American Politics

[RedWilly Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close RedWilly]

Some people are assholes. You did kind of just prove my point though. I think it's great you donated, don't get me wrong. But in a capitalist system, you cannot rely on generosity. Some people will be generous for sure. But its not reliable.

Given that money is essentially the international token of resource that bypasses the bartering system through efficiency, it is important to consider what should happen to that money. We understand that on the whole, everyone should get enough resources to stay alive and to live a worthy life, in exchange for hard work that helps our society grow. But is it important that people have enough money to buy millions of golden jetskis? Of course not. No one needs that much money, and this is the great moral imperative of capitalism? People starve so DT can hire ten prostitutes to piss on him? Fuck that. I would rather make sure everyone is fed, housed, and healthy than hold some international dick measuring contest of "check out how much money I have", especially when corporations have so much money that they can buy policy and governments. If you would rather live in autocratic oligarchy, so be it, I'm sure it will come soon enough, but lets be honest and not pretend that capitalism isn't turning your society into economic feudalism. Socialism is simply the recognition of the obscurity of this wealth and that it would be much better served fuelling things like education over say, cocaine.

If your argument has shifted from one of results to moral obligations, having a true understanding of property rights will make the argument for capitalism. You own the product of your labor, as it is an extension of ones self. Forcing someone, no matter how good your intentions, to pay is still stealing. Brush up on your Locke =) Private Property Rights: The Moral and Economic Foundation of a Free Society

Also, one can make an excellent argument that charitable donations will follow the same economic rules as any free market would; in that case, it would again be the most efficient way to allocate resources.

[RedWilly Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close RedWilly]

Also RedWilly, can you let me know what you think it is I misunderstood?

That capitalism has caused millions of deaths; it has saved lives and extended the life expectancy. Also, greed does not equate to self interest. People are self interested, however most would not be greedy.

Greed is normally not rational behavior. It is short termed thinking that will not net you the greatest value in most cases. (there are some exceptions)

Adam Smith put it very simply "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher... that we expect our dinner, but rather from their own interests."

[the_iron Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close the_iron]

Two farmers and their wives live next to each other. They both have the same amount of land and they can only grow enough to feed themselves. 5 years later one of the farmers wives becomes pregnant. As her pregnancy advances the farmer must stay in his field longer and longer hours.He now has to feed himself and wife but now a child as well.

The farmer who's wife is not pregnant calls him a fool for getting his wife pregnant. His sits on his porch and has a drink or two while he watches the soon to be father toil long into the night to try and grow enough food for his family.

The child is born and as he grows he helps his father out in the field. The wife and mother work less. Two strong guys can grow enough to feed all three of them and have a bit left over.

The childless farmer and his wife continue to work their farm but they grow older. Their farm produces less and less as they get older while the father and son still produces enough even as the father grows older.

Soon the childless farmer comes to the father and son and asks for food. The father remembers the man sitting on his porch and calling him a fool as he worked well into the night to feed his family. Why should the dad/farmer give his neighbor the fruits of his hard work?

Two farmers and their wives live next to each other. They both have the same amount of land and they can only grow enough to feed themselves. One of the farmers, caring less about the 'neighborhood' builds some extra cabins and invites Mexicans to live in for rent. He can now sit idle and collect rental income. The other farmer then complains and bitches about their neighborhood being turned to a ghetto.

The variables of life!

[RedWilly Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close RedWilly]

Can I just say, I would at least like some credit for responding to many different people at once. This is essay writing haha. Don't get we wrong, Capitalism is good at what it does, which is production. Capitalism is great at generating wealth. Even Karl Marx, author of such controversial books as Das Kapital, admired capitalism for what it was. But he said it was merely a step towards communism. Capitalism is the stage of economic management where you generate means of production and can develop lots of wealth. But the problem with it is that wealth will inevitably drain away from the poorest people and when this starts to happen, you should move to socialism.

with crony capitalism, nominal wealth may shift away from the poor.

Again, we need to take into consideration the standard of living as well.

In general, are people better off now in terms of overall standard of living, than 100 years ago? That fact is hard to refute, and that's a direct result of capitalism.

[closed224 Senior Member Member of the Month Dec 2014, Feb 2017 Find all posts View Profile Close closed224]

with crony capitalism, nominal wealth may shift away from the poor.

Again, we need to take into consideration the standard of living as well.

In general, are people better off now in terms of overall standard of living, than 100 years ago? That fact is hard to refute, and that's a direct result of capitalism.

Evidently not. It appears to be inline time wise with stricter regulations. And more socialism. In education, health care for veterans and elderly, super involvement in giving programs like welfare, food stamps etc.

