Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 54
Thanks Tree30Thanks

Thread: Is Capitalism Dead or Merely Dying?

  1. #21
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    41,885
    Thanks
    44062

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Abraham Lincoln, the first RINO....

    Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Abraham Lincoln
    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/q...lin395631.html
    Thanks from labrea

  2. #22
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    9,622
    Thanks
    3024

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGaffer View Post
    Abraham Lincoln, the first RINO....

    Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Abraham Lincoln
    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/q...lin395631.html
    It's beyond that. Capital is labor. Literally its value is derived entirely from the fact that you can use it to compel people to do things you want them to do or bring you things you want. It is a stand-in for labor.

    We treat capital like it's the end game. It isn't. Money is there to facilitate exchange, that's all. That's why our economy is in such a fragile state. The dollars no longer actually represent anything real. Wall Street is a playground, a game for the wealthy. The markets are corrupt at this point, with very little link between the dollars made any any real production. Realistically speaking, we have already pulled out all of the real wealth our society can produce for at least decades, and left IOU's.

  3. #23
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,146
    Thanks
    27864

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    It's beyond that. Capital is labor. Literally its value is derived entirely from the fact that you can use it to compel people to do things you want them to do or bring you things you want. It is a stand-in for labor.

    We treat capital like it's the end game. It isn't. Money is there to facilitate exchange, that's all. That's why our economy is in such a fragile state. The dollars no longer actually represent anything real. Wall Street is a playground, a game for the wealthy. The markets are corrupt at this point, with very little link between the dollars made any any real production. Realistically speaking, we have already pulled out all of the real wealth our society can produce for at least decades, and left IOU's.
    That is true to the extent that the working poor are called takers by romney, and his ilk, while the people who move money from one pocket to another are called makers.

  4. #24
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,323
    Thanks
    4090

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    October 22, 2017 Posted by Raśl Ilargi Meijer at 2:02 pm


    Seven years ago, the combined wealth of 388 billionaires equaled that of the poorest half of humanity
    Banging the drum about the ultra-rich isn't a good starting point for examining capitalism because most money in the world is not finite. It's notional and based on purely digital representations of corporate assets, and expressed in currency that is fiat.

    Trying to understand such growing inequality is usually the purview of economists, but Bruce Boghosian, a professor of mathematics, thinks he has found another explanation—and a warning. Using a mathematical model devised to mimic a simplified version of the free market, he and colleagues are finding that, without redistribution, wealth becomes increasingly more concentrated, and inequality grows until almost all assets are held by an extremely small percent of people.
    Monopoly power has a destabilizing effect, even in a system ripe for capitalistic advancement there has to be regulation of the accumulation of this sort of market power. So this isn't really the way to predict the decline of capitalism either, because we've known about monopoly problems for well over a century. But even in a (relatively) free market system there are redistributive mechanisms. Some exist and occur all on their own, without anyone creating and enforcing them. Once-wildly-successful firms eventually decline and fail, new ones emerge, enormous amounts of inherited wealth is squandered, and so forth. It cannot be honestly argued that wealth only ever accumulates in linear fashion with no redistributive elements until government comes in and forces it. That would be very dishonest. Fluctuations and redistribution of wealth and market power may not happen over time in ways that people feel are satisfactory, but that doesn't mean no redistribution can occur without redistributive taxing and spending policies.

    “Our work refutes the idea that free markets, by virtually leaving people up to their own devices, will be fair,”
    Fair is subjective and has no bearing on the long-term prognosis for capitalism.

    While economists use math for their models, they seek to show that an economy governed by supply and demand will result in a steady state or equilibrium, while Boghosian’s efforts “don’t try to engineer a supply-demand equilibrium, and we don’t find one,” he said.

    https://www.theautomaticearth.com/20...-merely-dying/
    The success of capitalism requires not only relatively competitive markets for goods and services but also requires most of the people in society to participate in production as well as consumption. The reason living standards undeniably rose significantly in the past thanks to capitalism had to do significantly with the fact that human participation in capitalistic production and advancement was needed. How can anyone expect the same advancement in living standards for all once most production requires extremely little human participation? That's the crux of the issue. Not the melodrama about how rich the rich are. Whether the super rich are worth $1 billion or $100 billion, the prognosis for capitalism comes down to how living standards can improve when a only small minority are required to produce everything.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 27th October 2017 at 12:14 PM.

