What's going on in America right now is not capitalism...
Options
High Revolutionary
Members Posts: 3,729 ✭✭✭✭✭
it's crony capitalism.
Crony capitalism=bad
Free-market capitalism=good
Just felt like making that distinction.
Crony capitalism=bad
Free-market capitalism=good
Just felt like making that distinction.
Comments
-
Disagree.
We are in a capitalist system--one that is unregulated and encouraged by neoliberalism.
Tax shelters, government grants, and various other subsidies for the wealthy is not an example of unregulation.
Unless you deny that any of the above is going on.
-
Whatever you call it..........
It is capitalism...........
You have to accept the bad & good associated with economic systems.............
The ? sucks..............
-
What makes you think cronyism isn't apart of capitalism anyway? No regulations, no rules so of course people are gonna clique up and do dirt...that's why people want rules...DUH.
-
Whatever you call it..........
It is capitalism...........
You have to accept the bad & good associated with economic systems.............
The ? sucks..............
Because it's not capitalism it's corporate welfare or welfare for the rich which is closer to socialism.
What makes you think cronyism isn't apart of capitalism anyway? No regulations, no rules so of course people are gonna clique up and do dirt...that's why people want rules...DUH.
If the government is picking favorites, how is that no regulations or rules? No regulations or rules is no one gets tax breaks, grants, bailouts or any other perks, no matter what tax bracket you fall under.
It's like a championship boxing match only the champ is allowed to take as many PED's, get unlimited standing 8 counts and if the fight happens to go to a decision no matter what happened during the fight the champ wins. In fact even if the champ gets knocked out he still wins. Meanwhile the challeneger has to abide by all the rules of a normal boxing match. -
High Revolutionary wrote: »Whatever you call it..........
It is capitalism...........
You have to accept the bad & good associated with economic systems.............
The ? sucks..............
Because it's not capitalism it's corporate welfare or welfare for the rich which is closer to socialism.
What makes you think cronyism isn't apart of capitalism anyway? No regulations, no rules so of course people are gonna clique up and do dirt...that's why people want rules...DUH.
If the government is picking favorites, how is that no regulations or rules? No regulations or rules is no one gets tax breaks, grants, bailouts or any other perks, no matter what tax bracket you fall under.
It's like a championship boxing match only the champ is allowed to take as many PED's, get unlimited standing 8 counts and if the fight happens to go to a decision no matter what happened during the fight the champ wins. In fact even if the champ gets knocked out he still wins. Meanwhile the challeneger has to abide by all the rules of a normal boxing match.
Because it's not capitalism it's corporate
welfare or welfare for the rich which is closer
to socialism.
I hear ya. This capitalism stuff is dogma, its like arguing with Al Qaeda about the validity of Islam. You still haven't explained how cronyism wouldn't take place anyway. All this stuff about "picking winners and losers" is happening because rich businessmen want it to...meaning CRONYISM! Buddies in government giving buddies tax breaks and favored land grants. You've already said it yourself its capitalism. So now you want to split hairs?
The goal of capitalism is to make money...period and in anyway possible, so all your fairytales about ethics and moral ways of making money go out the window immediately. I'd love to see one you guys argue to the Koch brothers that they shouldn't accept tax breaks, maybe then you'd see that even the peddlers of this nonsense don't believe it and its all about helping them make money.
I see you don't know what socialism is either. Socialism doesn't take from the poor and give to the rich, that's backwards. So again your wrong but we've been down this path before.
Anyway, feel free to preach about how cronyism wouldn't take place in this capitalistic utopia of yours, I am interested in hearing about this. Its actually a new angle, and I'm interested to hear this. -
We're in a mixed economy. A little capitilism here, a little socialism there and fascist undertones in both with a corporatocracy that buys out politicians and owns the media which tells us everythings is ok as the Government mismanages their tax revenue, takes our rights, and launch wars on the whim with our over bloated military. I'm kind of glad that things are going to ? though as this nation started badly so it should end badly.
-
Products are privately manufactured for profit in America.....that's capitalism plan and simple.
Socialism and Capitalism have nothing to do with market regulation but rather the purpose of the manufactured goods and who owns the means of production
If its for profit its and the means of production are privately owned its capitalism
If its for necessity and the means of production are commonly owned its socialism
The media portrays socialism as program the government is involved in which is totally false -
Blame Barry Soetoro and his band of cronies
-
High Revolutionary wrote: »Whatever you call it..........
