What's going on in America right now is not capitalism...
Options
Comments
-
whatever online RPG items some sweaty nerd filled with Mountain Dew can get for themdesertrain10 wrote: »Wonder what the bitcoin is goin to be worth 5, 10 yrs from now -
Dear compadres we must crush the castro regime only will taking one in the ? and ass have its full meaning.
-
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.
You want to see shenanigans read about fractional reserve banking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fm5NSeVPog -
pretty sure both of these things can be packed with shenanigansHigh Revolutionary wrote: »You want to see shenanigans read about fractional reserve banking. -
High Revolutionary wrote: »
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.
You want to see shenanigans read about fractional reserve banking.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fm5NSeVPog
Not to derail the thread, but I have a few questions after watching this video.
1) a) The video states, to put it loosely, "an increase in the money supply conveniently coincides with an increase in the national debt". So as I see, it looks like the vid is saying the national debt increases can be attributed to the money supply. Why do you think the video leave out tax policy completely? Surely you would think taxes & debt have to do with each other?
b) Is it safe to assume that tight monetary policy, all else equals, means a lower national debt, or rather, would we accumulate debt slowly? Have it under control? Pay it off?
c) In addition, how would this take into account growth rates of the economy? Why is there only mention of inflation, as an erosion of savings & no mention of wages?
2) a) Why is it there is no mention of the history of fractional reserve banking? Makes it seem as if it is a scheme created by the government & central bankers, no?
b) If there was full reserve banking would the government never have debt (or at least not as much)?
c) Say we did do away with the Fed, would it be safer to have monetary policy effectively controlled by bankers & financiers? As was in the time of J.P. Morgan & James Stillman.
Eh maybe you might not know the answers, but I'm just curious. -
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.
I was with you until the bolded...a little off topic but can you explain? Are you looking forward to the nation completely self destructing?
great thread
-
blakfyahking wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »
Capitalism could not exist without government or some sort of governing body ....
The "free market" is not natural lol
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
Socialism with participatory democracy>>>
Representative democracy is garbage. What we have now is what leads to people having their whole life decided for them by other people. -
It seems like the best bet is to go with the system with the least ability for corruption. That to me would seem to be primarily Libertarianism with limited government.
-
GOAT'd, quoted, and boldedGreenCapitalist90 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. -
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.
I was with you until the bolded...a little off topic but can you explain? Are you looking forward to the nation completely self destructing?
great thread
Same here. How exactly did this nation start badly? Are your referring to American slavery?
-
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.
*Somewhat quoted for emphasis*
I think that I agree with almost everything you've said; however, it seems that you want no government. I'm no anarchist, and I honestly despise anarchism, but I do want limited government.
Some people have already pointed this out, but it's crazy how people are dissatisfied with our current government, yet these same people want to give government even more power through socialism. Doesn't make sense to me at all.
It's easy to look at America's problems and point the finger at capitalism, but that's a fallacy. What we are practicing is not free-market capitalism. We are and have been practicing crony-capitalism and corporatism. This distinction must be understood! Our problems are a product of bail-outs, special interests and privileges, the excessive printing of money, inflation, the depreciation of the dollar, monopolism, the mismanagement and excessive spending of tax dollars, government subsidies that only increase prices, etc.
The government intervenes and acts in the interest of big business. The pharmaceutical companies are protected, the medical insurance companies are protected, the automotive companies are protected, Wallstreet is protected, the banks are protected, etc. But the people aren't protected. It's obvious that the rich are getting richer, but the consequence is that the middle class is getting poorer, and this is why the middle class is shrinking and being transferred to the lower class.
In a free-market captialist society, big business is not protected and is allowed to fail and is allowed to receive competition from small and alternative business. Competition should drive the market. Entrepreneurship should drive the market. Prices should go down since there is competition. Lower prices mean a more healthy economy in which people buy and sell freely without government inteference. Nevertheless, of course, the government should do what it was made to do and that is protect contracts, protect people's (employer, employee, and customer) rights and freedoms, protect the law, etc.
