Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 54
Thanks Tree30Thanks

Thread: Is Capitalism Dead or Merely Dying?

  1. #41
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    9,622
    Thanks
    3024

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Specify.

    The objective analysis of capitalism in the future has surprisingly little to do with your class warfare petulance.
    Money simply is power. There is no denying it. It is not remotely debatable or refutable. In our nation, it buys access and, in sufficient quantities, the access to literally write pieces of legislation, hand it to a member of Congress, and have them work it into a bill where it will pass for you.

    In that climate, making the middle class as broad and deep as possible is essential to maintain any sort of Republic or Democracy. In that climate, putting systems in place to prevent accumulation of fortunes so vast that they knock all representation out of whack is important.

    We can argue later about how to do that. But I don't think there is any arguing the importance of making the middle class encompass as much of the population as possible, controlling as much of the wealth as possible.
    Thanks from OldGaffer and labrea

  2. #42
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    41,885
    Thanks
    44062

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    Money simply is power. There is no denying it. It is not remotely debatable or refutable. In our nation, it buys access and, in sufficient quantities, the access to literally write pieces of legislation, hand it to a member of Congress, and have them work it into a bill where it will pass for you.

    In that climate, making the middle class as broad and deep as possible is essential to maintain any sort of Republic or Democracy. In that climate, putting systems in place to prevent accumulation of fortunes so vast that they knock all representation out of whack is important.

    We can argue later about how to do that. But I don't think there is any arguing the importance of making the middle class encompass as much of the population as possible, controlling as much of the wealth as possible.
    This is an argument totally rejected by the right.

  3. #43
    Member fenrir's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    3,878
    Thanks
    637

    From
    Yoknapatawpha County
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    What ever it is, it aint working.
    I beg to differ. It's working wonders for the already fabulously wealthy. I can only assume that's what FDR intended when he instituted the Corporatist state when he did.

  4. #44
    Member fenrir's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    3,878
    Thanks
    637

    From
    Yoknapatawpha County
    Quote Originally Posted by Thx1138 View Post
    In some circles they call it "corporate fascism."



    Thx
    Yes, corporatism was and is the preferred economic system of all the fascist states of the 30's and beyond.

  5. #45
    Member fenrir's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    3,878
    Thanks
    637

    From
    Yoknapatawpha County
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGaffer View Post
    There are many more third world shitholes run on a capitalist system than are run as social democracies.

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/...uality-of-life

    The top 10 countries with the highest quality of Life are arguable all Democratic Socialist countries.

    You can see the 10 countries with the highest quality of life below.
    Netherlands — 88.65. ...
    Norway — 88.70. ...
    Sweden — 88.80. ...
    Switzerland — 88.87. ...
    Australia — 89.13. ...
    Denmark — 89.39. ...
    Canada — 89.49. ...
    Finland — 90.09. Everyone says Scandinavian nations have the highest standard of living, and now Finland has made it official

    Note that every one of them has a form of UHC.
    You do understand, Old Gaffer, that the culture of the Scandinavian people in no way resembles any of the various sub cultures of the peoples who inhabit the U.S. outside of, perhaps, Minnosota and Wisconsin, right?

    Every time social democracy has been tried in outside of there you end up with Venesuzuela and Cuba not Sweden.

  6. #46
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    41,885
    Thanks
    44062

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by fenrir View Post
    Yes, corporatism was and is the preferred economic system of all the fascist states of the 30's and beyond.
    So, you must really be pissed by Trump's tax reform that guts corporate taxes and funnels the wealth to the 1%? UhHuh.

  7. #47
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    41,885
    Thanks
    44062

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by fenrir View Post
    You do understand, Old Gaffer, that the culture of the Scandinavian people in no way resembles any of the various sub cultures of the peoples who inhabit the U.S. outside of, perhaps, Minnosota and Wisconsin, right?

