Conquer Club

Posted: **Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:17 pm**

Genuine question: does anyone have the faintest idea why some of the protestors think that capitalism and democracy are opposing concepts?

Posted: **Sat Nov 26, 2011 8:09 pm**

In 100 words or less, it's because democracy is dependent on the idea that all have an equal say in government. Capitalism encourages the accumulation of wealth. Wealth dictates policy outcomes more than votes. The short of it is that democracy is really, really hard.

Posted: **Sat Nov 26, 2011 8:31 pm**

spurgistan wrote:Wealth dictates policy outcomes more than votes.

Is that empirically proven fact? Please provide subjective examples, at least.

It doesn't matter if you replace capitalism with socialism or communism - whatever system you choose, there will always be some people who are able to influence policy development more than others. If a large business is able to influence government more than an individual person then that is because a large business accounts for more employees and a larger share of the nation's GDP than one individual citizen.

Posted: **Sat Nov 26, 2011 8:36 pm**

OK, but that's not democracy, then. Saying "businesses are more important than people because they're bigger" is the gripe people like me have with the way capitalism works to coopt democracy. If you want a plutocracy, at least have the balls to say that's what you want.

Posted: **Sat Nov 26, 2011 8:49 pm**

If a big business represents more people then by definition of democracy the business's voice (that of many people) should have more sway than the voice of the individual.

I would rather have a technocracy. We do, however, live in a democracy. The mouth-breathers who think that banks caused the recession continue to define national policy.

Posted: **Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:51 am**

barackattack wrote:If a big business represents more people then by definition of democracy the business's voice (that of many people) should have more sway than the voice of the individual.

I would rather have a technocracy. We do, however, live in a democracy. The mouth-breathers who think that banks caused the recession continue to define national policy.

Thing is in democracies the real power lies outside elected representatives,it is however the least worst system we have.Unless you seriously imagine Obama is the most powerful man in the us.

Posted: **Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:54 pm**

barackattack wrote:The mouth-breathers who think that banks caused the recession continue to define national policy.

Interesting point; I assume you're referring to the 2008 debt bubble and not the latest one?

The latest debt crisis does have a lot of blame resting on the banks. Lending money to the Greeks was a bad idea. The lenders should be taking some responsibility.

Also democracy and capitalism are only indirectly comparable.

Democracy is the inverse of dictatorship. Capitalism is the inverse of Communism.

As spurg states most protesters feel that capitalism leads to the wealthy dictating the way things are done and thus tainting true democracy.

Posted: **Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:56 pm**

Lootifer wrote:The latest debt crisis does have a lot of blame resting on the banks. Lending money to the Greeks was a bad idea. The lenders should be taking some responsibility.

I've seen people say this before. True, the banks did agree to lend to government - it was the governments who chose to borrow though.

The largest holder of sovereign debt in the world is not a bank - it is the Chinese government. Is it China's fault that we are experiencing a debt crisis?

Posted: **Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:04 pm**

barackattack wrote:
Lootifer wrote:The latest debt crisis does have a lot of blame resting on the banks. Lending money to the Greeks was a bad idea. The lenders should be taking some responsibility.

I've seen people say this before. True, the banks did agree to lend to government - it was the governments who chose to borrow though.

The largest holder of sovereign debt in the world is not a bank - it is the Chinese government. Is it China's fault that we are experiencing a debt crisis?

Likely somewhat.

Posted: **Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:19 pm**

Blame others, repeat mistakes. Loop.

Posted: **Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:22 pm**

Timminz wrote:
barackattack wrote:
Lootifer wrote:The latest debt crisis does have a lot of blame resting on the banks. Lending money to the Greeks was a bad idea. The lenders should be taking some responsibility.

I've seen people say this before. True, the banks did agree to lend to government - it was the governments who chose to borrow though.

The largest holder of sovereign debt in the world is not a bank - it is the Chinese government. Is it China's fault that we are experiencing a debt crisis?

Likely somewhat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hFwPmQqSsU

Posted: **Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:24 pm**

Watching Obama suck Hu Jintao's cock is delightful.

Posted: **Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:52 pm**

barackattack wrote:
Lootifer wrote:The latest debt crisis does have a lot of blame resting on the banks. Lending money to the Greeks was a bad idea. The lenders should be taking some responsibility.

I've seen people say this before. True, the banks did agree to lend to government - it was the governments who chose to borrow though.

The largest holder of sovereign debt in the world is not a bank - it is the Chinese government. Is it China's fault that we are experiencing a debt crisis?

No its the large European banks that didn't do due diligence on who they were lending to (dodgy club med countries). Chinas soverign debt is mostly in the US, which while huge, has been bailed out and (I believe) isn't nearly the same threat the Euro debt stuff is (as of right now)

What you are saying is it's the horses fault all the punters lost their money. Sorry that doesnt wash, yes the horse whas a useless bloated donkey, but in that case you shouldn't have taken a punt on the damn thing.

Banks being greedy and giving dodgy as hell loans knowing they will get bailouts if it turns to shit is whats going on.

That's not to say US won't be held accountable if they follow suit and default on their loans; by defaulting you are still declaring bankruptcy and sanctions will be incoming (by the people who hold your debt, ie china).

Posted: **Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:16 pm**

First off: it isn't just the banks. Banks hold less than a third of Greek debt (public institutions, such as the IMF, and private investors hold most of it). And it isn't just European banks: US banks own Greek debt as well.

I can't really see how your horse metaphor relates to government lending. Providing a government with a loan is very different from placing a bet on a horse. A loan is not a gamble. Greece hid its problems in order to reassure investors (one example is their inclusion of black market trading in their GDP, so that it looked stronger). It's only this whole sorry mess that has forced them to come clean.

