Unbridled Capitalism is self-destructive

[Audie]

Oddly capitalism is just dandy when shovelling boatloads of cash toward Ukraine.

More odd: a thread about something never
detected on earth destroying itself.

 

[Heyo]

Such thinking enables sanctifying socialism,
& demonizing capitalism. One is their dream.
The other is their nightmare.

Such thinking enables sanctifying capitalism,
& demonizing socialism. One is their dream.
The other is their nightmare.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, but I just remembered your disagreement....

Prolly not accurately.

 

[Audie]

Such thinking enables sanctifying capitalissighm,
& demonizing socialism. One is their dream.
The other is their nightmare.

Sigh

 

[Revoltingest]

Sanctity, demons, ideals, dreams
All very emotive, religious in nature,
about things that dont even exist.

Economic concepts exist, but some are
fantasies, eg, socialism with economic
liberty, social liberty, & prosperity.
Those things just don't exist together in
nature....like lions lying down with lambs.
Belief can't make such things happen.

 

[Revoltingest]

Such thinking enables sanctifying capitalism,
& demonizing socialism. One is their dream.
The other is their nightmare.

I smelled straw in that post.
Every capitalist admits that the system doesn't
guarantee wonderful results in every country.
Only that positive results are possible. And this
because they actually happen IRL.
Socialists are different. They pursue a system
that has never turned out well for any country.
Yet they believe that jumping out of the frying
pan into the fire will bring utopia.

 

[Stevicus]

Prolly not accurately.

It's just a matter of reading posts which are still up and viewable. Doesn't require racking one's memory.

 

[Stevicus]

Socialists are different. They pursue a system
that has never turned out well for any country.

Wrong. Every country that has turned to socialism ended up better off than they were before.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wrong. Every country that has turned to socialism ended up better off than they were before.

You've never supported this red herring
that's always trotted out when I claim
that capitalism offers potential for superior
results, & that socialism has always yielded
authoritarianism & economic woe.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's just a matter of reading posts....

I read it later. Sure enuf....
It ranked right up there with the
claim that when Russia starved the
Kulaks, it was the Kulaks' fault.
It's Bizarroworld stuff.

 

[metis]

Black or white, true or false, so binary,
so fundamentalist, so unrealistic

I post it to describe it as a starting point, not necessarily the end result as other factors typically can come into play.

So again, is money or people more important to one?

 

[metis]

Wrong. Every country that has turned to socialism ended up better off than they were before.

Exactly, which is why all countries now include some socialistic policies, as all countries nowadays have "mixed economies".

 

[Revoltingest]

Exactly, which is why all countries now include some socialistic policies, as all countries nowadays have "mixed economies".

He refers to socialist countries, his example being the USSR.
Thereby arguing that it was a positive outcome.
It seems that "positive" doesn't have an agreed upon definition either.

 

[Stevicus]

You've never supported this red herring
that's always trotted out when I claim
that capitalism offers potential for superior
results, & that socialism has always yielded
authoritarianism & economic woe.

It's pretty obvious to anyone who can read and understand history.

In fact, you're the only person in the world I know of who has rejected the idea. Even people I've known, who have been more anti-communist and anti-Soviet than anyone - people from that part of the world - even they have admitted that things improved over what they had in Russia in 1917 or before. They still didn't like it, for a variety of reasons, and therefore they were vehemently anti-Soviet and anti-socialist/pro-capitalist - just like some people here. But that doesn't change the basic point.

Supporting this "red herring," as you call it, is actually quite easy. Simply compare the results of Russia's performance in WW1 versus WW2. The difference is like night and day, with the socialist government showing immense improvement over the hapless Tsarist regime. There's your support right there, so don't say I've "never supported" it again, as that would be untrue.

 

[Stevicus]

He refers to socialist countries, his example being the USSR.
Thereby arguing that it was a positive outcome.
It seems that "positive" doesn't have an agreed upon definition either.

The differences noted regarding the USSR are mainly rooted in the circumstances and conditions of how the government is formed. It goes much more smoothly when you have reasonable people from different sides agreeing to work together for the common good. When you have stubborn, quarrelsome types who refuse to listen to reason and incessantly bicker because of their greed, paranoia, and spiteful indifference to the lower classes, then things probably won't go quite as smoothly. That's what happened in Russia. But nevertheless, they still moved forward, introduced compulsory education, launched a national literacy program (most of the population was still illiterate, but the socialists wanted a literate, educated society), improved their transportation, industry, scientific advancement. That's not to say that Stalin wasn't a paranoid tyrant and guilty of murder and other atrocities, but even that wouldn't change the basic point.