[Injoker Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Injoker]

If your argument has shifted from one of results to moral obligations, having a true understanding of property rights will make the argument for capitalism. You own the product of your labor, as it is an extension of ones self. Forcing someone, no matter how good your intentions, to pay is still stealing. Brush up on your Locke =) Private Property Rights: The Moral and Economic Foundation of a Free Society

Also, one can make an excellent argument that charitable donations will follow the same economic rules as any free market would; in that case, it would again be the most efficient way to allocate resources.

On your point that forcing someone to pay is theft. Could you not argue that rent is theft then? When the options are homelessness or pay rent, then in a sense you are forced to pay rent, because choosing between those two is like "would you like to give me half your sandwich? Or alternatively I can cut off your hand". I guess your point would also be that taxation is theft, despite that it paid for the infrastructure you enjoy so much, the police, the hospitals, the military.

Ah yes, the free market. The free market is a set of rules that have been made up, in the same way that a regulated market has rules. It just so happens that the free markets rules are "let the wealthiest live unregulated'. It will only ever do the thing it's designed to do. It starts out very fair, given everyone starts on the same playing field, but then over generations, clear winners and losers start to emerge, and it becomes harder and harder to cross those boundaries. Someone born poor today has about as much opportunity to become wealthy as I have of sleeping with J Law (okay, I'm exaggerating but odds are very low). At this point, Lockes assumption that private ownership allows every rational man to pursue his own interests starts to fall apart. Because for the poorest, ownership becomes a prison. You own a debt. This debt has been attributed to you because of the arbitrary nature of the socioeconomic status to which you are born. Want to get an education? Okay, you can, but you will have to work the rest of your life paying it off. Want to get treatment for your very curable disease? I can give that to you, but because I have a monopoly on the system, I'm only going to give it to you at the cost of putting your entire family into crippling debt.

[burtybasset Retired Moderator Member of the Month May 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close burtybasset]

And capitalism didn't kill millions? It is by believing that the individual is more important than the collective that you can justify slavery and many other horrendous acts. There are countries around the world that have been crippled by American imperialism in the name of capital. You won't ever see it, because it doesn't happen next to you. But the child in the sweat shop producing your shoes for barely enough money to eat is a victim of capitalism. He will never be able to work hard enough to succeed. I know you will blame foreign governments for not being like America, or for being socialist as the reason for this. On that we will just have to disagree. And if you think the person who works 80 hours a week and still cant pay rent is not working hard enough, you're delusional.

I justify nothing as I don't see our governments killing our own citizens for having the audacity to own private property or for the good of "the people".

Check out this vid, its only a few minutes long. This guy answers your question on the poor kids working in sweat shops...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HAjQqwQqJ8

By the way, the west has gone through this process. Government only abolished child labour after parents attained enough wealth to stop sending their kids down mines, in factories etc and start sending them to school.

Parents here used to have a lot more children so that some of them would have a chance to survive like they do in Africa. Capitalism not only doubled the life expectancy and produced a middle class, it almost eliminated infant mortality. And you think we should apologize for this?

[Injoker Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Injoker]

with crony capitalism, nominal wealth may shift away from the poor.

Again, we need to take into consideration the standard of living as well.

In general, are people better off now in terms of overall standard of living, than 100 years ago? That fact is hard to refute, and that's a direct result of capitalism.

I would actually love to see some statistics. Obviously our technology has improved, but you used to be able to buy a house on a 40 hour a week job, now if the housing market stays the same, I won't be able to purchase a house in my lifetime. I am living in a small 2 bedroom house that needs work and when our landlords sold it, they sold it for over $900,000. I would have to go into obscure amounts of debt to pay for that, and by the way, I have in the past had jobs (and could have now if I wasn't trying to get a degree) that pay better than probably 80% of people.

[burtybasset Retired Moderator Member of the Month May 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close burtybasset]

Taken in the bubble as presented I agree. 2 farmers living completely independently of each other. Responsible for only themselves and thier wife or child. This however is not even close to reality.

If markets were free in the 1800s then why did the markets crash? If they were free and doing as supposed to why did they lead to the great depression? If people are free to make thier own choices why should we want to kick thier ass for not rounding up? None of these discussions take into account the reality of the situation. For the same reasons communism, socialism, racism will fail so too does capitalism fail. Call it human nature if you will. I dont. I think greed, and avarice are learned behaviours. I believe human nature contains just as much kindness, compassion, love. It is where we put our emphasis that leads to all the shitty things. We allow the strongest, greediest, meanest to attain, retain power. Simply put we fear kindness, gentleness on a large scale. Living in fear will always lead to degenerates leading us. I hope some of you understand that the markets were never free. And the regulations brought in are designed to keep the majority from ever getting a piece of the larger pie. They are sold to us as helping us. Not true in the slightlest.

