It's Capitalism, Not Globalism

Huh? I am speaking of many economic systems throughout history.

 

Heavily regulated education for 100-150 years. Heavily regulated healthcare for 70 years. Heavily regulated pensions systems for 80 years. Centralized banking and nationalized monetary system for 100 years.

Huh. Must be those darn capitalists at fault! What we need is more authoritarianism and even totalitarianism!

 

The prevailing form of U.S. government is a constitutional republic that includes a universal democratic voting franchise at its core, not an "oligarchy" (and not a "democracy," a "plutocracy," etc.) or whatever other flagrantly inaccurate terms you attempt to misapply. The preceding is an irrefutable, denotative, legal (but not in the remotest sense "ideological") fact.

If ever I encounter a leftist who starts with "here's the problem with a constitutional republic..." instead of the gross abuses of reason and language that they inevitably fabricate, I might listen to their opinions politely and without rudeness because they would at least have STARTED on the path of knowing what they are talking about. Instead it's always "the failures of capitalism" and misusing words like "oligarchy," together with exhibiting fatally flawed (mostly just plain ignorant) conceptions of commerce and finance.

 

The two are independent. A corporation can buy out competition, thus expanding market share, and try to recoup the costs by raising prices or cutting quality or quantity. We see it all the time.

Are you really going to tell me that refrigerators didn't last any longer 40-50 years ago? Maybe you're too young to know.

I didn't say or suggest that and you're changing the subject.

 

Ah! So you don't know about it, eh? It goes way back. Back when the artificial sweetener "cyclamates" were found to be carcinogenic and the government banned them, candy companies were left with huge inventories of now poisonous candy. The government used your tax dollars to buy up all those poisonous candies and gave them to poor countries as "Foreign Aid". Imagine giving poisonous DIET candy to people who are starving and suffering poor nutrition! But it helped the candy manufacturers with their inventories and helped them profit. This is all too common but you don't see foreign aid as having anything to do with capitalism! LOL!

 

You said "Those without wealth create and expand government to confiscate said wealth. In a free society, there will be haves and have nots."

Are you saying the U.S. is an exception?

 

Not true. Regulation helps.

"“Between 1995 and 2008, for example, the United States slipped from ranking second in college graduation rates to 13th, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development”
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-12-07-us-students-international-ranking_N.htm

“The hard truth is that other high-performing nations have passed us by during the last two decades. Americans need to wake up to this educational reality, instead of napping at the wheel while emerging competitors prepare their students for economic leadership,” Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said in a 2010 press release responding to test results showing large gaps between the national performance of American students and students in high-performing nations such as Korea and Finland.”
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/01/24/stanford-scholar-reexamines-u-s-ranking/

Maybe you don't remember when health insurance companies were non-profit and your cost of your share of your family healthcare plan through your employer we about $25/month.

Maybe you don't remember when the standard formula for defined benefit plans was that after 30 years they, plus social Security was supposed to provide your ending salary when you retired. Then it was all deregulated and pensions have all but disappeared.

Maybe you don't remember how in the 70s and 80s you could get 2 or 3 points over inflation as the interest rate on your bank savings account.

Are we making progress yet?

 

without capitalism and free trade, the third world (which is an outdated phrase) would be in far worse condition. Developing countries ability to provide quality of life for their citizens is a positive relationship with its ability to sustain trade, develop industry, and maintain rule of law and property rights. All of these are consistent with capitalistic and free trade ideals. In fact, I would go so far as to say, investing in capitalism is the only hope for developing countries to sustain improvement in quality of life.

Your fact is neither inconvenient nor a reproach against capitalism.

 

One good example is China.

Before Deng Xiaoping came to power as Chairman of the People’s Republic of China and instated economic reforms that gave China’s economy some capitalistic characteristics, China's economy was centrally planned. Since the period of economic reform, China has evolved greatly economically. China’s economy is “currently the world’s second largest economy after the U.S.” (Economy Watch). Additionally, the nation is a major player in the global economy, as its contribution to economy has “increased from 11% in 2000 to over 13% in 2004 which in turn, dwarfs the share of the economies of Japan, France and the U.K.” (Economy Watch). Due to China’s economic boom, the Chinese are enjoying higher standards of living and are able to buy “consumer goods such as cars and television sets, which were once reserved for the elite” (Economy Watch). This increase in consumption has also led to negative environmental impacts as more and more natural resources are exhausted to meet the demands of Chinese consumers. The changes in China’s economic policy contributed to the country’s economic success.

Although economic reform helped transform the course of the Chinese economy, China’s status as an economic superpower is also due to a variety of factors namely capital, technology, markets and most importantly, its abundance of cheap labor. Capital and technology were acquired by overseas investment, and the necessary market of exports emerged through the demand of foreign consumers such as the United States (Wang). However, China’s economic success is not the result of solely these three factors, but also a cheap, “young and productive labor force” (Wang). The element of cheap labor was essential to China’s economic strength as businesses sought to maximize profits and minimize expenses. China’s role as an economic world power is largely due to China’s large population and the great number of workers it provides.
http://alexatsintolas.weebly.com/economic.html

 

Exactly

 

This is funny considering the immorality of systems not based upon free markets.