It is capitalism...........
You have to accept the bad & good associated with economic systems.............
The ? sucks..............
Because it's not capitalism it's corporate welfare or welfare for the rich which is closer to socialism.
What makes you think cronyism isn't apart of capitalism anyway? No regulations, no rules so of course people are gonna clique up and do dirt...that's why people want rules...DUH.
If the government is picking favorites, how is that no regulations or rules? No regulations or rules is no one gets tax breaks, grants, bailouts or any other perks, no matter what tax bracket you fall under.
It's like a championship boxing match only the champ is allowed to take as many PED's, get unlimited standing 8 counts and if the fight happens to go to a decision no matter what happened during the fight the champ wins. In fact even if the champ gets knocked out he still wins. Meanwhile the challeneger has to abide by all the rules of a normal boxing match.
Because it's not capitalism it's corporate
welfare or welfare for the rich which is closer
to socialism.
I hear ya. This capitalism stuff is dogma, its like arguing with Al Qaeda about the validity of Islam. You still haven't explained how cronyism wouldn't take place anyway. All this stuff about "picking winners and losers" is happening because rich businessmen want it to...meaning CRONYISM! Buddies in government giving buddies tax breaks and favored land grants. You've already said it yourself its capitalism. So now you want to split hairs?
The goal of capitalism is to make money...period and in anyway possible, so all your fairytales about ethics and moral ways of making money go out the window immediately. I'd love to see one you guys argue to the Koch brothers that they shouldn't accept tax breaks, maybe then you'd see that even the peddlers of this nonsense don't believe it and its all about helping them make money.
I see you don't know what socialism is either. Socialism doesn't take from the poor and give to the rich, that's backwards. So again your wrong but we've been down this path before.
Anyway, feel free to preach about how cronyism wouldn't take place in this capitalistic utopia of yours, I am interested in hearing about this. Its actually a new angle, and I'm interested to hear this.
The point is it is we do not operate under a free market and that is an important distinction no matter how much people say capitalism is all the same. A free market as defined by wikipedia is: "a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies."
Cronyism cannot occur under a free market because by definition a free market is devoid of any government interference.
You saying it's all capitalism is like me saying socialism = communism.
And I didn't say corporate welfare was socialism I said it was closer to socialism. Quoting wikipedia again, socialism is defined as: "an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."
If the government and big business are working in tandem how is that not a co-operative management of the economy?
Lastly the goal of capitalism isn't about making as much as you can in anyway possible. Capitalism is about, but not necessarily limited too private ownership and the means of production and making money.
How is private ownership and making money a bad thing? -
GreenCapitalist90 wrote: »We're in a mixed economy. A little capitilism here, a little socialism there and fascist undertones in both with a corporatocracy that buys out politicians and owns the media which tells us everythings is ok as the Government mismanages their tax revenue, takes our rights, and launch wars on the whim with our over bloated military. I'm kind of glad that things are going to ? though as this nation started badly so it should end badly.
Pretty much.
If you're going to blame anything, blame the government. -
High Revolutionary wrote: »High Revolutionary wrote: »Whatever you call it..........
It is capitalism...........
You have to accept the bad & good associated with economic systems.............
The ? sucks..............
Because it's not capitalism it's corporate welfare or welfare for the rich which is closer to socialism.
What makes you think cronyism isn't apart of capitalism anyway? No regulations, no rules so of course people are gonna clique up and do dirt...that's why people want rules...DUH.
If the government is picking favorites, how is that no regulations or rules? No regulations or rules is no one gets tax breaks, grants, bailouts or any other perks, no matter what tax bracket you fall under.
It's like a championship boxing match only the champ is allowed to take as many PED's, get unlimited standing 8 counts and if the fight happens to go to a decision no matter what happened during the fight the champ wins. In fact even if the champ gets knocked out he still wins. Meanwhile the challeneger has to abide by all the rules of a normal boxing match.
Because it's not capitalism it's corporate
welfare or welfare for the rich which is closer
to socialism.