    Every time social democracy has been tried in outside of there you end up with Venesuzuela and Cuba not Sweden.
    You need to explain that to Australia, Canada and Switzerland, since they are in the top 10 as well. Try another failed example of false logic to support your point.
    Thanks from labrea

  8. #48
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    64,177
    Thanks
    20886

    From
    Mass and Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    Trickle down doesn't work, so lets do it again.
    Of course it works.
    It's intended to make the rich richer and steal money from the middle class.

    It works exactly as intended!

  9. #49
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,323
    Thanks
    4090

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    Money simply is power. There is no denying it. It is not remotely debatable or refutable.
    Well I'm not denying, debating or refuting it. Power is also power, and organized society requires that some are going to have it.

    In that climate, making the middle class as broad and deep as possible is essential to maintain any sort of Republic or Democracy. In that climate, putting systems in place to prevent accumulation of fortunes so vast that they knock all representation out of whack is important.

    We can argue later about how to do that. But I don't think there is any arguing the importance of making the middle class encompass as much of the population as possible, controlling as much of the wealth as possible.
    No system of politics and government is sustainable if very large numbers of people aren't having their needs met adequately (whether by them meeting their own needs because they have something others want to buy, or whether it's by others who provide for them), and if people aren't relatively free to do as they please. It doesn't matter whether the system is anarchocapitalist or full blown communist, and it doesn't even matter whether the top 0.01% are 1,000 times richer than the average or whether they're 1,000,000 times richer than the average. The stability doesn't derive from how rich the rich are or aren't, it derives from how well the general populace's needs are met, and without the government treating them like cattle on a CAFO either.

    Capitalism doesn't even strive to meet needs directly. That's not the "goal of capitalism," if you will. It's not a needs-based system. Never was, never tried to be. It is passive in the meeting of needs. Proponents believe needs are optimally met as a naturally occurring outcome of maintaining freedom of people to buy and sell in a "market." Capitalism just says leave people alone and let them trade, and society will develop and prosper, and needs will be met relatively well, or at least better than they would have been without the prosperity. And there is something to this. It's not mere bullshit. We have seen it. There's no point getting combative over this like a radical ideologue. When Milton Friedman repeatedly insisted capitalism was hands down better than any other system yet attempted or contemplated at improving everyone's living standards, that was true. Hardly disputable. But look at the years in which he was stating this. We're 50% more populous than when he was saying this and 100 times more mechanized/computerized/automated. What was the biggest underlying reason capitalism was better than anything else at raising living standards broadly? Because capitalism required broad labor participation. When everyone participates, everyone prospers (at least more than they would have without participating). The less capital needs labor over time, the less broadly it raises living standards and meets needs. When capital no longer needs much labor hardly at all, how can a devoutly capitalist system raise everyone's living standards, as it has in the past? I'm sure Friedman would come up with some sort of explanation, but I think any such attempt to explain this away would be less than convincing as time goes on.

    On the other side, one of communism's many problems is its tendency to believe prosperity and met needs magically spring forth by single government decree. There shall be prosperity and needs shall be met. Ok, great. How? Don't worry about that! We declare it! This has pretty much never come close to working. It apparently would require total global cooperation, because countries trying it in isolation simply incentivize capital and its wealth to relocate itself to whatever environment it is most tenable, i.e. if we were to try this, we'd rapidly lose our economic standing in the world. Somewhere else would become the economic center of the world and we'd all be left bickering about the situation we created for ourselves, like a bully who can't come to terms with why no one came to his birthday party. Why do you think Piketty, for example, suggested the notion of a global wealth tax? The French economist has witnessed the downsides of getting aggressively redistributive on a single national level.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 4th November 2017 at 10:06 AM.

  10. #50
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,146
    Thanks
    27864

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by fenrir View Post
    You do understand, Old Gaffer, that the culture of the Scandinavian people in no way resembles any of the various sub cultures of the peoples who inhabit the U.S. outside of, perhaps, Minnosota and Wisconsin, right?

    Every time social democracy has been tried in outside of there you end up with Venesuzuela and Cuba not Sweden.
    And what were conditions in Venezuela that precipitated socialism?

