in control of its destiny, would opt for morphing away from capitalism and into a different, unidentified form that is no longer capitalism. Would that be because of altruism, greed, or stupidity?