The problem of Capitalism

[This is an abridged reply, because your basic premises are wrong. I will deal with the chief issues in this post].

Currency issuing governments are ONLY constrained by availability of real resources.

That statement is so obvious one wonders why the confusion; but then people did believe the earth was flat for a very long time, owing to their lived experience.....just as people think a currency issuing government is subject to the same budgetary constraints as households who are users of the currency).

eg, debt and deficits are not primary issues for currency issuing governments. There are no 'pay-by' dates for government debt (unlike individuals who face the debtor's prison if they ignore the due date). Hence full employment can be maintained at all times. Study MMT.

yes...the earth certainly appears flat, doesn't it.....?

At this point you need to look in the mirror.....

Fact: there are sufficient resources on planet earth to house, feed, clothe, transport and connect everyone - AND deliver higher rewards for those who contribute more to stable, sustainable development - which we all desire.

Communism? Capitalism? It's time to let go of obsolete terminology. (Just saying....)

Perhaps the point is not so "pure and simple" because that sentence is incomprehensible. Feel free to rewrite it.

*my insertion.

Hence the development of a body of law, and rule of law. Nothing to do with MY idea, except in so far as each of us has the freedom to contribute to that body of law.

Addressed above.

btw, (since you have at last dropped the topic), it's pleasing to see you accepting the benefits of eliminating filthy-fossil in favour of clean green - irrespective of the reality of, or "faith" in, the theory of AGW.

Whatever, but "un-corrupted", "invisible hand", laissez faire capitalism is unworkable, which is why the world has rejected it to varying degrees...because ...as you know, humans have a sense of "fairness" and "right or wrong" (some more than others).

.

namely: Self-interested competition is a reflection of our animal natures, not our informed intellects.

Can you refute it?

No deliberate misrepresentation of your points, just the usual amount of misunderstanding on your part, caused by your beliefs about how resources should be developed and distributed, to achieve the stable, sustainable development which we all desire.

 

No, again currency issuing governments are not constricted by any resources. If you haven’t noticed currency issuing governments only constraint is the value of their currency. Thus when they over supply (or print more money) that value is reduced. Nothing whatsoever to do with resources…

Oh isn’t that odd, you don’t deliberately misrepresent comments yet you do… seems your idea that the world is automating so everybody is going to lose their job is a fallacy and you cannot refute it…

I need to look in the mirror??? I don’t deny my personal greed, I am not demanding you to act in any way due to my greed while I sit back and rack in the benefits without actually doing anything... THAT would be you.

Oh I see, YOUR complaint is that you want to live in capitalist society yet embrace communist ideology as long as you don’t have to sacrifice, we get it…

Oh dear and you say you’re the consummate gramma policeman.

Simply, the point was that there is differences in value… get over it… you didn’t understand it and you never will apparently.

thus relevance only to the desire to have free what others work hard for…

No it isn’t…

Irrelevant clap trap… I am not interested in your faith.

No, it hasn’t rejected it at all, After all numb nut we are arguing that principle here. Doesn’t that tell you something

garbage, rather self-evident considering self-interest remains the main problem of today (the so called informed intellects). Even YOU, who sit here telling all that they should live in such a manner that you are given everything without earning it.

No, it is not misunderstanding at all, you deliberately misrepresent comments by cutting them to YOUR desired constituent sections so you can deliberately take the comment out of context to assert different meaning.

So you can deliberately and disingenuously make false claims… THAT is self-interest you are trying to pretend you don’t have. Clearly, your hypocrisy continues to dog your ideal of how others should live. Shame it doesn’t include yourself.

 

There's a shortcoming in definitions and understanding of what kinds of policies we actually have.

We have economic intervention. We have central economic planning by a central bank. We have a belief in deficit finance. We have inflationism. We have a welfare state. The economc policy we have is so far removed from free-market capitalism that it's laughable to see people call it that.

We're Keynesian. Not free-market capitalists. But that doesn't stop th socialists from coming along saying we know that capitalism is so bad, what we need is socialism.

Again, there's a shortcoming in definitions and understanding of what kinds of policies we actually have.

 

And America is 'a Republic.' It's not 'a Democracy.'

Let us learn.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority.

In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.

The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

Alright, then. I'm going back to the real world where people know what they're talking about. It's not often my time machine drops me off in unicorns and rainbow land. Gosh.

 

which is an indication of your hearing abilities being deficient.

i see you suck at basic civics.

 

ive repeatedly bashed you over the head with reality. You do not have a right to anyone else’s property. That is reality. If you try and take it, you will be stopped. That is reality.