I hear ya. This capitalism stuff is dogma, its like arguing with Al Qaeda about the validity of Islam. You still haven't explained how cronyism wouldn't take place anyway. All this stuff about "picking winners and losers" is happening because rich businessmen want it to...meaning CRONYISM! Buddies in government giving buddies tax breaks and favored land grants. You've already said it yourself its capitalism. So now you want to split hairs?
The goal of capitalism is to make money...period and in anyway possible, so all your fairytales about ethics and moral ways of making money go out the window immediately. I'd love to see one you guys argue to the Koch brothers that they shouldn't accept tax breaks, maybe then you'd see that even the peddlers of this nonsense don't believe it and its all about helping them make money.
I see you don't know what socialism is either. Socialism doesn't take from the poor and give to the rich, that's backwards. So again your wrong but we've been down this path before.
Anyway, feel free to preach about how cronyism wouldn't take place in this capitalistic utopia of yours, I am interested in hearing about this. Its actually a new angle, and I'm interested to hear this.
The point is it is we do not operate under a free market and that is an important distinction no matter how much people say capitalism is all the same. A free market as defined by wikipedia is: "a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies."
Cronyism cannot occur under a free market because by definition a free market is devoid of any government interference.
You saying it's all capitalism is like me saying socialism = communism.
And I didn't say corporate welfare was socialism I said it was closer to socialism. Quoting wikipedia again, socialism is defined as: "an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."
If the government and big business are working in tandem how is that not a co-operative management of the economy?
Lastly the goal of capitalism isn't about making as much as you can in anyway possible. Capitalism is about, but not necessarily limited too private ownership and the means of production and making money.
How is private ownership and making money a bad thing?
Let's take this one step at a time:
#1- your unequivocally wrong.
cronyism - favoritism shown to friends and associates (as by appointing them to positions without regard for their qualifications)
discrimination, favoritism, favouritism - unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice
What prevents anyone from doing that in a "free market"? You haven't shown me anything that says that can't/won't/doesn't happen.
Also...there's no such thing as a "free market" in the first place. Where do corporations get their charters from? Where do they get the land to operate? How do they know where their land ends and another's begins? Sounds like Government is involved with that. Ever heard of a contractor? A Government hired agency to do specific functions.
All this is just an aside, we are talking about cronyism and nothing stops a politician from showing favoritism to anyone he chooses, whether its giving him a contract to build something, a tax break or a grant. And in extreme cases what prevents someone who works for a company from just running for office themselves? Nothing....lol.
We just had a former CEO as President and VP, who would stop that? Well Government regulation can prevent it by creating a law that bans it but then again...your against regulations...so its all moot.
#2- that's not Socialism lol.
Socialism is about societal ownership of production, what wikipedia is discussing is a mixed economy. Notice it says "co-operative" and also Government doesn't own the means of production private industries do...so by your own definitions you once again just said this is capitalism.
What does Government produce? They don't even run prisons or schools anymore in some places all that stuff is contracted out to cronies. America's economy is mostly private industry and there's no two ways about it. So even if you want to use GM as an example its still a private corporation and then even if you wanted to count GM...that doesn't speak for Chrysler or Ford the entire industry is still private. -
High Revolutionary wrote: »High Revolutionary wrote: »Whatever you call it..........
It is capitalism...........
You have to accept the bad & good associated with economic systems.............
The ? sucks..............
Because it's not capitalism it's corporate welfare or welfare for the rich which is closer to socialism.
What makes you think cronyism isn't apart of capitalism anyway? No regulations, no rules so of course people are gonna clique up and do dirt...that's why people want rules...DUH.
If the government is picking favorites, how is that no regulations or rules? No regulations or rules is no one gets tax breaks, grants, bailouts or any other perks, no matter what tax bracket you fall under.
It's like a championship boxing match only the champ is allowed to take as many PED's, get unlimited standing 8 counts and if the fight happens to go to a decision no matter what happened during the fight the champ wins. In fact even if the champ gets knocked out he still wins. Meanwhile the challeneger has to abide by all the rules of a normal boxing match.
Because it's not capitalism it's corporate
welfare or welfare for the rich which is closer
to socialism.
I hear ya. This capitalism stuff is dogma, its like arguing with Al Qaeda about the validity of Islam. You still haven't explained how cronyism wouldn't take place anyway. All this stuff about "picking winners and losers" is happening because rich businessmen want it to...meaning CRONYISM! Buddies in government giving buddies tax breaks and favored land grants. You've already said it yourself its capitalism. So now you want to split hairs?
The goal of capitalism is to make money...period and in anyway possible, so all your fairytales about ethics and moral ways of making money go out the window immediately. I'd love to see one you guys argue to the Koch brothers that they shouldn't accept tax breaks, maybe then you'd see that even the peddlers of this nonsense don't believe it and its all about helping them make money.
I see you don't know what socialism is either. Socialism doesn't take from the poor and give to the rich, that's backwards. So again your wrong but we've been down this path before.
Anyway, feel free to preach about how cronyism wouldn't take place in this capitalistic utopia of yours, I am interested in hearing about this. Its actually a new angle, and I'm interested to hear this.
The point is it is we do not operate under a free market and that is an important distinction no matter how much people say capitalism is all the same. A free market as defined by wikipedia is: "a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies."
Cronyism cannot occur under a free market because by definition a free market is devoid of any government interference.
You saying it's all capitalism is like me saying socialism = communism.
And I didn't say corporate welfare was socialism I said it was closer to socialism. Quoting wikipedia again, socialism is defined as: "an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."
If the government and big business are working in tandem how is that not a co-operative management of the economy?
Lastly the goal of capitalism isn't about making as much as you can in anyway possible. Capitalism is about, but not necessarily limited too private ownership and the means of production and making money.
How is private ownership and making money a bad thing?
Capitalism could not exist without government or some sort of governing body ....
The "free market" is not natural lol
-
desertrain10 wrote: »
Capitalism could not exist without government or some sort of governing body ....
The "free market" is not natural lol
^^^I disagree
capitalism will happen as long as people have the choice to buy and sell what they want
a better way to look at it: capitalism happens in spite of govt
I think people are confusing the "positive" and "normative" concepts of capitalism
what capitalism is defined as, is different from what actually happens in practice...........cause truthfully all societies in the world that use currency operate in mixed economies
in theory, capitalism is best because it holds individuals accountable and gives them the freedom to choose
socialism is a failed concept that politicians use to secure power over the people
anybody who is a fan of socialism is a fan of leaving it up to others to decide what's good for you and those you care about.............which is dangerous in my own personal opinion -
blakfyahking wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »
Capitalism could not exist without government or some sort of governing body ....
The "free market" is not natural lol
^^^I disagree
capitalism will happen as long as people have the choice to buy and sell what they want
a better way to look at it: capitalism happens in spite of govt
I think people are confusing the "positive" and "normative" concepts of capitalism
what capitalism is defined as, is different from what actually happens in practice...........cause truthfully all societies in the world that use currency operate in mixed economies
in theory, capitalism is best because it holds individuals accountable and gives them the freedom to choose
socialism is a failed concept that politicians use to secure power over the people
anybody who is a fan of socialism is a fan of leaving it up to others to decide what's good for you and those you care about.............which is dangerous in my own personal opinion
lol
cap·i·tal·ism
noun \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\
Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
at the end of the day to flourish capitalism always needs order - ability for contracts to be enforced and property rights to be enforced. without the right to own property and dispose of it as you wish, capitalism as we know it could not exist....these legal rights are created and protected by the GOVERNMENT...
not to mention without reliable money supply, markets would be based primarily on barter and thus be very, very limited
and yes, people can buy and sell what they what they want, but without some sort of state coercion who is to stop someone from joining a commune instead of working to make someone else wealthy???
in reality, a market economy does not exist separate from government.... it is a product of government rules and regulations
ok, you disapprove of the actions of the current administration and or past administrations. you want less regulation, less red tape, less cronyism, etc that's fine.... but let's be honest, capitalist system cannot provide a relatively stable and prosperous economic order without some sort governing body
-
Let's take this one step at a time:
#1- your unequivocally wrong.
cronyism - favoritism shown to friends and associates (as by appointing them to positions without regard for their qualifications)
discrimination, favoritism, favouritism - unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice
What prevents anyone from doing that in a "free market"? You haven't shown me anything that says that can't/won't/doesn't happen.
Also...there's no such thing as a "free market" in the first place. Where do corporations get their charters from? Where do they get the land to operate? How do they know where their land ends and another's begins? Sounds like Government is involved with that. Ever heard of a contractor? A Government hired agency to do specific functions.
