The rank hypocrisy of capitalist propaganda

why so afraid to tell us what you cant understand?

 

Afraid of poor English? I'm not. I just dislike it. Your comments on China, however, should naturally raise sneer.

 

if so why so afraid to tell us what comment??

 

You seem to randomly reply. I gave your exact quote.

I appreciate your problem. Calling one of the worst dictatorships in the world 'Republican supply side capitalism' is going to smart.

 

7% growth for 35 years thanks to Republican supply side capitalism makes China one of the best dictatorships in the world if you can even call it a dictatorship.

North Korea Cuba Zimbabwe Sudan Iran etc would be among the worst.

 

Capitalism can exist and function in a totalitarian state and produce economic growth which puts command/control quasi capitalism to shame.

 

That's completely dishonest. 7% per year in the last decade is considered a down year in China. And do your homework - strident supporters of supply side economic policies were initially Democrats, JFK being one of the first and Bill Clinton being one of the last.

 

if I said it could I will pay you $10,000? Bet?

 

you forgot to say where the complete dishonesty is???

 

if I disagreed I will pay you $10,000. Bet??? Do you know what a straw man is?

 

Well Aristotle or Adam Smith were initial supporters of supply side economics but I was obviously talking about current supporters. Do you understand?

 

Perhaps you need to understand that liberal, as it is used today, is the opposite of classic liberalism.

 

I may have misread. I initially thought you stated a total of 7% for the entire 35 years.

 

What are you betting ??

 

Why would I refer to classical liberalism? They're dead. We could try and refer to the likes of the Austrian School, but their focus tends to be on finding any means to support irrational application of neo-liberalism

 

Who owns the means of production?... which class, working class or capitalist class?

 

While some is private owned by an individual or several individuals, most large corporations are owned by the stock holders, some rich and some poor.
So you might say the means of production, like all wealth is acquired by those who invest in their future more so than consume in the present. Of course you can say many cannot invest anything because they don't have anything left to invest. I would have been such a person, except I did without things I didn't need direly and eventually saved $800 and carefully invested it wisely. Learn from the results of bad choices, making appropriate changes in your decision making process instead of wasting time trying to provide excuses and/or blame others. And yes, it is becoming more difficult to get ahead as a result of many things beyond your control and even beyond governments absolute control, so you have to learn how to adapt to the changing world as a result.
People should help people, government should only make it possible for people to help people.

 

About 67% of stock is held by 5% of the public. I own 500 shares of a stock. The corporate CEO and Board of Directors collectively hold 52% of the corporation's stock. I don't have any control of the company. I'm just "going along for the ride". So I don't own any "means of production. The insiders do. Your empty optimism is precious, as a child is precious.

The bottom line is that this is not "socialism" where the working class not only owns, but controls the means of production.

 

Your questions don't pertain to my statement.

 

Your question, to which I responded, asked "Who owns the means of production?"
You're obviously not a large investor, so you should either sit back and enjoy the ride or exit the vehicle if the larger investors won't let you steer.
Do you feel you should have as much control as the investor who owns 50,000 shares or more of the stock?

The primary means of all production, aside from that which nature produces on its own is the human mind and body. Each individual is provided one of each at birth.

What has "socialism" to do with your question? With there being about 28 million businesses operating in the U.S. today imagine the chaos that would result if everyone became involved in their production.
So you're a pessimist?

 

That is an attempt to argue control within the context of capitalism which structures control in the hands of the few who profit. The whole structure needs to be ended. In the context of a system in which such private control is ended, yes I do think a worker should have one share of control and no one should have more than that. No one would own 50,000 shares, or 1,000 shares, or even 2 shares.

But the original question was posed because you said "I don't think true capitalism ever occurred". And my point was that no one but private individuals own and control the means of production in capitalist enterprises, and so we do, indeed, have capitalism, even if it isn't your personally preferred type.

And therefore every worker should have the opportunity for input on what to produce, how to produce, where to produce, and what to so with the profits.

That confusion is in your mind. Workers already are completely involved in the production in their collectively owned and controlled cooperatives across the nation, of which there are over 1,000.

 

Note that I posted in answer to your question in post #166, to another who said "I don't think true capitalism ever occurred".

I'm finding it difficult to envision your proposal working in but a very few business arrangements.

Okay, I see you're back to proffering Mondragon. I have no problem with such collectively owned and controlled cooperatives competing with existing businesses who are owned by those who invested various sums of money and own proportionate shares of the business. Free market competition allows the consumer to exercise some control over businesses without necessity of ownership.

After talking with a geologist friend who spent his life working across Africa, it would appear that your proposal would be more befitting a lifestyle similar to that of the African Bushmen.

 

Take a look at this. It is now done in 5 states and growing.

 

"The purpose of this chapter is to promote the creation of workers' cooperatives by incentivizing workers to create enterprises that are democratically controlled and operated by their own workers."
Immediately the question arose in my mind, "if this is something so good, why is there a need of government to promote it?"
I seem to have missed what it is that is supposed to incentivize workers to create such enterprises; the feeling that they are in control?
Personally, I would avoid and strongly oppose any form of government monetary subsidization of such enterprises.

 

The problem is the difference between maximising productivity and maximising profit. Co-operatives, according to the evidence, are better at the former. However, traditional enterprise create economic rents that destroy any notion of a level playing field. Its an example of how the profit motive, unless you only have SMEs, can be destructive.