 

[Stevicus]

Exactly, which is why all countries now include some socialistic policies, as all countries nowadays have "mixed economies".

I tend to favor a mixed economy myself, although I also see it primarily as a human rights issue, more so than a debate over economic philosophies. I think what happened in the Soviet Union and other societies which exploded into revolution was because the situation got so bad in those countries that revolutionary socialism was seen as the only answer - at least at those particular times and places.

However, I would not view them as a template for how socialism is supposed to work. The revolutionary aspects come about when the upper classes grow too entrenched and stubborn, digging in their heels and insisting that "everything is MINE!" Fortunately, in the Western liberal democracies, we were eventually able to find more peaceful and lawful methods of reforming our system so that the human rights of the working classes and the oppressed can be honored and upheld.

But what's been troubling in recent times is that more and more people seem to be pushing in the reverse direction, advocating more regressive policies.

 

[Audie]

I post it to describe it as a starting point, not necessarily the end result as other factors typically can come into play.

So again, is money or people more important to one?

Again, rephrased slightly, it's a b.s.
question.

 

[wellwisher]

Capitalism at its best has is about the efficient use of resources and the growing of value. The GNP or gross national product grows and like magic, adds value to culture. The free market is not a zero sum game; fixed total, but a positive sum game; adds value. In the free market, you have options in terms of what to buy and where to shop. This causes merchants to compete in terms of quality and price, with both metrics improving with time, adding value.

A good example of the efficiency of capitalism was the rise of home computers. These have come down in price and gone up in quality as manufacturers compete for the consumer dollar. This is adding value in terms of pays for millions of good paying jobs and even billionaires; positive sum game.

There is also supply side pressures such as marketing and advertising to stimulate demand. This is where free market can get negative, since manipulation often occurs. Sports cars are often painted in a sexy way to confuse natural and manufactured desire; impulse buy. Let the buyer beware.

Government can also a problem, in that they mess up the free market, such as picking favorites; green energy while undermining the competition; inhibit growth such as a drilling taboo, in their zero sum game. This has causes prices to up due to higher shipping and manufacturing costs. In a free market, both industries would be welcome. Both would also need to compete for the consumer dollar. All the evil of Capitalism can be traced to manipulation and outside interference in the free market; enslaved market. Government enslaves the market with regulations often down political lines.

Socialism has too much government interference, often by lawyers instead of doers. It would be like having the farmers telling lawyers how to do their lawyer job. It will not end well for the free market. I would make it a convention that politicians cannot interfere in the free market, unless they have a grad degree in free market studies. This way we could free the enslaved market and make it free again.

If you look in China, where government has a lot of influence over the free market; enslaved market, they powers to be built huge cities that remain unoccupied. This is not an efficient use of resources. A free market can tailor resources to local demand and need in a more efficient way; free marketeers making those choices instead of lawyers.

We need to make a distinction between the free market and the enslaved market. This is like the difference between free speech and PC censored speech. The first is free and competitive, while the second enslaves part of the whole. The enslaved market is the one people on the Left complain about, mistaken that for a free market, due to word hijack game by their leaders.

One expectation in the free market is you need work to play. The more you wish to play the more work you need to put in. One cannot remain idle and expect a free ride unless you are a child. Socialism tries to make the reward of the workers and the reward of the idle, the same. This then causes the efforts of the workers, to decline toward the level of the idle. This creates inefficiency and an enslaved market. True everyone may get basics, but it inhibits the movers from building and innovating; rationed.

 

[metis]

I tend to favor a mixed economy myself, although I also see it primarily as a human rights issue, more so than a debate over economic philosophies. I think what happened in the Soviet Union and other societies which exploded into revolution was because the situation got so bad in those countries that revolutionary socialism was seen as the only answer - at least at those particular times and places.

However, I would not view them as a template for how socialism is supposed to work. The revolutionary aspects come about when the upper classes grow too entrenched and stubborn, digging in their heels and insisting that "everything is MINE!" Fortunately, in the Western liberal democracies, we were eventually able to find more peaceful and lawful methods of reforming our system so that the human rights of the working classes and the oppressed can be honored and upheld.

But what's been troubling in recent times is that more and more people seem to be pushing in the reverse direction, advocating more regressive policies.

Ditto with me as I think going to either extreme leads to too many problems.

 

[metis]

Socialism has too much government interference, often by lawyers instead of doers.

Too broad a stroke imo. For example, would you want Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the military, interstate highway construction, railroads, etc, all eliminated? After all, these are all governmental programs financed through taxes.