 

Give me an example of this happening with a maintenance of the gained market share with a reduction of value. You must believe the robber baron fallacy?

Are you really trying to tell me the refrigerator market hasnt changed over the last 50 years? Manufacturers are offering what the market demands. Technology is obsolete before functionality ceases. Hence, people want Technology laden refrigerators that have a life span of 10-15 years.

So, you aren't pushing for more centralized control like you were earlier in the thread?

- - - Updated - - -

How in the hell is that an example of capitalism, lol?

- - - Updated - - -

No, the us is a perfect example of all classes using government to expand their benefits.

 

And what lack of regulation are you attempt to attribute that to?

You are correct when was that?

What does that have to do with an insurance company being non-profit?

Depended on the program but the only thing that is supposed is the YOU are SUPPOSED to make you are providing for yourself and your participation in it but you can certainly do that now with IRA's and 401k's.

Pensions have disappeared because people were losing their retirements when the companies or the pension fund went bankrupt nor were they good taxwise for the recipient. 401k's and IRA's are much better than old defined benefit packages.

Well if Obama and the Democrats had managed to get the economy into a full recovery 4 years ago and the FED hadn't been holding interest rates to near zero in order to keep the economy at least with it's nose out of the water you could be getting those rates on CD's again.

No but get the Democrats out of office and perhaps we will.

 

Here you go,

[video=youtube;pktOXJr1vOQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pktOXJr1vOQ[/video]

 

This is, however, an inexorable, not an accidental outworking of the capitalist system. That is, it's an inherent and fatal tendency and contradiction of capitalism.

 

I don't remember a time when those companies were selling insurance. Insurance is indemnification against unexpected loss. I've been around almost half a century. My mother worked for Blue Cross, so I remember that quite well. I then moved to Kaiser (which is still a non-profit.) I've been with Pacificare, Aetna, and several others during my career as an employee (I now am an evil capitalist exploiting labor). None of them ever provided insurance. They provided plans that covered certain costs, whether expected or not. Calling it insurance is abuse of language. Maybe that's pedantic, but lots of people abuse language to serve their agendas.

And why did the employer provide health plans, anyway? Oh yeah. Price controls. On labor. What you don't realize is that what the employer pays for those plans comes right out of the total cost of employment. Your employer doesn't care what your salary is, only what it costs to employ you. If they pay $1000/month for your health plan, then that's $1000 you don't get to take home and decide what to do with.

Going back to that total cost of employment thing....

And banks were charging 10-15% on a mortgage. Was that a good thing? It was part of the regulatory environment.

Do we have fewer regulations? The size of the Federal registry would say otherwise. It sure is nice to have the ability to fly just about anywhere in the world at a competitive rate. Maybe you'd go back to the days when only wealthy people could afford to travel?

- - - Updated - - -

The anti-capitalists have no idea how wealth is created. They just assume that if you move paper around, everyone becomes wealthy. When you don't move paper around, it's probably a conspiracy by greedy people.

 

Here’s a tip, a bit of advice for all of you apologists for and defenders of the nonexistent honor of the capitalist system out there. I would suggest that you don’t take the lame tack of xwsmithx above, of simply denying the empirical reality of the inbuilt defects, contradictions, and cruelties of capitalism. This approach is fine if you’re just preaching to the converted, to your fellow pro-capitalists whose heads are already filled with conservative, “libertarian”, free-marketarian jive and who are consequently unable to recognize capitalism’s grievous imperfections, but if you’re trying to persuade folks who don’t yet share your partisan belief in capitalism, well, it falls somewhat flat. It would be a much smarter strategy to forthrightly own up to capitalism’s quite serious intrinsic faults, and then to attempt to explain how capitalism might be reformed so as to free itself from its congenital bugginess. That is, it’s your burden to explain how capitalism can be fixed without ceasing to be capitalism, without evolving into some kind of a mixed economy; or transcending into socialism and placing our society on the enlightened path to a form of economy that fully embodies an awareness of the social-relational nature of existence, i.e. a form of authentic communism.

Well, I would argue that this can’t really be done, that you can’t show how actually-existing capitalism can be reformed without being transformed, healed of its inbred pathologies without being morphed into something other than capitalism because capitalism’s contradictions go to the very core of its character and therefore to rid capitalism of them would require its fundamental transfiguration, the end product being no longer any form of capitalism. But, nevertheless, capitalism’s apologists should go with this tack, as the only alternative is the dishonest and ineffective refuge of denial, of claiming that capitalism’s sins are nonexistent, or are actually strengths. Well, if you think that this subterfuge, that, to use the colloquial analogy, urinating on the heads of those whom you’re trying to convince and telling them that it’s raining is actually working for you, by all means keep at it, but it’s actually just more evidence of how self-deluded you-all are.

 

Oh my god, please rush out to a book store and buy this as soon as possible.

 

I still haven't seen one word about how capitalism is defective, or creates all the horrors you think it does. Humanity is filled with horrors, capitalism makes them slightly better by requiring everyone to engage in transactions that are mutually beneficial to both parties. In communist countries, you are forced to work at the point of a gun. In capitalist countries, you are free to work or not work as you see fit. That doesn't mean you get to EAT, but you are free to not work.

I'm often curious about the underlying psychology of those who take positions that run counter to all evidence to the contrary. In your case, you seem to be pathologically opposed to assigning responsibility to individuals for their own failures. You extend that to communist countries, which you refuse to blame for their own failures and instead blame on the evil America. Just what is it you don't want people assigning blame to you about? How have you failed that you're unwilling to take personal responsibility for?

I would remind you that the first people killed in every communist revolution are the so-called intelligentsia, meaning anyone with a college degree. You wouldn't live to enjoy your communist "utopia".

Yes, capitalism is horrible. That's why 44 million Americans have fled the US and moved to socialist Mexico. Oh, wait.

Did I watch your video? No, I'm atheist. Any theologian's opinion is just that, opinion, not fact. But since you have no facts on your side, I'm not surprised you couldn't find any. Try reading The Black Book of Communism sometime. I have.

The only thing that needs to be reformed about capitalism is getting the government out of the way. All of the failures of capitalism are actually failures of government. Pick something (anything) at random that you think is capitalism's fault, and I guarantee you that there was a government policy in place that interfered with capitalism. Housing bubble that wiped out black and Hispanic wealth in this country? Clinton's housing push that created worthless loans by the thousands. Great Depression? Deflationary monetary policies. Health insurance costs? Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamacare. Government is the problem, capitalism is the solution.

Night view of North & South Korea: http://todayilearned.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/picture-of-north-korea-at-night.jpg I think the Holocaust denier label would be more appropriate to YOU.

 

You make the same mistake everyone does before they understand economics.

1. The economy is not zero sum
This simply means that the wealth of one individual does not preclude the other from wealth as well. If someone goes to school and becomes a brain surgeon while the other starts landscaping, the brain surgeon's wealth does not doom the landscaper to poverty. The landscaper can become wealthy herself by accumulating enough clients.

This is similar to comparing the wealth of countries. The US' wealth does not come at the expense of any other country's wealth.

With that said, if you are concerned with the well-being of foreign countries, you would do much better by them to examine what political environment prevents them from adopting a free market platform. Usually the culprits are:
1. Bad government - does the poor country in question feature a despotic leader? Is it a democratic republic with fair elections? (probably not)
2. War - does the poor country in question feature continuous unrest due to war? It is difficult to run a business in peace time, war would only make things harder
3. Natural resource trap - does the country have an abundance of a natural resource? If so, this can make it a target for military coups as warlords seek to profit by controlling said natural resources.

There are many traps that developing countries fall into. Economists have studied these traps. One of the best books I found going through my economic curriculum was The Bottom Billion. It was written by an Oxford economist that devoted his life to understanding the challenges of global poverty and uprooting the causes that seem to hold certain countries in poverty perpetually.

Non-economists mean well because their hearts are in the right place. Unfortunately, raw emotion does not lead to productivity. Compassion does not put food on one's plate. Charity goes as far as the check will allow it. The only long term solution to poverty is to engage in trade and capitalize on your comparative advantage.

 

And the former Sec of State is a prized whore of Wall Street and defense contractors, like both Bushes, WJC, and BHO before her

 

You seem to be saying that and attributing it to me. Strong fail.
Further, capitalism is an abstraction. It is incapable of purposeful action.
Individuals practice bilions of purposeful actions every second, but abstraction do nothing

 

Ive never seen anyone from any side on this forum convince another person from an opposing side to convert. The odds of that happening are just slim to none.

I do engage in these conversations to test my own logic to determine if there are any weaknesses. And time after time, I see emotional pleas from socialists that tend to ignore things like economic efficiency, property rights, and competition. They ignore hundreds of years of economic axioms. They ignore the most basic axioms such as comparative advantage. By doing so, they don't need logic for their arguments, just emotion.

You rarely see a socialist arguing from logic because they would wind up contradicting themselves.

Perhaps we can start by asking you: what is your goal for an economy and what are the flaws of the free market as you see them?

 

Tilting at windmills, whatever that means. It is normally called "health insurance".

Fact is that if those plans were eliminated or the cost covered by tax dollars, the employers would not just give the savings to the employees. So far you're not doing well here.

No, mortgages were more like 7-8%. I bought a house in 1982 at 6.5%.
Zero for three. I'm done. There's no point.

 

It was Friedman's ideas that brought us to where we are with a recovery only for the rich and decline for the rest.