    When world oil prices collapsed in the 1980s, the economy contracted and inflation levels (consumer price inflation) rose, remaining between 6 and 12% from 1982 to 1986,[34][35] The inflation rate peaked in 1989 at 84%,[35] the year the capital city of Caracas suffered from rioting during the Caracazo following the cut of government spending and the opening of markets by President Carlos Andrés Pérez.[36] After Pérez initiated such liberal economic policies and made Venezuelan markets more free, Venezuela's GDP went from a -8.3% decline in 1989 to growing 4.4% in 1990 and 9.2% in 1991, though wages remained low and unemployment was high among Venezuelans.[36]

    …By the mid-1990s under President Rafael Caldera, Venezuela saw annual inflation rates of 50-60% from 1993 to 1997 with an exceptional peak in 1996 at 99.88%.[35] The number of people living in poverty rose from 36% in 1984 to 66% in 1995[38] with the country suffering a severe banking crisis (Venezuelan banking crisis of 1994). In 1998, the economic crisis had grown even worse. Per capita GDP was at the same level as 1963 (after adjusting 1963 dollar to 1998 value), down a third from its 1978 peak; and the purchasing power of the average salary was a third of its 1978 level.[39]

    Hugo Chávez was elected president in December 1998 and took office in February 1999. Wikipedia
    Hmm - it looks like the economy can do well without the peeps doing well.

    What about Cuba?

    …Cuba got hedonistic tourists, organized crime and General Fulgencio Batista. In military power since the early 1930s, Batista appointed himself president by way of a military coup in 1952, dashing Cubans’ long-held hope for democracy.

    Not only was the economy weakening as a result of U.S. influence, but Cubans were also offended by what their country was becoming: a haven for prostitution, brothels and gambling.

    “Daily life had developed into a relentless degradation,” writes Louis Perez in his 1999 book On Becoming Cuban, “with the complicity of political leaders and public officials who operated at the behest of American interests.”

    In 1957, a group of students fed up with government corruption stormed the National Palace. Many historians consider this a turning point in the revolution.

    Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...mBWkO7AOcvw.99
    and

    Brothels flourished. A major industry grew up around them; government officials received bribes, policemen collected protection money. Prostitutes could be seen standing in doorways, strolling the streets, or leaning from windows. One report estimated that 11,500 of them worked their trade in Havana. Beyond the outskirts of the capital, beyond the slot machines, was one of the poorest, and most beautiful countries in the Western world

    Havana was the Las Vegas of the Caribbean that reaped gambling, prostitution and drug profits (cocaine and marijuana) for the mafia. Mobsters were making a fortune on the backs of the Cuban people as were corrupt law-enforcement and high-ranking political officials aligned with Batista. Batista’s relationship with Meyer Lansky and Lucky Luciano was a gangster’s dream. Havana became to be known as the ‘Latin Las Vegas’.

    …The mafia presence in Cuba began when Batista rose through the ranks from a sergeant to a colonel and then as the chief of the armed forces in 1933. From a constitutional president in 1940 to becoming the de-facto dictator of Cuba after the 1952 coup, Batista was in a position of absolute power that benefitted not only himself but his close allies including the mafia. According to T.J. English’s account of Cuba’s environment under Batista:

    The Island’s cadre of corrupt business and political figures was energized by what promised to be the opening of the floodgates in Havana. But even they knew that the criminal know-how and the flow of capital would have to come from outsiders. For those who operated within the island’s nexus of commerce, politics and corruption, this was no problem. For nearly a century, Cuba’s social elite had been intertwined with outside corporate interests, forming a ruling cartel that was a mix of U.S. industrialists, sugar barons, tourism magnates and international financiers

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/cuba-p...he-mob/5464738
    Perhaps we should fear the social and economic conditions that lead to socialist totalitarian revolutions rather than socialism itself. I seems the best way to stave off what conservatives fear is to make sure we have a transparent political system that acts with integrity, and economic system that truly provides equal opportunity (not outcome) for all its people.
    Thanks from OldGaffer

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 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