Thevillageatheist - 06 January 2014 09:06 AM

So what is your remedy? Either too much capitalism or too much socialism is bound to fail. What do you propose to fix the problem?

There’s obviously no quick fix to the economic situation we’re in but a mixed economy is the only way to reverse the trend on the video. the central government with a limited power to control unbridled profits, a minimum wage that automatically raises with the cost of living, a ceiling on campaign spending by corporate lobbyists, a graduated income tax, penalties for moving manufacturing out of the country, merit pay for workers, and stronger unions working under NLRB guidelines to name a few. But we’ve covered this ground many times on this forum. I do agree with Lois that too much of any economic philosophy will cause the system to ultimately fail: pure socialism as espoused by Robert Owen is unworkable as shown by his failed communities (e.g. New Harmony, Ind.) and pure lassez-faire capitalism resulted in legal slavery and the rise of aggressive labor unions leading to the bloody conflicts of the Guilded Age. There has to be a balance between the two or an eventual conflict and collapse of the system will result, and yes given the same conditions it can happen again.

Cap’t Jack

+1.  Great post.  I would add that a mixed economy should be an intermediate goal, and movement towards purer socialism as technology allows. I know it sounds hokey, but I think the goal should be something like portrayed in Star Trek: a society where there is no need for money or for the goal of life to be accumulating wealth. The goal is to better oneself and others through education and self-improvement.

MadHatter - 05 January 2014 07:43 PM

CuthbertJ - 04 January 2014 07:13 PM

MikeYohe wrote [ CuthbertJ - Please tell us why a profit-centered (capitalism) versus people-centered (socialism) economic system is good.] I’m not sure if I’m interpreting this correctly. I think Capitalism is a disease so I’m not sure why I’d want to show it’s good.  I’m also not saying a socialist system as practiced anywhere today is the ideal system. I think if we just define socialism as people-centered, then we should do whatever we can to move to that type of system.  I think of it in really simple terms: a child with cancer, obviously no fault of their own, should have complete access to every possible treatment, cure, hospital, etc. without regard to how wealthy their parents are, and without regard to cost. In a capitalist system, this isn’t the case, because curing that child is not profitable. Same with education. When the profit motive is in place, then someone decides which cases are worth it or not based on monetary concerns. And that’s wrong.

So what you are saying is that you have a RIGHT to another persons skill, time, and learning at the expense of others? By what moral ground do you hold this true?

As for the original question a free market system is the most moral because it does not rely on FORCE to make people do things. The concept that you have a right to enact force on me or my business to make it fall in line with what you wish is amoral to the extreme. If I act unethically and cause people harm with a bad product that I knew was dangerous then I am legally liable for my negligence and should be held so. But preemptive force is not right by any means.

Oh geez an Ayn Randian Objectivist in a gorilla suit. Nice. The Free Market IS nothing more than FORCE in action…economic force doing just as much harm as real physical force. In fact I’d say the Fascists of the world have realized physical force is wasteful and that Economic Force enabled in a Free Market economy is the way to go.

As for your RIGHT to another persons skill Rand regurgitation…in the real world rational people realize no one stands alone. Therefore it’s in each’s best interest to assist others with all their might. I donate to St Judes to help children and their families not because someone is forcing me, but because I can. In your world you’d turn that around and say “what right do those children have to my money?”.  Barbarian.

CuthbertJ - 07 January 2014 11:55 AM

Oh geez an Ayn Randian Objectivist in a gorilla suit. Nice. The Free Market IS nothing more than FORCE in action…economic force doing just as much harm as real physical force. In fact I’d say the Fascists of the world have realized physical force is wasteful and that Economic Force enabled in a Free Market economy is the way to go.

As for your RIGHT to another persons skill Rand regurgitation…in the real world rational people realize no one stands alone. Therefore it’s in each’s best interest to assist others with all their might. I donate to St Judes to help children and their families not because someone is forcing me, but because I can. In your world you’d turn that around and say “what right do those children have to my money?”.  Barbarian.