  5. #25
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    41,885
    Thanks
    44062

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Banging the drum about the ultra-rich isn't a good starting point for examining capitalism because most money in the world is not finite. It's notional and based on purely digital representations of corporate assets, and expressed in currency that is fiat.



    Monopoly power has a destabilizing effect, even in a system ripe for capitalistic advancement there has to be regulation of the accumulation of this sort of market power. So this isn't really the way to predict the decline of capitalism either, because we've known about monopoly problems for well over a century. But even in a (relatively) free market system there are redistributive mechanisms. Some exist and occur all on their own, without anyone creating and enforcing them. Once-wildly-successful firms eventually decline and fail, new ones emerge, enormous amounts of inherited wealth is squandered, and so forth. It cannot be honestly argued that wealth only ever accumulates in linear fashion with no redistributive elements until government comes in and forces it. That would be very dishonest. Fluctuations and redistribution of wealth and market power may not happen over time in ways that people feel are satisfactory, but that doesn't mean no redistribution can occur without redistributive taxing and spending policies.



    Fair is subjective and has no bearing on the long-term prognosis for capitalism.



    The success of capitalism requires not only relatively competitive markets for goods and services but also requires most of the people in society to participate in production as well as consumption. The reason living standards undeniably rose significantly in the past thanks to capitalism had to do significantly with the fact that human participation in capitalistic production and advancement was needed. How can anyone expect the same advancement in living standards for all once most production requires extremely little human participation? That's the crux of the issue. Not the melodrama about how rich the rich are. Whether the super rich are worth $1 billion or $100 billion, the prognosis for capitalism comes down to how living standards can improve when a only small minority are required to produce everything.
    History has shown us there is a tipping point and then the oligarchs get lined against the wall....the oligarchs control when that happens by their actions....
    Thanks from labrea and Panzareta

  6. #26
    Bizarroland Observer Thx1138's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    22,720
    Thanks
    13785

    From
    aMEEErica
    Quote Originally Posted by fenrir View Post
    "Some" feel the current economic system in America is corporatism, not capitalism. "Some" also feel today's inequality is a natural result of corporatism not capitalism. I feel there may be something to this concept.

    Corporatism not capitalism is to blame for inequality
    In some circles they call it "corporate fascism."



    Thx
    Thanks from OldGaffer

  7. #27
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,323
    Thanks
    4090

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGaffer View Post
    History has shown us there is a tipping point and then the oligarchs get lined against the wall...
    History hasn't shown us anything about what happens with globally ubiquitous automated and computerized production of goods and services, because that's never existed before. Looks like the point sailed far over your head. The left winger class warfare emotionalism isn't the crux of it. When Milton Friedman (paraphrasing) said no system yet seen or conceived of has raised living standards the way relatively free market capitalism has, that was true, but it was also long enough ago to be during a time that vast human participation in production was fundamentally necessary, hence guaranteeing people experience increasing living standards as advancement happens. Once widespread participation in production is not necessary, how can living standards rise across the board?

  8. #28
    Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    3,165
    Thanks
    700

    From
    Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGaffer View Post
    Tell us more about third world shit holes....but studiously ignore the facts from much more progressive industrialized nation that do not fit your fringe right wing narrative.
    Third world shitholes supposedly organized on the principles of wealth redistribution...

  9. #29
    Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    3,165
    Thanks
    700

    From
    Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    It originates with the people.
    Which people? Do you know where the majority of tax revenue comes from?2010_US_Tax_Liability_by_Income_Group_-_CBO.jpg

  10. #30
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,146
    Thanks
    27864

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    History hasn't shown us anything about what happens with globally ubiquitous automated and computerized production of goods and services, because that's never existed before. Looks like the point sailed far over your head. The left winger class warfare emotionalism isn't the crux of it. When Milton Friedman (paraphrasing) said no system yet seen or conceived of has raised living standards the way relatively free market capitalism has, that was true, but it was also long enough ago to be during a time that vast human participation in production was fundamentally necessary, hence guaranteeing people experience increasing living standards as advancement happens. Once widespread participation in production is not necessary, how can living standards rise across the board?
    Im not sure thats necessarily true.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 111
    Last Post: 3rd May 2017, 09:26 AM
  2. Replies: 62
    Last Post: 21st November 2014, 12:14 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 9th October 2014, 05:14 PM
  4. Is capitalism really dead??
    By wingrider in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 1st June 2009, 06:27 PM
  5. Capitalism is Dead; Long Live "Capitalism".
    By Burning Giraffe in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2nd October 2008, 03:46 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed