Obama Confused About Taxes...

It stabilises an economic system prone to crisis.

Of course even the very existence of modern capitalism is the result of government: from protectionism to the creation of key public goods that enable economic development

 

This is stabilization?

Capitalism didn't exist until government was formed? There was no nomadic traders, that went tribe to tribe exchanging goods between groups that wouldn't otherwise meet?

 

See what would happen without government policy? No chance! Capitalists wouldn't allow it

I referred to modern capitalism. Suggesting 'market exchange=capitalism' is a basic error

 

A problem created by corporatism and government policy? Capitalist didn't have a chance.

How did I make an error when you never limited the conversation to "modern capitalism"?

As far as I'm concerned, man's nature hasn't changed much in the last 50,000 years, and capitalism is at least as old.

 

A problem created through neo-liberalism, where the sham of free market economics was used to enable the hegemony of the financial class.

I referred directly to modern capitalism. In contrast, you responded with a basic fallacy. The market isn't a sufficient criteria for capitalism. There's no debate in that.

Sounds like you have a very simplistic view of human behaviour.

 

I responded to what you wrote.

Examples where you are wrong.

I ask again, how many companies are started by trust fund kids? Why not?

Your statements in this thread.

 

And capitalist fit in this how?

You need to get a job with the Creationist or the MMGW crowd.

Why, do you think human nature has changed significantly over the last 50,000 years?

 

The financial class feeds off instabilities to create rent. Even capitalists can be cretinous!

This is a particularly uncunning reply. You made a very basic error. Be a good chap and admit it: The market isn't a sufficient criteria for capitalism. There's no debate in that.

I believe we're complex and that human behaviour cannot be understood within a static simplistic approach. I also appreciate that right wingers often have to assume that simplicity in order to hide from economic analysis

 

Now that they have the power (thanks to government colaboration) the financial class creates instabilities it feeds off of - as an example, good old George Soros.

Which "the market" would that be? Capitalism is human nature, and doesn't need a criteria, just the slightest opportunity.

Where did I say human nature was simple?

I asked if you thought human nature had changed in 50,000 years, you dodged the question.

 

You ignored how the 'blip' in capitalism was created: the use of free market economics to peddle neo-liberalism.

Are you seriously going to deny that you've peddled a ridiculous (and clearly unsupportable) 'market=capitalism' fallacy?

This is a nonsensical comment. We could, for example, over-simplify human behaviour and accept the neoclassical understanding of rational economic man. Even then we have nothing that is capitalism specific, given its easily implemented within socialist analysis.

You've made comment that implies desperate simplistic: ignoring time dependencies and also the riches of behavioural economics.

Dodged? I effectively sneered at the suggestion. There's no stagnancy in human nature. Even perceived good and bad traits are fluid and related to specific culture.

You need to assume simplicity to peddle the garbage that your ideology is based on

 

The evils of corporatism are not an indictment of the free market.

yes, the "sham of free market economics" as you so eloquently described it.
You are very wise.

 

No, it's a reason for regulating markets. Funny how reality doesn't accord with market evangelists.

 

Market regulation is just one aspect of corporatism.

Funny how you fail to realize that government "regulations" mostly serve to benefit entrenched interests and mega-corporations at the expense of small businesses and marginal firms. Only the supremely naive believe that government will "regulate" their corporate masters and allies in a way that would benefit the working classes. But you go ahead and believe your little statist fairytale; it's what your government and corporate overlords would want.

 

I love this meme.

You're pretending that regulation would be good if only gummit wasn't so influenced by the wealthy. When in fact you're quite happy to have the wealthy dominate society completely -- which is the real reason you don't want regulation.

What's funny is, if regulation were a tool of the rich, you'd expect them to be for it. Yet they aren't. Go figure.

You keep pretending to make a sincere argument; and I'll keep pretending to take it seriously.

 

Artificially low interest rates, Freddie and Fannie kissing up to Barney Frank because they needed his support, so are buying loans a loan shark wouldn't touch, derivatives that had already proved fatal in 1996 with the failure of Long Term Capital Management, "insurance" based on selling short a failing companies stock, too big to fail - private gain, public loss, etc. etc. etc. What exactly was free market about that?

When the government isn't selling it's services to the highest bidder, where regulations aren't written by corporatist to create defacto monopolies, etc, etc, etc...

You are really hung up on the simplified human behavior.

What a dichotomy, first you state that I am "desparately simplistic" to suggest man's nature hasn't changed, then talk about the riches of economics based on that same behavior. ROTFL.

We understand more about our drives, our fear, what motivates us than we did 50,000 years ago, but they haven't changed in 50,000 years. Our world view has changed, not the mind that is doing the viewing.

Is that a bit of arrogance - I would never have guessed.

The same adapatability that allowed us to walk out of Africa, walk / raft to Australia, the sail to South America. To follow the ice from France to North America, cross the land bridge from Siberia. Man was never stagnant.

Free market capitalism is as complex as nature, a billion different thing happening, supply and demand adjusting prices and productivity in an amazing harmony. Companies thriving, dying, stumbling, winning, losing, learning. New ideas, new combinations of existing ideas, new products, new services. Wealth that provides leisure unheard of 200 years ago, the time to learn far more than necessary for mere survival.

And you consider that garbage? What is your ideology based on?

 

corporatism is "regulated" markets, which we now know, have failed.

try again.

 

no, he said it benefits the wealthy. He never said it would be good, in any way. But go ahead and create his argument for him if it will help your debate prowess.
And can you say "meme" again, its' so cute when you say it, over and over and over and over and over,................and over again.

hey professor, he said he was against the wealthy dominating society, which was his reasoning for opposing regulation. Are you deaf ?

yeah, go figure, the rich are against regulation, and gullible is not in the dictionary.

I have an idea, listen to the argument and stop making up his argument for him.

 

since we have not been unregulated in an way, and the banking system collapsed, you can't blame the free market, as much as your corporatist masters would like you to do so.

 

Not as much as you love the word "meme", and using it ad naseum to describe everything and anything. Do you have that word tattooed on your ass or something?

Interesting interpretation, but wrong nonetheless. The only one who is "pretending" is you, with your naive belief that regulations enacted by government are intended to benefit the working classes at the expense of the elite. Such an epic fantasy is worthy of a J.R.R. Tolkien novel. The only difference being that "The Lord of the Rings" is much more plausible.

Oh boy. You are one gullible progressive, but you'd have to be in order to place your trust in a corrupt and inept central authority figure like the Federal Reserve.

I have no need to pretend because, unlike you, my argument is not dependent upon some corporatist fantasy.