The problem with Capitalism

[thegreekdog]

I don't care enough about defending Night Strike (since I don't agree with him). So I'll just say this, NS would say that you are forced to pay taxes (or whatever); no one is forced to get married.

[Woodruff]

I don't care enough about defending Night Strike (since I don't agree with him). So I'll just say this, NS would say that you are forced to pay taxes (or whatever); no one is forced to get married.

If you force someone to NOT be able to do something, are you not making a decision for them? You're certainly not allowing them the personal decision...

[thegreekdog]

I don't care enough about defending Night Strike (since I don't agree with him). So I'll just say this, NS would say that you are forced to pay taxes (or whatever); no one is forced to get married.

If you force someone to NOT be able to do something, are you not making a decision for them? You're certainly not allowing them the personal decision...

Marriage is not a government construction; it's a personal one. Two men can get married, it just won't be recognized by the state and they won't receive the attendant benefits and detriments that the state provides.

[Woodruff]

I don't care enough about defending Night Strike (since I don't agree with him). So I'll just say this, NS would say that you are forced to pay taxes (or whatever); no one is forced to get married.

If you force someone to NOT be able to do something, are you not making a decision for them? You're certainly not allowing them the personal decision...

Marriage is not a government construction; it's a personal one. Two men can get married, it just won't be recognized by the state and they won't receive the attendant benefits and detriments that the state provides.

In this day and age, that is tantamount to the same thing as not being able to marry.

[thegreekdog]

I don't care enough about defending Night Strike (since I don't agree with him). So I'll just say this, NS would say that you are forced to pay taxes (or whatever); no one is forced to get married.

If you force someone to NOT be able to do something, are you not making a decision for them? You're certainly not allowing them the personal decision...

Marriage is not a government construction; it's a personal one. Two men can get married, it just won't be recognized by the state and they won't receive the attendant benefits and detriments that the state provides.

In this day and age, that is tantamount to the same thing as not being able to marry.

Obviously I don't agree with that statement. A couple can be married in any number of ceremonies (religious or otherwise) or simply say "yeah, we're married" and the government doesn't say "No, you're not married." The government says "Okay, fine, but you're not getting tax benefits, etc." Equal protection violation? Yes. Forcing you to do something or not do something? No. Stupid argument? Yes, but NS is certainly not wrong (in this instance).

[AndyDufresne]

Too much hullabaloo.


--Andy

[puppydog85]

Andy, I just read your first comment about mars. That man was clearly wrong. Has he never read Burroughs? Mars is a free society (thanks to John Carter).

[AndyDufresne]

Andy, I just read your first comment about mars. That man was clearly wrong. Has he never read Burroughs? Mars is a free society (thanks to John Carter).

He did what he could, publishing his article 20 some years before!


--Andy

[Woodruff]

I don't care enough about defending Night Strike (since I don't agree with him). So I'll just say this, NS would say that you are forced to pay taxes (or whatever); no one is forced to get married.

If you force someone to NOT be able to do something, are you not making a decision for them? You're certainly not allowing them the personal decision...

Marriage is not a government construction; it's a personal one. Two men can get married, it just won't be recognized by the state and they won't receive the attendant benefits and detriments that the state provides.

In this day and age, that is tantamount to the same thing as not being able to marry.

Obviously I don't agree with that statement. A couple can be married in any number of ceremonies (religious or otherwise) or simply say "yeah, we're married" and the government doesn't say "No, you're not married." The government says "Okay, fine, but you're not getting tax benefits, etc." Equal protection violation? Yes. Forcing you to do something or not do something? No. Stupid argument? Yes, but NS is certainly not wrong (in this instance).

Ok, so he's technically right, yet that doesn't at all change the very real negative effects this is having on people in the real world. It IS essentially the same scenario, regardless of some technicality that those who are desperate nutjobs (not you, as you recognize it's lack of validity as a position) want to foist on it. Despite that technicality, it really does not at all change his hypocricy on the issue, in the real world.

[thegreekdog]

Ok, so he's technically right, yet that doesn't at all change the very real negative effects this is having on people in the real world. It IS essentially the same scenario, regardless of some technicality that those who are desperate nutjobs (not you, as you recognize it's lack of validity as a position) want to foist on it. Despite that technicality, it really does not at all change his hypocricy on the issue, in the real world.

I don't disagree.

[john9blue]

Costco is working great. But the "capitalists" on wall street don't approve. They want Costco to f*ck over their employees and send all the cash to wall street. That's what's wrong with Capitalism. Wall street and the idea that higher profits for wall street means a better America.

then call it "the problem with some capitalists"

this thread title blows.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's either for light-hearted trollery, which is acceptable, or bedub refuses to understand what capitalism is.

