Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Capitalism isn't about having as small a state as possible and it never was.  The first political divide in the US was between the big state federalists lead by Alexander Hamilton, the intellectual father of american capitalism, and Thomas Jefferson, the guy who said capitalism was a horrible idea.  Capitalism has never and will never be about having as small a state as possible.

If you think it is then you really don't understand what capitalism is or more importantly what it accomplishes.  Capitalism succeeds when it directs capital towards beneficial ends.  Giving rich people a bunch of money isn't just unnecessary but often actively detrimental.  When you've got a lot of money it's often easier to crush the competition then compete.  If you succeeded in drowning the government in the bathtub then capitalism would very rapidly perish.

Yeah, but stopping people from using their money as they see fit, and making money within the law as they see fit doesn't put bread in people's pockets.

Just because it's in the law doesn't mean that it's an efficient use of resources.  Market failure.  Tragedy of the commons.  These are 300 year old concepts.  And they are concepts that Adam Smith agreed with.  His invisible hand was about situations where market failures did not exist.  He explicitly laid out areas where market failures did exist and said that government should intervene then.

[Kilroy the Grand]

I refute that a "free market" can exist, or at least one talked about like it's the friggin' City of Gold, just waiting to be discovered. There will never be a fair capitalist system (just look at the "how do we remove inequality?" thread to see why).

Capitalism isn't the road toward people getting rewarded solely for their effort and prowess. It just gets closer than most other systems. And I say that's a minor concern in the first place (people getting what they need is more important than people getting what they deserve).

I disagree. More people getting what they deserve in general gets everyone in general more of what they want (first thing on the hierarchy of needs being the stuff they need).

The problem is that "some people getting what they want" doesn't equate to "everyone getting what they need". As far as I'm concerned, people can stop thinking about their multimillion dollar mansions and luxury car collections until every person in the world has clean water and enough to eat. It isn't that that isn't possible, it's that capitalism doesn't prioritize everyone getting what they need to survive. Plenty of people are born into situations where they simply can not improve their condition in any (materially) significant way, regardless of what they do.

So you think people should concentrate and obtain things only for their needs and not their wants?

[kaijyuu]

Once needs are settled, wants can follow.

Hell I'm pretty supportive of capitalism if it's applied solely to luxuries.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Economics is not the cause of those still lacking adequate needs. These are political problems in almost all cases, we have temporally surpassed scarcity for food, water, and shelter already.

[Snowblind]

Afaik, one of the fundamental conditions for 'TRUE Capitalism' to exist is an equal playing field for every firm.

This is impossible with globalization and free-trade. No libertarian wonder-world can exist if every product and service and firm and good and commodity, upheld with righteous laws and self-determination, can compete if all of these things are imported from firms in countries practicing slave-labor and receive massive government subsidies.

If they were serious about all this rhetoric about China and 'jerbs going overseas' they'd implement protectionist measures with countries with dissimilar economic practices so that not every domestic firm is unable to compete.

But nah, let's play with the tax brackets and try to subsidize and enslave instead to compete.

[SalmonGod]

as there will still be a power structure (unlike anarchy), just with everyone controlling it instead of an oligarchy.

I know it's late, but I feel compelled to point out that this actually is anarchy.  Anarchy means "no rulers".  There can be a power structure, so long as participation and influence within that power structure is equally distributed.  Then there are no rulers, and it fits the definition of anarchy.  It may not fit any number of specific schools of anarchist thought, but that's another matter.  Many of them don't even fit the definition of anarchy anyway, such as anarcho-capitalism (which is just american libertarianism taken one step further).

[Karnewarrior]

BACK ON TRACK:

Recent polls that I've seen seem to suggest Obama is going to win. Which is good! But by a relatively small margin. Which is stupid.

I mean the Repubs made fun of their opponents for flipflopping but when Romney does it they all just ignore it. Bipartisan politics at it's best, here.

At least the British have a third option.

[RedKing]

Wow...okay, this one just kinda flew under the wire. I'm guessing either the Tennessee Democratic Party just said "Fuck it" this year when it comes to contesting the Senate??

http://gawker.com/5954293/the-gawker-endorsement-mark-clayton-for-senate

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/2012s-worst-candidate-with-mark-clayton-tennessee-democrats-hit-bottom/2012/10/22/77da926e-1b8a-11e2-a146-ccabc9c85c53_print.html

The second piece is actually more informative (WP vs. Gawker...hardly surprising), and shows just how badly the TN Dems have fucked themselves over.

[sluissa]

I've been to TN. Doesn't surprise me one bit... sad part is it's a beautiful state, too.

[RedKing]

I've been there too. They *have* cities (at least 3 of them). You'd think they could find somebody in one of those cities that would be an actual Southern liberal and willing to run, even knowing it was a Quixotic race doomed to failure because they have no money or support. I mean, the dude even admits his primary campaign strategy was having a name which was alphabetically listed higher than his opponents.

[MonkeyHead]

Spoiler: Ill just pop this here... (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Oh, and this one... (click to show/hide)

Why can the rest of the world see it? What is wrong with some Americans?

[mainiac]

I've been there too. They *have* cities (at least 3 of them). You'd think they could find somebody in one of those cities that would be an actual Southern liberal and willing to run, even knowing it was a Quixotic race doomed to failure because they have no money or support. I mean, the dude even admits his primary campaign strategy was having a name which was alphabetically listed higher than his opponents.

I thought they did find somebody but she lost the primary.

You can lead a horse to water...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

....Pakistan wants Romney over Obama? Though the majority don't want either of them, apparently.

[SalmonGod]

Why can the rest of the world see it? What is wrong with some Americans?

And what the hell Pakistan?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well, Romney is a pretty heavy social conservative. Pakistanis might like that, I guess.

Now I can't stop thinking about potential Islam-Mormon interactions.