Unbridled Capitalism is self-destructive

[Stevicus]

I think unbridled anything is generally a bad idea. We've seen the destruction unbridled socialism can cause. However it is too bad you feel the need to give more power to the state to bridal in your excesses. All you are doing is unbridling the state.

The people should bridal in the state, not the other way around. If individuals cannot bridal in their excesses, what makes you think that folks given power in the government will be any better at controlling their greed?

I think unbridled government and power maximization are evil concepts. What you don't seem to understand is that this people whom you seem not to trust, your are willing to these same folks, unable to bridal their excesses control over your life that have the addition of being able to enforce these excesses.

The trap here is that the only thing that can truly bridle anything, whether it's capitalism, socialism, or the government itself, is the government. Ultimately, that's what we're stuck with, no matter how one slices it. Unless we want to eliminate government entirely, but then everything would be unbridled, though not for long.

Yes, the people should be the "bridle," which would not only restrain government, but also capitalism. But if they're not able or willing to do that, then all anyone can do is hope that the government does the right thing.

Some might look to media and those who try to keep an eye on government and support the public's right to know of any wrongdoing, but even that's become a source of controversy, due to charges of "fake news" and whatnot. The flow of information and its quality also appears to have an effect on the public's ability to bridle the government - or anything else for that matter.

 

[Estro Felino]

The trap here is that the only thing that can truly bridle anything, whether it's capitalism, socialism, or the government itself, is the government. Ultimately, that's what we're stuck with, no matter how one slices it. Unless we want to eliminate government entirely, but then everything would be unbridled, though not for long.

Yes, the people should be the "bridle," which would not only restrain government, but also capitalism. But if they're not able or willing to do that, then all anyone can do is hope that the government does the right thing.

Some might look to media and those who try to keep an eye on government and support the public's right to know of any wrongdoing, but even that's become a source of controversy, due to charges of "fake news" and whatnot. The flow of information and its quality also appears to have an effect on the public's ability to bridle the government - or anything else for that matter.

We Europeans conceive the relation between public and private very peculiarly.
To us the common welfare always prevails over the economic freedom of the individuals.
I guess in the US it tends to be the opposite, doesn't it?

 

[Heyo]

How you must suffer

Personally, I don't suffer, I just have to go to multiple stores in hope I find what I need. That is, not what I need but what my cats need, namely cat food. I usually buy from Aldi, 400 gr cans for ¢60, their house brand. As I have learned, other discounters also have 400 gr cans for around ¢60, other brands - if they have them.
Turns out they are not different brands, they only have different labels. There is a monopolist, Mars, which produces all the cat food. Mars wants to raise prices and the discounters jointly are not having it. Now I have to go to multiple stores in hope that one has found some leftovers somewhere - or buy the much more expensive premium food.
That's what happens when capitalism is unbridled, monopolies form and they can (or try to) dictate prices.

 

[Heyo]

Socialists and creationists are much alike with
their naive yearning for a fantasy world where their
ideals will reign.

Capitalists and (professional) creationists are much alike as understanding the matter negatively influences their paycheck.

 

[Audie]

Personally, I don't suffer, I just have to go to multiple stores in hope I find what I need. That is, not what I need but what my cats need, namely cat food. I usually buy from Aldi, 400 gr cans for ¢60, their house brand. As I have learned, other discounters also have 400 gr cans for around ¢60, other brands - if they have them.
Turns out they are not different brands, they only have different labels. There is a monopolist, Mars, which produces all the cat food. Mars wants to raise prices and the discounters jointly are not having it. Now I have to go to multiple stores in hope that one has found some leftovers somewhere - or buy the much more expensive premium food.
That's what happens when capitalism is unbridled, monopolies form and they can (or try to) dictate prices.

If / when there's monopoly or collusion,
that is criminal in rule of law countries.

Capitalism unbridled does not exist anywhere.

Capitalism like democracy has flaws. But
there's nothing better.

 

[Audie]

Capitalists and (professional) creationists are much alike as understanding the matter negatively influences their paycheck.

What matter is that?

 

[Nakosis]

I am not getting it.
A teacher severely hits the arms of a little child who happens to be your daughter and you do nothing?

Most people would really reprimand the teacher, because you can use the words to correct a child. Not violence.

That's why a very powerful and authoritative State is needed: the State defends the weakest from the violent, those wealthy élites who exploit the poor. The State will put these violent people in their place.

Why do you say I'm doing nothing? I'm am taking kid my child out of the situation in which other people have control over. Whereas you are still willing to trust the system which allowed it in the first place.

When I was a kid, such punishment was allowed by the state.
It is a mistake in my experience to assume the state is going to align with your personal moral sentiment.
Also in the US public education the teachers I've dealt with feel entitled to decide these types of things with regard to your child.

 

[Revoltingest]

The basic claim that I addressed was that socialism made Russia worse than the government and political system they had before. The underlying argument is that "socialism always makes things worse," and this is the claim that I would take issue with and find to be unsupported by a careful examination of the actual historical facts.