Regulations and cronyism are a problem and I believe the government want this. I think the bigger the government gets, the bigger these problems become and the less freedoms people have.

I personally don't care if someone is greedy and makes ridiculous amounts of money. I just don't think they should be able to lobby the government in any way and have them regulate/create barriers to entry that keeps the little guy from competing.

[Injoker Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Injoker]

I justify nothing as I don't see our governments killing our own citizens for having the audacity to own private property or for the good of "the people".

Check out this vid, its only a few minutes long. This guy answers your question on the poor kids working in sweat shops...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HAjQqwQqJ8

By the way, the west has gone through this process. Government only abolished child labour after parents attained enough wealth to stop sending their kids down mines, in factories etc and start sending them to school.

Parents here used to have a lot more children so that some of them would have a chance to survive like they do in Africa. Capitalism not only doubled the life expectancy and produced a middle class, it almost eliminated infant mortality. And you think we should apologize for this?

I watched the video. The point that a poor nation can't become a wealthy nation without going through "that stage" is actually absurd. International corporations have interests in keeping wages in foreign nations low so that they can make greater profit. This Ayn Randian economic philosophy is so one dimensional. It's not a race to the top, it's who can get as much of the pie as possible before the rules change. His assertion that no one in the west has lived in real poverty is also absurd. Approximately 13.5% of Americans live in poverty. What, because they live in poverty next to a McDonalds, that makes it different? You want to know which nations have the highest standard of living? Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, Denmark, Canada and Finland. Guess how many of these nations have adopted Socialist policies (the answer is all of them).

[the_iron Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close the_iron]

The point of the story is that we ourselves are responsible for what we do. Communism/socialism will never work because of this thing called human nature.
Maybe the father and son would share their hard work with their neighbor. What happens if the father got sick leaving only the son to work and he can only grow enough for the three of them? So the guy and his wife who never though ahead starves.

Human nature tells us that some will work hard, some not so hard and some barely at all. Some of those that work hard will share greatly, some will share a bit and some not at all. Tell me why they should share? They should share out of compassion for the guy who didn't really work hard? Why should compassion simply be a one way street? Why should the have nots scream about the greed of those who have? What do the have nots have to give in return?

We all have the capacity to add to society and each other. If you choose not to do so then then it's the risk you take and it is your choice, your responsibility and you should not scream about their greed but rather your own stupidity and laziness.

When I was 18, I quickly learnt that "working hard" isn't always the guaranteed way to wealth. Maybe in traditional rural communities where hard work is the surest translator to wealth. As a matter of fact, you can work "liberal". That is to say, you can push the societies boundaries to newer levels and earn money doing just that.

In your example, the "same amount of land and they can only grow enough to feed themselves" is also the same amount of land that can open a party house and play really loud music that disturbs the neighbors and serves mind altering liquid and promotes sexual immorality. This party house can be called a Bar and it sure will attract people from other towns and villages for a 'night out'. The bar owner becomes wealthy overnight in ways which this 'impregnating farmer' can never imagine.

Also there are literally millions of services that one can offer that does not involve tilling the land at all, including a massage parlor, a brothel, a counselling and therapy room, a stadium, a swimming pool etc, etc. Each of this in and of itself does induce immigration from other lands. The biggest problems with conservatists are their low affinity to pushing the social fabric; their hatred for uncontrolled immigration; and their biblical moral inclination. The biggest advantage of liberals is their ability to survive and even thrive on new social boundaries.

And so, across time, the conservatists always play the role of complainers against the new social boundaries including religion, alcohol, women dressing, male dressing and grooming, women's behaviors, immigration, abortion, birth control, women's roles including voting rights, rights of the 'outsider' immigrants, male to male sex, new technology, new music etc etc.

It is easy to see that the reason why their is difference in politics between liberals and conservatists is because liberalism asks to push the social fabric. Conservatism asks to maintain the social fabric. Liberals seek for the 'New', for the Hype, for the Latest. Conservatists want to keep the old proven method.

Liberals say, yeah you invented the 'Like Button' and we consumed your product and you made billions. Now give back to society. Conservatists say, "I hate the way human communication has degraded to 'Sharing' photos and expecting Likes. Where are the old days of a hard hand shake and proper talk without staring at your phone the whole time? Anyway, let the super rich 'Like-Button-Man' keep his wealth. He should share nothing to these many ghetto folks that you invited here."