All this is just an aside, we are talking about cronyism and nothing stops a politician from showing favoritism to anyone he chooses, whether its giving him a contract to build something, a tax break or a grant. And in extreme cases what prevents someone who works for a company from just running for office themselves? Nothing....lol.
We just had a former CEO as President and VP, who would stop that? Well Government regulation can prevent it by creating a law that bans it but then again...your against regulations...so its all moot.
#2- that's not Socialism lol.
Socialism is about societal ownership of production, what wikipedia is discussing is a mixed economy. Notice it says "co-operative" and also Government doesn't own the means of production private industries do...so by your own definitions you once again just said this is capitalism.
What does Government produce? They don't even run prisons or schools anymore in some places all that stuff is contracted out to cronies. America's economy is mostly private industry and there's no two ways about it. So even if you want to use GM as an example its still a private corporation and then even if you wanted to count GM...that doesn't speak for Chrysler or Ford the entire industry is still private.
Crony capitalism not just cronyism. All crony capitalism is cronyism but not the other way around.
Crony capitalism in the US only occurs on the scale it does because the government allows it to occur, straight up. The government makes and enforces the laws and has all the guns. Google "monopoly of force" when you get a chance. The CEO of Wal mart doesn't have an army. He's not writing legislature. He might have lobbyists, but he can't force policy through. There's nothing stopping cronyism from occuring in a more socialist economy anyway.
The free market can and does exist without government. All the free market is, is a market without any government input. In high school I was one of many people who used to cut hair. Sometimes at their house sometimes at school, sometimes at my house. That's a simple example of a free market. Contrast that to opening a barber shop where in order to do so you need a barber license, owners license and business license. Things like this drive up prices and in order to offset this barbers have to charge more for haircuts.
Meanwhile who suffers? The people, while most of the money is being gobbled up in bureucracy to pay off things like politicians salaries (who add nothing to the economy, btw). And people aren't even necessarily getting the best quality haircuts because more competent barbers with less capital may be priced out of the market.
See in markets there are already natural factors to determine who succeeds and who fails. For example in high school if I gave out bogus cuts word would spread and my patronage would suffer. So in order to maximize success I had to make sure I was a quality barber. That's [free market] capitalism. You're allowed to succeed or fail on your own merits.
I'm saying that to say cronyism can't happen in a free market because the government doesn't get involved in it period. Just like the government didn't get involved in our "barber market" in high school. Limit the power of the government and the people will be better off for it.
Property rights is a whole other can of worms, I'll save for another post. -
High Revolutionary wrote: »
Let's take this one step at a time:
#1- your unequivocally wrong.
cronyism - favoritism shown to friends and associates (as by appointing them to positions without regard for their qualifications)
discrimination, favoritism, favouritism - unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice
What prevents anyone from doing that in a "free market"? You haven't shown me anything that says that can't/won't/doesn't happen.
Also...there's no such thing as a "free market" in the first place. Where do corporations get their charters from? Where do they get the land to operate? How do they know where their land ends and another's begins? Sounds like Government is involved with that. Ever heard of a contractor? A Government hired agency to do specific functions.
All this is just an aside, we are talking about cronyism and nothing stops a politician from showing favoritism to anyone he chooses, whether its giving him a contract to build something, a tax break or a grant. And in extreme cases what prevents someone who works for a company from just running for office themselves? Nothing....lol.
We just had a former CEO as President and VP, who would stop that? Well Government regulation can prevent it by creating a law that bans it but then again...your against regulations...so its all moot.
#2- that's not Socialism lol.
Socialism is about societal ownership of production, what wikipedia is discussing is a mixed economy. Notice it says "co-operative" and also Government doesn't own the means of production private industries do...so by your own definitions you once again just said this is capitalism.
What does Government produce? They don't even run prisons or schools anymore in some places all that stuff is contracted out to cronies. America's economy is mostly private industry and there's no two ways about it. So even if you want to use GM as an example its still a private corporation and then even if you wanted to count GM...that doesn't speak for Chrysler or Ford the entire industry is still private.
Crony capitalism not just cronyism. All crony capitalism is cronyism but not the other way around.
Crony capitalism in the US only occurs on the scale it does because the government allows it to occur, straight up. The government makes and enforces the laws and has all the guns. Google "monopoly of force" when you get a chance. The CEO of Wal mart doesn't have an army. He's not writing legislature. He might have lobbyists, but he can't force policy through. There's nothing stopping cronyism from occuring in a more socialist economy anyway.