{clapping}

CuthbertJ - 07 January 2014 11:55 AM

MadHatter - 05 January 2014 07:43 PM

CuthbertJ - 04 January 2014 07:13 PM

MikeYohe wrote [ CuthbertJ - Please tell us why a profit-centered (capitalism) versus people-centered (socialism) economic system is good.] I’m not sure if I’m interpreting this correctly. I think Capitalism is a disease so I’m not sure why I’d want to show it’s good.  I’m also not saying a socialist system as practiced anywhere today is the ideal system. I think if we just define socialism as people-centered, then we should do whatever we can to move to that type of system.  I think of it in really simple terms: a child with cancer, obviously no fault of their own, should have complete access to every possible treatment, cure, hospital, etc. without regard to how wealthy their parents are, and without regard to cost. In a capitalist system, this isn’t the case, because curing that child is not profitable. Same with education. When the profit motive is in place, then someone decides which cases are worth it or not based on monetary concerns. And that’s wrong.

So what you are saying is that you have a RIGHT to another persons skill, time, and learning at the expense of others? By what moral ground do you hold this true?

As for the original question a free market system is the most moral because it does not rely on FORCE to make people do things. The concept that you have a right to enact force on me or my business to make it fall in line with what you wish is amoral to the extreme. If I act unethically and cause people harm with a bad product that I knew was dangerous then I am legally liable for my negligence and should be held so. But preemptive force is not right by any means.

Oh geez an Ayn Randian Objectivist in a gorilla suit. Nice. The Free Market IS nothing more than FORCE in action…economic force doing just as much harm as real physical force. In fact I’d say the Fascists of the world have realized physical force is wasteful and that Economic Force enabled in a Free Market economy is the way to go.

As for your RIGHT to another persons skill Rand regurgitation…in the real world rational people realize no one stands alone. Therefore it’s in each’s best interest to assist others with all their might. I donate to St Judes to help children and their families not because someone is forcing me, but because I can. In your world you’d turn that around and say “what right do those children have to my money?”.  Barbarian.

Actually NO. Your situation fails because you are WILLINGLY donating money. Yes its right that its in our best interests to help others because we gain from it. What is not right is to tell the doctor yes you must take someone in because we say so. We need to have an exchange of value. That is what I advocate. If I am happy giving my talent with computer repair to a local ymca for free because I enjoy helping kids what I give up in time I gain from seeing my work make people happy. However if you say that I must help these kids because they need a pc to do home work no that is not right. Nor is it right to say that your need has any bearing on what I must do. Would it be nice, sure. Would it be the decent thing to do, most likely. BUT you have no right to demand anything from me unless you are willing to give something I deem of sufficient value in exchange. Its that simple.

MadHatter - 07 January 2014 06:02 PM

However if you say that I must help these kids because they need a pc to do home work no that is not right. Nor is it right to say that your need has any bearing on what I must do. Would it be nice, sure. Would it be the decent thing to do, most likely. BUT you have no right to demand anything from me unless you are willing to give something I deem of sufficient value in exchange. Its that simple.

That’s why we need more taxation. For all of the people who don’t want to help others we just levy more taxes to pay people to do it.
It’s a great system.  It’s been working for over a century now.
You just don’t seem to understand the fundamentals of rights. The majority makes the Rights.
Might makes Rights.
The way you throw the word around is like an elderly woman at the Drivers License Bureau screaming they have no rights to take her
drivers license away, even though she’s half blind and senile.
That’s the context you are using the word “rights” in.  Have fun with that.

VYAZMA - 07 January 2014 08:44 PM

MadHatter - 07 January 2014 06:02 PM

However if you say that I must help these kids because they need a pc to do home work no that is not right. Nor is it right to say that your need has any bearing on what I must do. Would it be nice, sure. Would it be the decent thing to do, most likely. BUT you have no right to demand anything from me unless you are willing to give something I deem of sufficient value in exchange. Its that simple.

That’s why we need more taxation. For all of the people who don’t want to help others we just levy more taxes to pay people to do it.
It’s a great system.  It’s been working for over a century now.
You just don’t seem to understand the fundamentals of rights. The majority makes the Rights.
Might makes Rights.
The way you throw the word around is like an elderly woman at the Drivers License Bureau screaming they have no rights to take her
drivers license away, even though she’s half blind and senile.
That’s the context you are using the word “rights” in.  Have fun with that.

By your logic then anyone with a gun has the right to take what they want from you. That if I get enough people to over take a government I could treat you as my slave because I have MIGHT thereby I have the right to do that. That is theft plain and simple. Its the concept that you do not have the right to own what you make or earn and that is morally bankrupt. Your concept is that the world owes you a thing which it far from true. If we lived by your standards then black people wouldnt have gained rights and gay people wouldn’t be gaining them now. No what you are proposing is the opposite of what a right is. The only real rights we have is to live by our own reason and to be free of force. Thus you are actually advocating force over reason which is something that civilized people have fought against for some time now.