[burtybasset Retired Moderator Member of the Month May 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close burtybasset]

I would actually love to see some statistics. Obviously our technology has improved, but you used to be able to buy a house on a 40 hour a week job, now if the housing market stays the same, I won't be able to purchase a house in my lifetime. I am living in a small 2 bedroom house that needs work and when our landlords sold it, they sold it for over $900,000. I would have to go into obscure amounts of debt to pay for that, and by the way, I have in the past had jobs (and could have now if I wasn't trying to get a degree) that pay better than probably 80% of people.

Goods and services in a true free market should be getting cheaper. How did inflation come about? Houses aren't actually worth any more than they used to be.

Maybe its because government interference in the markets, quantitative easing, as well as their borrowing (that you will have to pay back) has devalued your money and with it your labour.

I hope to get on the property ladder also, but maybe it won't happen for me either.

[Injoker Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Injoker]

Goods and services in a true free market should be getting cheaper. How did inflation come about? Houses aren't actually worth any more than they used to be.

Maybe its because government interference in the markets, quantitative easing, as well as their borrowing (that you will have to pay back) has devalued your money and with it your labour.

I hope to get on the property ladder also, but maybe it won't happen for me either.

Actually there is some truth to that, at least where I am, but only because our Government intervened in the wrong way. We have this thing called negative gearing, where if you own more than one house, and didn't make enough profit on the second (or third etc) then the government gave you the money to break even. It monopolized the housing market by making it super easy to buy more houses if you have some, but making it super hard if you don't at all because housing prices skyrocketed in the last 15 years. Now, that doesn't mean I'm anti government intervention, it means I am anti negative gearing. But negative gearing again is a direct result of free market capitalism. Free market capitalists took advantage of the housing market and then legislated so they could keep the advantage.

[burtybasset Retired Moderator Member of the Month May 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close burtybasset]

I watched the video. The point that a poor nation can't become a wealthy nation without going through "that stage" is actually absurd. International corporations have interests in keeping wages in foreign nations low so that they can make greater profit. This Ayn Randian economic philosophy is so one dimensional. It's not a race to the top, it's who can get as much of the pie as possible before the rules change. His assertion that no one in the west has lived in real poverty is also absurd. Approximately 13.5% of Americans live in poverty. What, because they live in poverty next to a McDonalds, that makes it different? You want to know which nations have the highest standard of living? Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, Denmark, Canada and Finland. Guess how many of these nations have adopted Socialist policies (the answer is all of them).

No, those nations were built on capitalism and still are primarily capitalist. They have just adopted some aspect of socialism like the welfare state, public schools, healthcare etc. Sweden is roughly as free market wise as the US. They are called mixed economies I believe.

The pie is also not a fixed size. Its a growing pie. Its actually not even a pie, but rather an apple tree, with each of the apples produced containing ten seeds with the potential to grow ten more trees and each with an abundant supply of new apples. This is sustainability.

Although apple trees don't tend produce so well when you pull on the trunk to make it grow quicker and punish it by cutting off some of the branches for not complying with your regulations. It has to be given the freedom to grow and produce on its own terms. This is why free markets.

As for the absurdity of poor nations having to go through that phase, well of course they do. Building an economy is like building a house. It has to be done from the ground up, stage by stage. Demanding my neighbour who is building a house next door put the roof on before the foundations have been laid because I already have a house is absurd.

He was also asserting that you are better off being poor in the west than you are in parts of China or Africa as its far less likely you will die from starvation.

Actually there is some truth to that, at least where I am, but only because our Government intervened in the wrong way. We have this thing called negative gearing, where if you own more than one house, and didn't make enough profit on the second (or third etc) then the government gave you the money to break even. It monopolized the housing market by making it super easy to buy more houses if you have some, but making it super hard if you don't at all because housing prices skyrocketed in the last 15 years. Now, that doesn't mean I'm anti government intervention, it means I am anti negative gearing. But negative gearing again is a direct result of free market capitalism. Free market capitalists took advantage of the housing market and then legislated so they could keep the advantage.

Those "free market capitalists" are actually cronies and in favour of government intervention/protectionism. This is actually an indication that it isn't a true free market if the government is involved. Government should only be there to protect individual rights.

[Injoker Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Injoker]

No, those nations were built on capitalism and still are primarily capitalist. They have just adopted some aspect of socialism like the welfare state, public schools, healthcare etc. Sweden is roughly as free market wise as the US.

That's what I said. They adopted socialist policies. You cannot say Sweden is as "free market" as the US when you look at how much they tax their citizens in comparison to the US. And they have a higher standard of living.