Jump Menu:
Post Reply
Page 1 of 12  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 Next
Capitalism is an irredeemable system?
2 weeks ago  ::  Mar 11, 2019 - 9:56PM #1
louisiana_lightning
Posts: 14,555

That's funny because it seems to me that nothing contributed more to increasing global living standards than the move away from statist controls.


Capitalism pulled over 700 million people out of exteme poverty in the 21st century so far so there may be some redemption for capitalism.  Milton Friedman put it this way:

“Has socialism failed because its good qualities were perverted by evil men who got in charge?  Was it simply because Stalin took over from Lenin that communism went the way it did?  Has capitalism succeeded despite the immoral values that pervade it?  I think the answer to both questions is in the negative.  The results have arisen because each system has been true to the values it encourages, supports and develops in the people who live under that system.”

2 weeks ago  ::  Mar 11, 2019 - 10:12PM #2
louisiana_lightning
Posts: 14,555
  • 40-70 million killed.  China under Chairman Mao.  Single Party Socialism.  1958-61 “The Great Leap Forward”.
  • 20 million killed. USSR under Joseph “socialism in one country” Stalin.  1936-52 “The Great Purge”.
  • 40 million killed. USSR under all other leaders.
  • 21 million killed. Germany under Hitler's National Socialist German Workers' Party. 1933-45
  • 4 million killed. Cambodia under Pol Pot.  Communist.  1975-79.
  • 1.6 million murdered; 4 million killed in hard labor.  North Korea under Kim Il Sung.  Independent socialist State.
  • 1.7 million killed. Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. 1978-92
  • 1.6 million killed. Vietnam 1975-Present, Murders from 1945-Present excluding 1 million from Vietnam War.
  • 1.15 million killed.  Yugoslavia under Josip ” socialist federation President” Tito.  1945-65.
  • 1 million total killed.  Ethiopia under Menghistu.  Communist.  1975-1978 “The Red Terror.”
  • 1 million killed.  Indonesia under Suharto.  Communist. 1966.
  • 1 million killed from genocide; this does not include war casualties.  Afghanistan under Brezhnev.  Communist.  1979 – 1981.
  • 800,000 killed.  Rwanda under Jean Kambanda.  1994.  Socialist.
2 weeks ago  ::  Mar 11, 2019 - 10:20PM #3
28in2019
Posts: 218

But capitalism will end the world in 12 years!  Are you accounting for all of those deaths?


People should always be pushing back against any flavor of socialism, it's not progress.   Right now too many of the current Dems are trying to put lipstick on that pig.

1 week ago  ::  Mar 12, 2019 - 7:43AM #4
MajorYankFan
Posts: 32,326

Nobody loooooooves socialism more than RepubliCONs.


Right-wing socialists are always pimping trickle-down economics:


The redistribution of wealth and power to the rich and limit, to the


greatest extend possible, the participation of the middle class


and the poor in economic gains, which they help created, and


the political process.


Image result for socialism for the rich

1 week ago  ::  Mar 12, 2019 - 10:13AM #5
louisiana_lightning
Posts: 14,555

Mar 12, 2019 -- 7:43AM, MajorYankFan wrote:


Nobody loooooooves socialism more than RepubliCONs.


Right-wing socialists are always pimping trickle-down economics:


The redistribution of wealth and power to the rich and limit, to the


greatest extend possible, the participation of the middle class


and the poor in economic gains, which they help created, and


the political process.




Factor in ceterus paribus and the fact that as individuals we don't always behave rationally there is an old axiom.  If you tax something you get less of it, if you subsidize something you get more of it.  Taxing tends to reduce employment, production, incentive, etc. while subsidizing single parents, unemployment, favored businesses, etc. tends to gets you more of those things.  Think linguistically of the verb form of tax and how you use that.  It is an impediment.


We should begin by focusing on the areas where we agree rather than butting heads in the areas where we disagree.  I consider money to be deferred gratification, a store of wealth for past contributions.  To dilute or weaken that role of currency I find deleterious.  Governments have tried since the Romans to assign value to currency but they can only manipulate, in the end each of us as individuals use our individual preferences and biases to determine the value of currency and all of societal exchange.  Free markets are the ultimate form of decentralized democracy; we vote every day with our labor and purchases.  Our purchases and labor even reflect how invested we are by the amount of compensation or contribution we are willing to exchange.


Where you and I diverge is you believe that labor is responsible for all of or the lion's share of the surplus value or profit.  I recognize that most entrepreneurs don't self fund, they take out loans to start a business.  They have the idea to create a good or service that they have to hope the public is interested in.  They organize all the capital and labor to make it possible.  Then last but most important they shoulder all the risk, they get paid last.  What is the approprate distribution of surplus capital?  It is voted on everyday by all of us as individuals and our choices.  Is this exploiting labor?  No, they can take their labor elsewhere or become an entrepreneur themself.


Where we do agree is that we should not be subsidizing corporations and the wealthy so let's stop.  Cut out the corporate welfare and watch democracy at work as the goods and services the public wants rise disproprtionately to the top.  A progressive tax rate is somewhat justifiable because the wealthy have more to contribute and arguably benefit more from public goods than the rest of society.  Just keep in mind historically an effective tax rate over 40% has been enough to cause people to dramatically change their behavior.  They are free citizens and that is their inalienable right.