The free market can and does exist without government. All the free market is, is a market without any government input. In high school I was one of many people who used to cut hair. Sometimes at their house sometimes at school, sometimes at my house. That's a simple example of a free market. Contrast that to opening a barber shop where in order to do so you need a barber license, owners license and business license. Things like this drive up prices and in order to offset this barbers have to charge more for haircuts.
Meanwhile who suffers? The people, while most of the money is being gobbled up in bureucracy to pay off things like politicians salaries (who add nothing to the economy, btw). And people aren't even necessarily getting the best quality haircuts because more competent barbers with less capital may be priced out of the market.
See in markets there are already natural factors to determine who succeeds and who fails. For example in high school if I gave out bogus cuts word would spread and my patronage would suffer. So in order to maximize success I had to make sure I was a quality barber. That's [free market] capitalism. You're allowed to succeed or fail on your own merits.
I'm saying that to say cronyism can't happen in a free market because the government doesn't get involved in it period. Just like the government didn't get involved in our "barber market" in high school. Limit the power of the government and the people will be better off for it.
Property rights is a whole other can of worms, I'll save for another post.
but who issued the currency that was given to you in exchange for these hair cuts? lol....the government, right? or did your clients pay you with favors?
also how does one solve disputes without a government that maintains a monopoly on force to mitigate disputes under a single objectively defined framework of law?
with that said are you arguing for smaller government or for no government interference whatsoever?
-
desertrain10 wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »
Capitalism could not exist without government or some sort of governing body ....
The "free market" is not natural lol
^^^I disagree
capitalism will happen as long as people have the choice to buy and sell what they want
a better way to look at it: capitalism happens in spite of govt
I think people are confusing the "positive" and "normative" concepts of capitalism
what capitalism is defined as, is different from what actually happens in practice...........cause truthfully all societies in the world that use currency operate in mixed economies
in theory, capitalism is best because it holds individuals accountable and gives them the freedom to choose
socialism is a failed concept that politicians use to secure power over the people
anybody who is a fan of socialism is a fan of leaving it up to others to decide what's good for you and those you care about.............which is dangerous in my own personal opinion
lol
cap·i·tal·ism
noun \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\
Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
at the end of the day to flourish capitalism always needs order - ability for contracts to be enforced and property rights to be enforced. without the right to own property and dispose of it as you wish, capitalism as we know it could not exist....these legal rights are created and protected by the GOVERNMENT...
not to mention without reliable money supply, markets would be based primarily on barter and thus be very, very limited
and yes, people can buy and sell what they what they want, but without some sort of state coercion who is to stop someone from joining a commune instead of working to make someone else wealthy???
in reality, a market economy does not exist separate from government.... it is a product of government rules and regulations
ok, you disapprove of the actions of the current administration and or past administrations. you want less regulation, less red tape, less cronyism, etc that's fine.... but let's be honest, capitalist system cannot provide a relatively stable and prosperous economic order without some sort governing body
haha @ you posting the definition like that helps with your argument
once again you might be confusing "positive" vs. "normative"
you don't think the bolded happens in an underground/black market economy?
money supply is relative cause the barter system is still a form of capitalism............back when people didn't have a formal currency, they still did everything in your definition @ the bolded............regardless of how limited the economy was that they executed transactions in
if a govt collapses, do you think folks will stop buying and selling what they want?
what you are speaking on is an ideal for what capitalism should be, not what it really is
as far as govt's role in a successful market economy, all any govt should be doing is enforcing property rights, encouraging the free-flow distribution of information, and bolstering anti-trust laws
-
Great thread, not sure if this is capitalism or not existing in America but whatever it is, is failing the avg American and sucks.....time for a new system or serious reform
-
oh so @ desert didn't come back to this thread with a sarcastic retort
I guess she recognized her arms too short to box with gawd
-
blakfyahking wrote: »oh so @ desert didn't come back to this thread with a sarcastic retort
I guess she recognized her arms too short to box with gawd
lol
the only point I was trying to make is in theory and in practice a capitalist system cannot provide a stable and prosperous economic order without some sort of governing body...