MadHatter - 07 January 2014 09:00 PM

By your logic then anyone with a gun has the right to take what they want from you.

It may give them the ability, but not the right. We have laws against that, it’s called crime. So by law, no one has a right to commit crime.
You know why?  The majority of people don’t want crime!

That if I get enough people to over take a government I could treat you as my slave because I have MIGHT thereby I have the right to do that.

Yes.  Then you could establish new rights and laws.

That is theft plain and simple. Its the concept that you do not have the right to own what you make or earn and that is morally bankrupt.

Sure you do. You just have to pay taxes. Go to another country that doesn’t have taxes if you don’t like it here.

Your concept is that the world owes you a thing which it far from true.

Where did I say that? Define “world”? How could a “world” owe me anything?

If we lived by your standards then black people wouldnt have gained rights and gay people wouldn’t be gaining them now.

Right! Yeah people’s rights have steadily increased by and large, and we have and are living under the standards I mentioned.
You know why?  The majority of the people want it that way. They’re not just my standards.

No what you are proposing is the opposite of what a right is. The only real rights we have is to live by our own reason and to be free of force. Thus you are actually advocating force over reason which is something that civilized people have fought against for some time now.

I bet you that you can’t go back and find a single proposal I made in this thread. See if you can find one…try to stump me.
Where did I make a proposal?
Meanwhile you stick with the kook squad and bellow about “The only real rights we have is to live by our own reason and to be free of force.”

VYAZMA what you are saying is that the whole of the US constitution is null and void. Because guess what they whole document was written to protect the MINORITY from the MAJORITY. The tyranny of the mob is just as bad as that of a king. You see by your logic the 90% could tomorrow sentence the remaining 10% to death for no reason and this would be ok because the majority wants it. By your logic the deaths of millions at the hands of popularly elected leaders is moral because the majority wanted it.
We dont live under the mob rule that you claim. We actually were found here in the US to protect the individual NOT the majority. Funny thing the income tax was never supposed to be a lasting measure but we foolishly allowed it to happen. The income tax is nothing more then a theft of my earnings to give to pond scum that refuse for whatever reason to earn it themselves. If they cant do it, too bad, its not my issue. Your insane view that you have the right to my earnings is made even more laughable by the fact that you would use other people to do it. You have not the guts to rob a man to his face but want a goon squad to come take it. That is all the IRS and the cops that enforce their rules are. Thieves with a cloak of legitimacy. Because Id love you to give me a single logical reason that another persons need binds me to aid them in any way.

MadHatter - 07 January 2014 09:48 PM

VYAZMA what you are saying is that the whole of the US constitution is null and void. Because guess what they whole document was written to protect the MINORITY from the MAJORITY. The tyranny of the mob is just as bad as that of a king. You see by your logic the 90% could tomorrow sentence the remaining 10% to death for no reason and this would be ok because the majority wants it. By your logic the deaths of millions at the hands of popularly elected leaders is moral because the majority wanted it.
We dont live under the mob rule that you claim. We actually were found here in the US to protect the individual NOT the majority. Funny thing the income tax was never supposed to be a lasting measure but we foolishly allowed it to happen. The income tax is nothing more then a theft of my earnings to give to pond scum that refuse for whatever reason to earn it themselves. If they cant do it, too bad, its not my issue. Your insane view that you have the right to my earnings is made even more laughable by the fact that you would use other people to do it. You have not the guts to rob a man to his face but want a goon squad to come take it. That is all the IRS and the cops that enforce their rules are. Thieves with a cloak of legitimacy. Because Id love you to give me a single logical reason that another persons need binds me to aid them in any way.

Your post here was somewhat engaging up until “pond scum”.
I have a right to your earnings and you have a right to mine.
Aren’t those ‘individuals” the Founding of America was bound to protect, the pondscum you speak of?
They are to me. I’m glad we are protecting those individuals from the ravages of capitalist disenfranchisement.