[PLAYER57832]

So, I just read the article...

how is it, and specifically Costco's business model, critical of capitalism?

Some Wall Street guy presumes to know the intracies of Costco's business model and recommends they adopt something entirely different?

(1) That guy/those guys most likely don't know what they're talking about
(2) How is their recommendation critical of Capitalism?


The OP doesn't make sense... :/

Oh, but didn't you know --

Capitalism = "what Wallstreet wants" They are the only money makers that matter, after all.
[sarcasm alert]

[lynch5762]

In my humble opinion,

I think that "Capitalism", and "free Market" for that matter, died the day that government subsidies began. The concept of free market no longer exists and the word "capitalism" is often confused and misunderstood.

In reality, "Capitalism" no longer exists in this country either. The definition of capitalism is "private" ownership of "capital" goods.

Let's put things into perspective folks... Corporations in this country exist now because our government allows them to. If you don't believe me or understand... do some research into government imposed "MSP's" or (minimum support prices) on commodities.

One example; It is no coincidence that the "MSP" for sugar, will always be equal to or above the costs to manufacture artificial sweeteners. There is a reason behind this, but the bottom line is that the sugar commodity is being controlled (no free market here) and this is just one example out of a thousand.

We live in and era, where the average politician makes a salary of $174,000.00 (5x the national median household income). These same politicians routinely sell their "yes" votes for bills that they might not otherwise support, for a promise of an undisclosed amount of money for projects in their localities... This is pathetic!!

Everyone likes to blame the so called "fat cats" of wall street, but the bottom line is that these fat cats do not exist without government support. It would blow the minds of most people to get a grasp on the subsidies that are doled out by our government. And BTW... these subsidies are not free for these companies (what the heck do you think the campaign donations are for?)

I used to consider myself a republican (only because I lean towards the conservative side of life), but I have no desire to carry any party affiliation anymore. In my opinion, the whole system is corrupt and I wished to hell that one day this country would make it a mandate to impose term limits on ALL politicians.

Anyhow, When it comes to the topic of the OP... A popular phrase comes to mind. "Don't hate the player, hate the game" Anyone who is investing money is merely taking advantage of a system that is manipulated by lobbiest, regulations, subsidies, price controls on commodities, etc. etc... the list goes on and on.

Good luck to future generations because in a country that has decided that living in debt is just fine.... your going to need it!

One last thought about capitalism.... the next time you get your pay stub, take a look at the taxes you paid and then call Bank of America and ask them to thank you. Because after all, you did decide (with the governments help of course) to spend you hard earned money to bail out a company that had a failed business model and incredibly poor performance at best. But hell... We sure would hate to see a great company go down right???

[PLAYER57832]

In my humble opinion,

I think that "Capitalism", and "free Market" for that matter, died the day that government subsidies began. The concept of free market no longer exists and the word "capitalism" is often confused and misunderstood.

In reality, "Capitalism" no longer exists in this country either. The definition of capitalism is "private" ownership of "capital" goods.

Let's put things into perspective folks... Corporations in this country exist now because our government allows them to. If you don't believe me or understand... do some research into government imposed "MSP's" or (minimum support prices) on commodities.

One example; It is no coincidence that the "MSP" for sugar, will always be equal to or above the costs to manufacture artificial sweeteners. There is a reason behind this, but the bottom line is that the sugar commodity is being controlled (no free market here) and this is just one example out of a thousand.

We live in and era, where the average politician makes a salary of $174,000.00 (5x the national median household income). These same politicians routinely sell their "yes" votes for bills that they might not otherwise support, for a promise of an undisclosed amount of money for projects in their localities... This is pathetic!!

Everyone likes to blame the so called "fat cats" of wall street, but the bottom line is that these fat cats do not exist without government support. It would blow the minds of most people to get a grasp on the subsidies that are doled out by our government. And BTW... these subsidies are not free for these companies (what the heck do you think the campaign donations are for?)

I used to consider myself a republican (only because I lean towards the conservative side of life), but I have no desire to carry any party affiliation anymore. In my opinion, the whole system is corrupt and I wished to hell that one day this country would make it a mandate to impose term limits on ALL politicians.

Anyhow, When it comes to the topic of the OP... A popular phrase comes to mind. "Don't hate the player, hate the game" Anyone who is investing money is merely taking advantage of a system that is manipulated by lobbiest, regulations, subsidies, price controls on commodities, etc. etc... the list goes on and on.