I know you will probably return with something about horse and sparrow or trickle down.  Both of those terms are pejorative and not adopted by economists.  It goes on the assumption that the government creates wealth and distributes it.  This is not true, individuals create wealth.  Proponents of Macroeconomics believe in manipulating the economy by expanding and contracting the money supply and wealth redistribution.  These manipulations disproportionately benefit the first people to get this money at the expense of the populous and that can legitimately be called horse and sparrow or trickle down.  Not manipulating the currrency or redistributing is laissez faire and in no way trickle down nor horse and sparrow.


AOC doesn't want corporations to run the government, neither do I.  The only way to prevent that is by not giving the government the kind of power that businesses would want to buy.

1 week ago  ::  Mar 12, 2019 - 10:43AM #6
bertram
Posts: 6,516

"Proponents of Macroeconomics believe in manipulating the economy by expanding and contracting the money supply and wealth redistribution."


Exactly what Reagan did...putting thousands and thousands of family farmers, mom & pop business people and manufacturing employees out of work.

1 week ago  ::  Mar 12, 2019 - 10:55AM #7
louisiana_lightning
Posts: 14,555

Mar 12, 2019 -- 10:43AM, bertram wrote:


"Proponents of Macroeconomics believe in manipulating the economy by expanding and contracting the money supply and wealth redistribution."


Exactly what Reagan did...putting thousands and thousands of family farmers, mom & pop business people and manufacturing employees out of work.




I find all Macroeconomic theory to be fundamentally flawed and feel that Praxiology is the true study of economics.  The left is ready to double down on destructive flawed theory with formulas that always fail with Modern Monetary Theory.  Basically a belief that there will never be a reckoning for government deficit spending regardless of all the historical examples.

1 week ago  ::  Mar 12, 2019 - 11:12AM #8
bertram
Posts: 6,516

Mar 12, 2019 -- 10:55AM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


Mar 12, 2019 -- 10:43AM, bertram wrote:


"Proponents of Macroeconomics believe in manipulating the economy by expanding and contracting the money supply and wealth redistribution."


Exactly what Reagan did...putting thousands and thousands of family farmers, mom & pop business people and manufacturing employees out of work.




I find all Macroeconomic theory to be fundamentally flawed and feel that Praxiology is the true study of economics.  The left is ready to double down on destructive flawed theory with formulas that always fail with Modern Monetary Theory.  Basically a belief that there will never be a reckoning for government deficit spending regardless of all the historical examples.




"Praxiology"


I'm sure you meant to type "Proctology", right?  Smile  The left is ready to do what should have been done in the 80's...set up a demand-side economy instead of another round of failed supply-side policies.  And that will have to eventually give way to a whole new system as we decide how to integrate an AI work force.  It's abundantly clear that there is no future in proceeding (as the Republicans have) toward plutocracy and fascism...except for their partners, the 1%'ers.  


The current situation reminds me of the final scenes in Dr. Strangelove as the "doctor" is musing about who will be chosen to survive down in the mineshafts after the doomsday machine goes off...

1 week ago  ::  Mar 12, 2019 - 11:15AM #9
louisiana_lightning
Posts: 14,555

Mar 12, 2019 -- 11:08AM, felipe27point5 wrote:


Mar 12, 2019 -- 10:13AM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


Factor in ceterus paribus and the fact that as individuals we don't always behave rationally there is an old axiom.  If you tax something you get less of it, if you subsidize something you get more of it.  Taxing tends to reduce employment, production, incentive, etc. while subsidizing single parents, unemployment, favored businesses, etc. tends to gets you more of those things.  Think linguistically of the verb form of tax and how you use that.  It is an impediment.




How is that different than the description of socialism American socialists are using?




It is what they are doing but I don't consider it a good thing.  Do you?


If you subsidize something you are incentivizing it.  I don't want to incentivize being a single parent or unemployed.  I also don't want to prop up monopolistic companies.  If a company is good it will be risen on it's own merits by the public.


To me this isn't progress:


Image result for single parents before great society

1 week ago  ::  Mar 12, 2019 - 11:22AM #10
felipe27point5
Posts: 392

Mar 12, 2019 -- 11:15AM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


Mar 12, 2019 -- 11:08AM, felipe27point5 wrote:


Mar 12, 2019 -- 10:13AM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


Factor in ceterus paribus and the fact that as individuals we don't always behave rationally there is an old axiom.  If you tax something you get less of it, if you subsidize something you get more of it.  Taxing tends to reduce employment, production, incentive, etc. while subsidizing single parents, unemployment, favored businesses, etc. tends to gets you more of those things.  Think linguistically of the verb form of tax and how you use that.  It is an impediment.




How is that different than the description of socialism American socialists are using?




It is what they are doing but I don't consider it a good thing.  Do you?


If you subsidize something you are incentivizing it.  I don't want to incentivize being a single parent or unemployed.  I also don't want to prop up monopolistic companies.  If a company is good it will be risen on it's own merits by the public.


To me this isn't progress:





Sorry, i misread your previous post and my previous reply doesn't accurately reflect my opinion on that - and i'll likely delete it because of that because what you said most certainly does not reflect what people are describing as socialism


I'll give a more accurate reply in a moment

You are welcome to recall my posts when it becomes that i'm proven wrong as long as we judge it on the merits of what we knew to be true at the time it was posted.
Page 1 of 12  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 Next
Jump Menu:
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

Yankees Forum