Unbridled Capitalism is self-destructive

[Estro Felino]

Americans believed that the fascist states of Germany, Italy, and Japan were expansionist, malignant nationalists who wanted to challenge the world order established by other expansionist, malignant nationalist states which happened to get a head start on them. There's little indication that many Americans cared about their economic system or whether they were socialist. But the fact that they were militaristic and nationalistic was the problem. That's what makes them right-wing. Their economy was mixed, neither totally socialist nor totally capitalist.

However, one difference is that (at least in Germany and Japan) there was a tendency to support their own capitalist enterprises. The German government would side with their own capitalist enterprises against foreign competition, and the Japanese also seemed to favor their capitalist enterprises as well. This would indicate that capitalism requires nationalism to flourish. The defeat of international socialism has led to some believing that they could replace it with international capitalism, but that's not working out very well. That's why we're seeing a resurgence of nationalism in multiple countries.

The difference between Germany and Italy is that in the first there was an intensive and absolute denazification.
Anything was denazified, in Germany. In Italy there has never been a real defascistization, also because the Italian Social Movement, which was formed by former Fascists kept existing and evolved.
No juridical or political or social institution created during Fascism was touched. They are still there, even the civil code, the penal code and many principles of administrative law. The buildings, the universities, the national entities created during Fascism are still there.

What I mean is that I understand that Fascism was considered a right-wing dictatorship, but we need to re-define leftism and rightism, to understand that they are obsolete in the Twenty-first century.

 

[Estro Felino]

Using dictionary definitions is a "lie", eh.
That's the lowest & most desperate failure to reason.
The hostility of true believers never fails to amaze.

The word itself says that socialism means that economy is socialized. When the common good, cooperation and solidarity prevail over private selfish interests, unfair competition and individualism.
That's what the Latin word Social means.

 

[Revoltingest]

The word itself says that socialism means that economy is socialized.

A fan of tautologies, eh.

 

[Estro Felino]

A fan of tautologies, eh.

Etymology is not random.,..I guess.
Did you know that the word luxury comes from Latin luxuria? Which means luxury, ostentation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Etymology is not random.,..I guess.
Did you know that the word luxury comes from Latin luxuria? Which means luxury, ostentation.

Oh, you dictionary deniers & your personal ad hoc
definitions. So easily led astray.
I have a friend who uses personal definitions based
upon its parts, eg, "gainsay". Because it has "gain"
& "say", he says it means to speak for personal
aggrandizement.
Alas, it means something completely unrelated
in every dictionary, eg....

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

1. to deny, dispute, or contradict.
2. to speak or act against; oppose.

 

[Estro Felino]

Oh, you dictionary deniers & your personal ad hoc
definitions. So easily led astray.
I have a friend who uses personal definitions based
upon its parts, eg, "gainsay". Because it has "gain"
& "say", he says it means to speak for personal
aggrandizement.
Alas, it means something completely unrelated
in every dictionary, eg....

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

1. to deny, dispute, or contradict.
2. to speak or act against; oppose.

Interesting.
But my thread was more about unbridled capitalism and it self-destructive nature.
Unbridled Capitalism is suicidal because it creates a vicious circle.
An example of unbridled Capitalism is what happened in 2009.

Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[PureX]

Using dictionary definitions is a "lie", eh.
That's the lowest & most desperate failure to reason.
The hostility of true believers never fails to amaze.

Socialism and capitalism and dictatorship are defined by who has CONTROL of production and distribution, not by who claims or is awarded ownership. But you will continue to refuse to acknowledge this because lying to protect the delusions of capitalism are part and parcel of capitalism.

 

[Stevicus]

The difference between Germany and Italy is that in the first there was an intensive and absolute denazification.
Anything was denazified, in Germany. In Italy there has never been a real defastiscization, also because the Italian Social Movement, which was formed by former Fascists kept existing and evolved.
No juridical or political or social institution created during Fascism was touched. They are still there, even the civil code, the penal code and many principles of administrative law. The buildings, the universities, the national entities created during Fascism are still there.

What I mean is that I understand that Fascism was considered a right-wing dictatorship, but we need to re-define leftism and rightism, to understand that they are obsolete in the Twenty-first century.

I understand, although it seems more people nowadays are fixated on the words and labels, while using them to mean whatever they want. Accuracy is not as important as the apparent desperate need to label and denigrate one's opponents. As a result, the discussion tends to focus more on the words themselves, rather than the ideas being conveyed. It also indicates a need to name call and add more toxicity to public discourse. People can't just disagree amicably; they have to add their superfluous "zing" or else they feel defeated.

One of the consequences of excessive labeling and pigeonholing of one's opposition is that the words we use to denigrate and zing others are losing their effect. People still often throw around terms like "socialist," "fascist," "racist," etc. - but fewer people really believe it anymore. It just comes off as cacophonous and incoherent in today's narrative. These terms don't have the same impact and effect as they did 20-30 years ago. They've been overused.