so the real question should be how much government interference should there be... *shrugs* -
desertrain10 wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »oh so @ desert didn't come back to this thread with a sarcastic retort
I guess she recognized her arms too short to box with gawd
lol
the only point I was trying to make is in theory and in practice a capitalist system cannot provide a stable and prosperous economic order without some sort of governing body...
so the real question should be how much government interference should there be... *shrugs*
ok well I can agree with the bolded
I just personally think that govts are infamous for negatively interfering in markets
which is why we keep having so many economic bubbles pop every couple of years
capitalism is obviously the best system to follow to fuel human progress because it stimulates innovation and self-accountability (ie. you don't get money, you don't eat)
govt should only exist to ensure the free flow of market information, enforce property rights, and to prevent monopolies
one of the reasons the financial industry in America keeps ? folks over is cause the govt interferes by promising safety of financial assets............that in turn makes people more willing to invest and take on debt
which only later fuels more bubbles and pads some ? 's pocket on Wall Street SMH -
desertrain10 wrote: »High Revolutionary wrote: »
Let's take this one step at a time:
#1- your unequivocally wrong.
cronyism - favoritism shown to friends and associates (as by appointing them to positions without regard for their qualifications)
discrimination, favoritism, favouritism - unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice
What prevents anyone from doing that in a "free market"? You haven't shown me anything that says that can't/won't/doesn't happen.
Also...there's no such thing as a "free market" in the first place. Where do corporations get their charters from? Where do they get the land to operate? How do they know where their land ends and another's begins? Sounds like Government is involved with that. Ever heard of a contractor? A Government hired agency to do specific functions.
All this is just an aside, we are talking about cronyism and nothing stops a politician from showing favoritism to anyone he chooses, whether its giving him a contract to build something, a tax break or a grant. And in extreme cases what prevents someone who works for a company from just running for office themselves? Nothing....lol.
We just had a former CEO as President and VP, who would stop that? Well Government regulation can prevent it by creating a law that bans it but then again...your against regulations...so its all moot.
#2- that's not Socialism lol.
Socialism is about societal ownership of production, what wikipedia is discussing is a mixed economy. Notice it says "co-operative" and also Government doesn't own the means of production private industries do...so by your own definitions you once again just said this is capitalism.
What does Government produce? They don't even run prisons or schools anymore in some places all that stuff is contracted out to cronies. America's economy is mostly private industry and there's no two ways about it. So even if you want to use GM as an example its still a private corporation and then even if you wanted to count GM...that doesn't speak for Chrysler or Ford the entire industry is still private.
Crony capitalism not just cronyism. All crony capitalism is cronyism but not the other way around.
Crony capitalism in the US only occurs on the scale it does because the government allows it to occur, straight up. The government makes and enforces the laws and has all the guns. Google "monopoly of force" when you get a chance. The CEO of Wal mart doesn't have an army. He's not writing legislature. He might have lobbyists, but he can't force policy through. There's nothing stopping cronyism from occuring in a more socialist economy anyway.
The free market can and does exist without government. All the free market is, is a market without any government input. In high school I was one of many people who used to cut hair. Sometimes at their house sometimes at school, sometimes at my house. That's a simple example of a free market. Contrast that to opening a barber shop where in order to do so you need a barber license, owners license and business license. Things like this drive up prices and in order to offset this barbers have to charge more for haircuts.
Meanwhile who suffers? The people, while most of the money is being gobbled up in bureucracy to pay off things like politicians salaries (who add nothing to the economy, btw). And people aren't even necessarily getting the best quality haircuts because more competent barbers with less capital may be priced out of the market.
See in markets there are already natural factors to determine who succeeds and who fails. For example in high school if I gave out bogus cuts word would spread and my patronage would suffer. So in order to maximize success I had to make sure I was a quality barber. That's [free market] capitalism. You're allowed to succeed or fail on your own merits.
I'm saying that to say cronyism can't happen in a free market because the government doesn't get involved in it period. Just like the government didn't get involved in our "barber market" in high school. Limit the power of the government and the people will be better off for it.
Property rights is a whole other can of worms, I'll save for another post.
but who issued the currency that was given to you in exchange for these hair cuts? lol....the government, right? or did your clients pay you with favors?
also how does one solve disputes without a government that maintains a monopoly on force to mitigate disputes under a single objectively defined framework of law?
with that said are you arguing for smaller government or for no government interference whatsoever?