I know it’s difficult for you, having had your ideology that you cling to so desperately completely demolished. But, you are a georgist so you have nobody to blame but yourself.

 

The problem is we have too much freedom and democracy apparently.
(← circa 2011)
I still believe Communism is inherently evil, maybe I'm brainwashed, maybe I'm not, but I view freedom as good and Communism as evil.

 

I don't agree with your support of violence to force peasants to be forced not to leave.

 

There is a reason why that sentence is so convoluted....
namely, the reality of competition for resources in the predatory natural world in which we evolved.

But back to your story: the peasants will need to find a land where their rights to basic necessities are guaranteed, otherwise they will remain in poverty, regardless of their changed security arrangements.

In fact they will still die fighting in war (or be 'collateral damage'), as history shows, since we have yet to achieve an international rules based system.

 

I don't agree with your plan for a tiny percentage of the populace to control all the land. I'm opposed to monopolies.

 

If a community supplies adequate public housing to accommodate those who cannot buy housing where the jobs are, state or private ownership of land seems immaterial to the prosperity of a community.

(Interestingly, there is no freehold land in Hong Kong, which has the most expensive housing in the world, and wealth inequality is as extreme as either the US or mainland China).

 

1) our subject is capitalism v socialism. It's important subject. Do you have opinion on it???
2) why slavery arose is not important. It arose because people don't like to do some jobs.

 

You can only "own" land, via land title guaranteed by the state.

Otherwise it's the law of the jungle....I can hear those war drums now, nothing wrong with my hearing....

 

seems impossible but you have finally presented a good point!! Well done!! Don't let it go to your head; almost anybody can defeat Brighton

 

Actually the subject is: "the problem of capitalism".

Slavery arose because extraction/production/defence of resources required it...indeed as you say, because people don't like to do some jobs. Very important, I would say: with force of arms determining who is going to live in the palace... and who is going to oar the war galleys.

 

Which has nothing to do with what I said.

 

???

You said: "You don’t have a right to property I own".

The property in this case being land.

But the "right" to land ownership requires a central authority to issue the title to the land.

Otherwise it's the law of the jungle, in which you have no rights....

 

Actually it simply needs the agreement of the community that land ownership is legitimate. No "central authority" required.

 

Here is an introduction to fiat money for you to consider: you may be as surprised as Marco Polo, when he first came across fiat money (which is what we have everywhere now).

During the 13th century, Marco Polo described the fiat money of the Yuan Dynasty in his book The Travels of Marco Polo.[18][19]
"All these pieces of paper are issued with as much solemnity and authority as if they were of pure gold or silver... and indeed everybody takes them readily, for wheresoever a person may go throughout the Great Khan's dominions he shall find these pieces of paper current, and shall be able to transact all sales and purchases of goods by means of them just as well as if they were coins of pure gold".

Nope. We are all instinctively self-interested; that's the point.

The question is how to manage that self-interest, to achieve above poverty full employment AND reward for effort.

 

"Agreement of the community" is the central authority.

Agreement of self-interested individuals over which pieces of land will be owned by whom can only be maintained by the central authority. Obviously.

 

Not really. It just means that nobody in society puts up with a particular behavior, and the rest of the members of society will back them up. No central authority involved.

 

as defined by law...

No kiddin'....?

 

Yes, the problem you don’t seem to understand because your busy looking in insular is that it only has value to those who recognise it. Your argument that money is intrinsically worthless only exists if you cannot buy gold. Thus, the underpinning of the currency by “GOLD”

Basically, as the point of Marco Polo, these bits of paper are not considered money but promissory notes, handed out and accepted as readily as handing out gold…

I am not really sure you comprehend what you’re posting. Are you simply reading an exercise book and pretending you understand it???

Oh wow, how to try to obscurely hide your own self-interest in telling everybody how to live and pretend altruistic intentions while actually telling us all, you not prepared to do anything you preach.

Now as the great gramma policeman I will narrow it down to your comprehension.

You demand people sacrifice to eradicate poverty… or you demand altruistic action of others.

You tell all you are not going to sacrifice to eradicate poverty… or embrace your selfish side and refuse to be altruistic for YOUR cause.

So you preach to the world things you won’t do yourself…

The question is not how to manage anything. The question is why you think it is everybody else’s problem to act while you do nothing…

 

So you're saying that a community of people determine the rules by which they will live? Okay, so then we agree, disputes over land ownership will ultimately be decided by the community.

So why should we choose a system in which a few community members confiscate and own all the land?

 

No. A community of people accept impartial rule of law, since self-aware individuals recognise self-interest requires adjudication to avoid anarchy.

No, not by the community, but by a court of law.

We don't.