Good luck to future generations because in a country that has decided that living in debt is just fine.... your going to need it!

One last thought about capitalism.... the next time you get your pay stub, take a look at the taxes you paid and then call Bank of America and ask them to thank you. Because after all, you did decide (with the governments help of course) to spend you hard earned money to bail out a company that had a failed business model and incredibly poor performance at best. But hell... We sure would hate to see a great company go down right???

Except, seeking any advantage for monetary gain IS the heart of capitalism. What you describe is government support of the winners of the capitalistic game, not loss of capitalism.

Pure Capitalism is always doomed to fail because some people's greed just knows no bounds and they literally destroy their own future, that of everyone around them to gain a bit today.

[BigBallinStalin]

Except, seeking any advantage for monetary gain IS the heart of capitalism. What you describe is government support of the winners of the capitalistic game, not loss of capitalism.

Except, seeking any advantage for monetary gain IS the heart of capitalism. What you describe is government support of the winners of the capitalistic game, not loss of capitalism.

Pure Capitalism is always doomed to fail because some people's greed just knows no bounds and they literally destroy their own future, that of everyone around them to gain a bit today.

Player, "capitalism is about profit and loss. If you bail out the losers, there's no end to the costs."

Otherwise, it isn't capitalism.

The simplistic definition of Capitalism would be the private ownership over the means of production, but that would be as simplistic as describing all forms of socialism as the state ownership over the means of production.

Capitalism involves three factors: prices, property rights, and profit and loss. In your definition, you're including only a profit motive, hence "seeking any advantage for monetary gain IS the heart of capitalism." Yet you neglect the lack of loss which is created by state intervention. Furthermore, your criticism and inaccurate description of capitalism neglects to mention anything about property rights and prices.


Furthermore, even the more descriptive explanation of capitalism as I presented it is still not sufficient. It only describes an economic institution with a slight merge into legal institutions (property rights). So, even if you talk about capitalism in this sense, you'd still be neglecting to describe how the legal institutions play a role in this economic institution of Capitalism--not to be confused with political capitalism. Then, there's social institutions which involve the individuals' perception of psychic profit and monetary profit.

Hopefully, we'd resort to an institutional analysis after clearing up the definition of what is to be examined in order to understand what are its rules of the game, as well as to understand the endogenous relationship it has with other institutions.

[BigBallinStalin]

In my humble opinion,

I think that "Capitalism", and "free Market" for that matter, died the day that government subsidies began. The concept of free market no longer exists and the word "capitalism" is often confused and misunderstood.

In reality, "Capitalism" no longer exists in this country either. The definition of capitalism is "private" ownership of "capital" goods.

Let's put things into perspective folks... Corporations in this country exist now because our government allows them to. If you don't believe me or understand... do some research into government imposed "MSP's" or (minimum support prices) on commodities.

One example; It is no coincidence that the "MSP" for sugar, will always be equal to or above the costs to manufacture artificial sweeteners. There is a reason behind this, but the bottom line is that the sugar commodity is being controlled (no free market here) and this is just one example out of a thousand.

We live in and era, where the average politician makes a salary of $174,000.00 (5x the national median household income). These same politicians routinely sell their "yes" votes for bills that they might not otherwise support, for a promise of an undisclosed amount of money for projects in their localities... This is pathetic!!

Everyone likes to blame the so called "fat cats" of wall street, but the bottom line is that these fat cats do not exist without government support. It would blow the minds of most people to get a grasp on the subsidies that are doled out by our government. And BTW... these subsidies are not free for these companies (what the heck do you think the campaign donations are for?)

I used to consider myself a republican (only because I lean towards the conservative side of life), but I have no desire to carry any party affiliation anymore. In my opinion, the whole system is corrupt and I wished to hell that one day this country would make it a mandate to impose term limits on ALL politicians.

Anyhow, When it comes to the topic of the OP... A popular phrase comes to mind. "Don't hate the player, hate the game" Anyone who is investing money is merely taking advantage of a system that is manipulated by lobbiest, regulations, subsidies, price controls on commodities, etc. etc... the list goes on and on.

Good luck to future generations because in a country that has decided that living in debt is just fine.... your going to need it!

One last thought about capitalism.... the next time you get your pay stub, take a look at the taxes you paid and then call Bank of America and ask them to thank you. Because after all, you did decide (with the governments help of course) to spend you hard earned money to bail out a company that had a failed business model and incredibly poor performance at best. But hell... We sure would hate to see a great company go down right???

This is interesting.

Could you talk more about "minimum support prices"?

Does that include import quotas and tariffs or what?