 

[Estro Felino]

One of the consequences of excessive labeling and pigeonholing of one's opposition is that the words we use to denigrate and zing others are losing their effect. People still often throw around terms like "socialist," "fascist," "racist," etc. - but fewer people really believe it anymore. It just comes off as cacophonous and incoherent in today's narrative. These terms don't have the same impact and effect as they did 20-30 years ago. They've been overused.

I think that they can be used, as long as one will not think that it's either all black or all white.
There are countless shades of socialism. As there are countless shades of grey.

What scares me is when people consider socialism black and capitalism white.
No,...there are hundreds of shades inbetween.

 

[Stevicus]

I think that they can be used, as long as one will not think that it's either all black or all white.
There are countless shades of socialism. As there are countless shades of grey.

What scares me is when people consider socialism black and capitalism white.
No,...there are hundreds of shades inbetween.

That's because they want to use those terms as labels to manipulate and foster certain political perceptions. But as I mentioned, it's losing its effect and such tactics are starting to fall flat more and more.

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting.
But my thread was more about unbridled capitalism and it self-destructive nature.
Unbridled Capitalism is suicidal because it creates a vicious circle.
An example of unbridled Capitalism is what happened in 2009.

Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Where is capitalism unbridled?

The mortgage crisis was initiated by government policies
& regulation. I've covered this extensively before.
Liberals never notice how markets respond to the
environment that government creates, eg, requiring
risky lending, encouraging risky borrowing with
subsidies to borrowers.

 

[Revoltingest]

Socialism and capitalism and dictatorship are defined by....

Meh....

 

[Estro Felino]

Where is capitalism unbridled?

The mortgage crisis was initiated by government policies
& regulation. I've covered this extensively before.
Liberals never notice how markets respond to the
environment that government creates, eg, requiring
risky lending, encouraging risky borrowing with
subsidies to borrowers.

Maybe if the FED had printed some money, every now and then, there would have been much more money circulating, and the American people could have paid all their own mortgages.
But one should ask Rothschilds for permission to print them, first.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe if the FED had printed some money, every now and then, there would have been much more money circulating, and the American people could have paid all their own mortgages.
But one should ask Rothschilds for permission to print them, first.

Fiat currency has costs.
They just aren't obvious to people with short attention spans.

 

[Estro Felino]

Fiat currency has costs.
They just aren't obvious to people with short attention spans.

What happened in 2009 happened because there was no State controlling the banking and the financial sector.
The Government was too busy waging some useless war in the Middle East...I guess there was not even the time to care about banks and savers' interests.

 

[Stevicus]

Where is capitalism unbridled?

The mortgage crisis was initiated by government policies
& regulation. I've covered this extensively before.
Liberals never notice how markets respond to the
environment that government creates, eg, requiring
risky lending, encouraging risky borrowing with
subsidies to borrowers.

If government fails to exercise its lawful authority when it is needed for the good of society, then it's tantamount to allowing capitalists to get away with mischief, which can lead to the perception that it is unbridled.

 

[Revoltingest]

What happened in 2009 happened because there was no State controlling the banking and the financial sector.

You don't even live here, let alone work here in real
estate lending & borrowing.
Such pronouncements would be laughable, if it weren't
for so many Ameristanians also being so mis-informed.

 

[Revoltingest]

If government fails to exercise its lawful authority when it is needed for the good of society, then it's tantamount to allowing capitalists to get away with mischief, which can lead to the perception that it is unbridled.

When your perception is at odds with reality,
tis the former that must be cured, because
the latter rules the day.

It's a problem when government uses its authority
to create an environment that creates financial
instability, eg, incentivizing risky borrowing,
requiring risky lending, imposing high real estate
transfer costs, taxing people on phantom income
when they lose their homes (kicking''m when they're
down), & refusing to negotiate with troubled borrowers.

The market exists in this environment. Blame the
environment that government creates...not responses
to it.

 

[Estro Felino]

You don't even live here, let alone work here in real
estate lending & borrowing.
Such pronouncements would be laughable, if it weren't
for so many Ameristanians also being so mis-informed.

I think that crises are avoidable. By the State's intervention.

 

[Stevicus]

When your perception is at odds with reality,
tis the former that must be cured, because
the latter rules the day.

It's a problem when government uses its authority
to create an environment that creates financial
instability, eg, incentivizing risky borrowing,
requiring risky lending, imposing high real estate
transfer costs, taxing people on phantom income
when they lose their homes (kicking''m when they're
down), & refusing to negotiate with troubled borrowers.

The market exists in this environment. Blame the
environment that government creates...not responses
to it.

If government is creating the problem, then it's their responsibility to fix it, no?