The government doesn't need to issue the currency. All a currency needs to be valid is a compliance amongst the people who use it. Look up bitcoin. -
High Revolutionary wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »High Revolutionary wrote: »
Let's take this one step at a time:
#1- your unequivocally wrong.
cronyism - favoritism shown to friends and associates (as by appointing them to positions without regard for their qualifications)
discrimination, favoritism, favouritism - unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice
What prevents anyone from doing that in a "free market"? You haven't shown me anything that says that can't/won't/doesn't happen.
Also...there's no such thing as a "free market" in the first place. Where do corporations get their charters from? Where do they get the land to operate? How do they know where their land ends and another's begins? Sounds like Government is involved with that. Ever heard of a contractor? A Government hired agency to do specific functions.
All this is just an aside, we are talking about cronyism and nothing stops a politician from showing favoritism to anyone he chooses, whether its giving him a contract to build something, a tax break or a grant. And in extreme cases what prevents someone who works for a company from just running for office themselves? Nothing....lol.
We just had a former CEO as President and VP, who would stop that? Well Government regulation can prevent it by creating a law that bans it but then again...your against regulations...so its all moot.
#2- that's not Socialism lol.
Socialism is about societal ownership of production, what wikipedia is discussing is a mixed economy. Notice it says "co-operative" and also Government doesn't own the means of production private industries do...so by your own definitions you once again just said this is capitalism.
What does Government produce? They don't even run prisons or schools anymore in some places all that stuff is contracted out to cronies. America's economy is mostly private industry and there's no two ways about it. So even if you want to use GM as an example its still a private corporation and then even if you wanted to count GM...that doesn't speak for Chrysler or Ford the entire industry is still private.
Crony capitalism not just cronyism. All crony capitalism is cronyism but not the other way around.
Crony capitalism in the US only occurs on the scale it does because the government allows it to occur, straight up. The government makes and enforces the laws and has all the guns. Google "monopoly of force" when you get a chance. The CEO of Wal mart doesn't have an army. He's not writing legislature. He might have lobbyists, but he can't force policy through. There's nothing stopping cronyism from occuring in a more socialist economy anyway.
The free market can and does exist without government. All the free market is, is a market without any government input. In high school I was one of many people who used to cut hair. Sometimes at their house sometimes at school, sometimes at my house. That's a simple example of a free market. Contrast that to opening a barber shop where in order to do so you need a barber license, owners license and business license. Things like this drive up prices and in order to offset this barbers have to charge more for haircuts.
Meanwhile who suffers? The people, while most of the money is being gobbled up in bureucracy to pay off things like politicians salaries (who add nothing to the economy, btw). And people aren't even necessarily getting the best quality haircuts because more competent barbers with less capital may be priced out of the market.
See in markets there are already natural factors to determine who succeeds and who fails. For example in high school if I gave out bogus cuts word would spread and my patronage would suffer. So in order to maximize success I had to make sure I was a quality barber. That's [free market] capitalism. You're allowed to succeed or fail on your own merits.
I'm saying that to say cronyism can't happen in a free market because the government doesn't get involved in it period. Just like the government didn't get involved in our "barber market" in high school. Limit the power of the government and the people will be better off for it.
Property rights is a whole other can of worms, I'll save for another post.
but who issued the currency that was given to you in exchange for these hair cuts? lol....the government, right? or did your clients pay you with favors?
also how does one solve disputes without a government that maintains a monopoly on force to mitigate disputes under a single objectively defined framework of law?
with that said are you arguing for smaller government or for no government interference whatsoever?
The government doesn't need to issue the currency. All a currency needs to be valid is a compliance amongst the people who use it. Look up bitcoin.
good luck suing someone anywhere for damages related to a bitcoin transaction lol
-
the currency should probably also not be a crazy internet idea prone to shenanigansHigh Revolutionary wrote: »The government doesn't need to issue the currency. All a currency needs to be valid is a compliance amongst the people who use it. Look up bitcoin.
-
the currency should probably also not be a crazy internet idea prone to shenanigansHigh Revolutionary wrote: »The government doesn't need to issue the currency. All a currency needs to be valid is a compliance amongst the people who use it. Look up bitcoin.
Word... lol
Smh
Wonder what the bitcoin is goin to be worth 5, 10 yrs from now