I never claimed that socialism in the USSR made things as luxurious or comfortable in that country as the United States or other developed Western industrialized countries. The reasons for that have more to do with the practical realities of history, not really due to any abstract "system," since it likely would have been the same issues either way. But nevertheless, there was marked improvement in their industrial output, literacy rate, compulsory education and an expansion of higher education, winning WW2, the first country to send a rocket into space.

I'm not defending the atrocities of that regime, but perhaps if there hadn't been the atrocities and excesses of Stalin, they might have done even greater things. Stalin was paranoid, but he was also in a position where he felt surrounded by enemies. That's not due to socialism. That's just mental illness.

I've decided to try to be nicer
when I criticize your posts.
We'll see how that goes.

 

[Nakosis]

The trap here is that the only thing that can truly bridle anything, whether it's capitalism, socialism, or the government itself, is the government. Ultimately, that's what we're stuck with, no matter how one slices it. Unless we want to eliminate government entirely, but then everything would be unbridled, though not for long.

Yes, the people should be the "bridle," which would not only restrain government, but also capitalism. But if they're not able or willing to do that, then all anyone can do is hope that the government does the right thing.

Some might look to media and those who try to keep an eye on government and support the public's right to know of any wrongdoing, but even that's become a source of controversy, due to charges of "fake news" and whatnot. The flow of information and its quality also appears to have an effect on the public's ability to bridle the government - or anything else for that matter.

Well, I agree. We should limit the power government has to what is reasonable. Once any additional power is given to the government it becomes very difficult to bridal that power back in. The only problem then is deciding what is reasonable.

 

[Heyo]

What matter is that?

Capitalism and the ToE respectively.

 

[Estro Felino]

It is a mistake in my experience to assume the state is going to align with your personal moral sentiment.

What is the State?
The State is the supreme abstract entity that includes every citizen, not only the Government. Each of us are the State. But since it's an abstraction, we say the State's purpose is the common welfare: that is everyone's welfare.
So, as a citizen, my individualistic private interest is irrelevant, since it must align with everyone's welfare.

Few oligarchs and plutocrats believe the State is just governing bodies who exist to pander their own interests, and to help them getting richer and richer at cost of commoners' poverty.

 

[Heyo]

If / when there's monopoly or collusion,
that is criminal in rule of law countries.

Monopolies are not criminal in capitalist countries. They should be prevented by agencies but this is such a niche case that it may have slipped by them.

Capitalism unbridled does not exist anywhere.

Capitalism like democracy has flaws. But
there's nothing better.

 

[Revoltingest]

If / when there's monopoly or collusion,
that is criminal in rule of law countries.

Capitalism unbridled does not exist anywhere.

Capitalism like democracy has flaws. But
there's nothing better.

They hate capitalism because of monopolies.
We have regulations to prevent monopolies.
But they want government to have a monopoly
over every aspect of the economy. Go figure.

 

[Audie]

Capitalism and the ToE respectively.

How does capitalism affect your income?

 

[Nakosis]

We Europeans conceive the relation between public and private very peculiarly.
To us the common welfare always prevails over the economic freedom of the individuals.
I guess in the US it tends to be the opposite, doesn't it?

Here's a question for you. In Europe what is it that gives you power over how you choose to live?
Where you live, how you live. What is it that allows you to choose your lifestyle?

 

[Estro Felino]

They hate capitalism because of monopolies.
We have regulations to prevent monopolies.
But they want government to have a monopoly
over every aspect of the economy. Go figure.

Exactly.
The difference is that private monopolists will spend all those billions on useless private stuff, ...on casinos and brothels.

The State gains billions that it will reuse to build hospitals, motorways, railways, schools, creating employment.

Very, very, very big difference.

 

[Audie]

Monopolies are not criminal in capitalist countries. They should be prevented by agencies but this is such a niche case that it may have slipped by them.

Think again

Are There Any Legal Monopolies in America or Europe

Legal monopolies continue to exist in the United States and Europe despite the current trend against their recognition and endorsement.

www.investopedia.com

 

[Revoltingest]

Exactly.
The difference is that private monopolists will spend all those billions on useless private stuff, ...on casinos and brothels.

The State gains billions that it will reuse to build hospitals, motorways, railways, schools, creating employment.

Very, very, very big difference.

So that's how it went in the worker's paradises
under the USSR, N Korea, Khmer Rouge, eh.

 

[Estro Felino]

Here's a question for you. In Europe what is it that gives you power over how you choose to live?
Where you live, how you live. What is it that allows you to choose your lifestyle?

Being citizens.

 

[Nakosis]

What is the State?
The State is the supreme abstract entity that includes every citizen, not only the Government. Each of us are the State. But since it's an abstraction, we say the State's purpose is the common welfare: that is everyone's welfare.
So, as a citizen, my individualistic private interest is irrelevant, since it must align with everyone's welfare.

Few oligarchs and plutocrats believe the State is just governing bodies who exist to pander their own interests, and to help them getting richer and richer at cost of commoners' poverty.

So if your kid gets beat and the state decides it is for the best then you'll go along with it?
They are after all simply trying to create the model citizen as it is in the best interest of the state.