The fault is with the politicians who decided to take loans rather than spending cuts, and the politicians who hid their problems to give the impression of being a more sound investment than they really were.

The fault lies with the governments who borrowed and who were too chickenshit to tell the public they needed to make cuts. Blaming the lender is futile.

Posted: **Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:20 pm**

Like I say, Greece is a fat useless donkey who has made a series of mistakes and did some illegal stuff (See: hiding problems). Still the burden of failed investment (outside of fraud/illegal activities) lies with the investor.

Posted: **Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:32 pm**

If the governments don't borrow in the first place then the banks have no one to lend to.

Blaming the investor only absolves the borrower of any responsibility, and gives them no incentive to change their ways. Governments weren't bullied into taking unfair loans - they went looking for them.

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:37 am**

barackattack wrote:Genuine question: does anyone have the faintest idea why some of the protestors think that capitalism and democracy are opposing concepts?

I don't know why the protestors think that capitalism and democracy are opposing concepts.

If we define capitalism as including the ability to influence government policy decisions through the use of cash (in campaign donations or, more accurately, bribes), and we describe the United States government as being a democracy (incorrectly), and we assume that people are worse off than they would be if either the United States government wasn't a democracy or capitalism didn't influence policy decisions through the use of bribes, then yes, capitalism and democracy are opposing concepts.

But that's stupid.

A more accurate description would be that current campaign finance laws and a representative republic are opposing concepts (assuming one is in the 99%).

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:45 am**

If campaign finance laws and representation are opposing concepts then this holds true whether or not the reader is in the 99%. But, otherwise, yes.

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:46 am**

barackattack wrote:If campaign finance laws and representation are opposing concepts then this holds true whether or not the reader is in the 99%. But, otherwise, yes.

Yes, true. I was making another assumption - that those in the 1% don't care whether campaign finance laws and representation are opposing concepts.

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:04 am**

Wow, three totally objective posts in a row... either you are the supreme master of subversive sarcasm or I am no longer in a CC forum.

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:41 am**

barackattack wrote:Wow, three totally objective posts in a row... either you are the supreme master of subversive sarcasm or I am no longer in a CC forum.

Some of my posts are tongue-in-cheek I suppose. I'm not sure any of the ones above are, except that it's inherent in my posts that I don't think the OWS has a coherent agenda and doesn't really know what it's talking about.

In any event, there are problems and then there are fake problems. For example, OWS and Tea Party protestors seem to like to focus on fake (or imagined) problems. In the case of the OWS it's the idea that capitalism and democracy are incompatible (while at the same time practicing free speech rights while also texting on their i-phones). Maybe it's something subtler or different. In the case of the Tea Party, it's the idea that Obamer raised taxes on the Tea Partiers (and not, you know, no one). Maybe it's the threat of raising taxes or the idea that taxes are too high already.

I sympathize more with the Tea Party because, well, I don't like taxes. And I dislike the OWS because, well, I don't like rich white college students who think they are oppressed because their parents only bought them a Jeep Wrangler for their birthday instead of a BMW.

Posted: **Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:34 am**

barackattack wrote:If the governments don't borrow in the first place then the banks have no one to lend to.

Blaming the investor only absolves the borrower of any responsibility, and gives them no incentive to change their ways. Governments weren't bullied into taking unfair loans - they went looking for them.

If the banks didn't lend the governments money they couldn't have kept spending. If I lend money to a guy who I know never pays off his debts that's my bad, buddy while still an idiot didn't force me to lend him money.

Anyway why can't I blame both? The governments for being so stupid as to borrow so much without the ability to pay for it, and the banks for being so stupid as to lend money to an entity which can't pay it back.

Posted: **Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:26 am**

Baron Von PWN wrote:the banks

As we said earlier, the banks only own a fraction of government debt.

Baron Von PWN wrote: If I lend money to a guy who I know never pays off his debts that's my bad, buddy while still an idiot didn't force me to lend him money.

This wasn't the case. Let's take Greece as a proxy for any struggling government:

Pre-recession Greece had a strong economy, with notably strong tourism and shipping industries. These were shattered by the recession, dealing a blow to Greece. Greece held assets in US banks, which the recession dealt great damage to. Greece has had to bail out its banks, which was an unprecedented and high cost. Pre-recession, Greece was just as sound an investment as anyone else - of course 'the banks' would lend to them. It is only since the economic slowdown that Greece has experienced any major problems.

Posted: **Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:55 am**

barackattack wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:the banks

As we said earlier, the banks only own a fraction of government debt.

Baron Von PWN wrote: If I lend money to a guy who I know never pays off his debts that's my bad, buddy while still an idiot didn't force me to lend him money.

This wasn't the case. Let's take Greece as a proxy for any struggling government:

Pre-recession Greece had a strong economy, with notably strong tourism and shipping industries. These were shattered by the recession, dealing a blow to Greece. Greece held assets in US banks, which the recession dealt great damage to. Greece has had to bail out its banks, which was an unprecedented and high cost. Pre-recession, Greece was just as sound an investment as anyone else - of course 'the banks' would lend to them. It is only since the economic slowdown that Greece has experienced any major problems.

It could also be that Greece has major problems because the government spends a whole lot more than they take in. They have operated like a Sweden or Norway in terms of spending, but have the tax effectiveness of... well... a country whose citizens think it's a patriotic duty not to pay taxes.

Posted: **Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:59 am**

Maybe it is just very difficult to point the finger at anyone in a worthwhile way and we should just accept that what has happened has happened :3

Conquer Club

democracy vs. capitalism

democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism

Re: democracy vs. capitalism