VYAZMA - 08 January 2014 12:19 AM

MadHatter - 07 January 2014 09:48 PM

VYAZMA what you are saying is that the whole of the US constitution is null and void. Because guess what they whole document was written to protect the MINORITY from the MAJORITY. The tyranny of the mob is just as bad as that of a king. You see by your logic the 90% could tomorrow sentence the remaining 10% to death for no reason and this would be ok because the majority wants it. By your logic the deaths of millions at the hands of popularly elected leaders is moral because the majority wanted it.
We dont live under the mob rule that you claim. We actually were found here in the US to protect the individual NOT the majority. Funny thing the income tax was never supposed to be a lasting measure but we foolishly allowed it to happen. The income tax is nothing more then a theft of my earnings to give to pond scum that refuse for whatever reason to earn it themselves. If they cant do it, too bad, its not my issue. Your insane view that you have the right to my earnings is made even more laughable by the fact that you would use other people to do it. You have not the guts to rob a man to his face but want a goon squad to come take it. That is all the IRS and the cops that enforce their rules are. Thieves with a cloak of legitimacy. Because Id love you to give me a single logical reason that another persons need binds me to aid them in any way.

Your post here was somewhat engaging up until “pond scum”.
I have a right to your earnings and you have a right to mine.
Aren’t those ‘individuals” the Founding of America was bound to protect, the pondscum you speak of?
They are to me. I’m glad we are protecting those individuals from the ravages of capitalist disenfranchisement.

Yes it was written to protect them from FORCE. Not their own ineptitude or poor choices. As I’ve said time and again give me a reason you have a right to ANYTHING of mine. Your idea that the weak are shackled to the strong dragging them down just gives rise to resentment. Why should anyone that doesn’t give me value in return gain from my hard work. Why should I strive to work and create jobs when all that means is the harder I try the more you feel the right to steal from me to give to someone that isn’t working as hard. Their need and failures are not my problem and yet you seem to deem it just to make it so, by what right?
We have equality of opportunity NOT equality of outcome.

MadHatter - 08 January 2014 12:26 AM

Yes it was written to protect them from FORCE.

As Cuthbert said above the forces in play are market forces.
This inevitably gives rise to inequality of opportunity as well as outcome.

Your idea that the weak are shackled to the strong dragging them down just gives rise to resentment.

That’s not my idea!  But I am exhibiting resentment of that reality. The fact that disenfranchised citizens are shackled to a concept such
as unfettered capitalism generally causes resentment.

Why should anyone that doesn’t give me value in return gain from my hard work.

Maybe you just aren’t seeing enough value in your own hard work to begin with?
Maybe you’re just bitter that you aren’t working hard enough to feed yourself and pay taxes?
Most people with good business plans or who work hard don’t worry about the things you do to such an extent.
They realize that their jobs or business are part of a larger picture of a socio-economic framework.
Sure lot’s of people bitch(erroneously) about welfare or foodstamps for example, but they are not out on the fringes like you.
You’re just on the fringes.

Why should I strive to work and create jobs when all that means is the harder I try the more you feel the right to steal from me to give to someone that isn’t working as hard.

I don’t know? Sounds like a personal issue. Quit working if it bothers you so much. Sounds like you are not working hard enough.
Or your business plan is failing.(if you are business owner. you mentioned you create jobs) Get a new plan.

Their need and failures are not my problem and yet you seem to deem it just to make it so, by what right?
We have equality of opportunity NOT equality of outcome.

There you go with these “rights” again.
No! There is not equality of opportunity. You obviously live with blinders on.

On this matter of rights.
Whatever you think this wellspring is that gives rise to these rights, it is the same wellspring that gives rise to the current rights you rail against.
And that is reversible, retro-active, one size fits all etc…in other words if the shoe was on the other foot and I was the one railing against the system and was saying “What right do the corporations(for example)have to claim natural resources and rape the land, and profit from it?”
You could say the same thing I’m saying to you now. Or any other type of scenario.

Rights don’t come from anywhere. These so called inalienable rights, or human rights, or property rights.
There’s laws! But really there are no “rights”.  And laws reflect the current power base’s wants and needs. In the case of the US, part of the power base is the people. Collectively, under Democracy.(nominally.)

You should be good and goddamned glad you live in the US, because the bulk of these laws definitely favor Business and Capitalism.
The vast majority of laws revolve around property and business. The vast majority!! So the odds are in your favor.
Which again leads me to believe that maybe you just aren’t good enough at business. Most successful businesses pay their taxes and
give back to the community in other ways too.

What’s your problem? If you can’t make it in the business in the US, then I don’t know what to tell you.
It’s competitive out there. It can be tough. Quit looking for scapegoats.

MadHatter and VYAZMA points are well taken and both have merit. The system that works for the teacher and factory worker is not the best system for the farmer and business owners and when I say business, I am talking about the backbone of U.S. business of 20 or less employees, not the IBM’s.

In 1917 the greatest economy and government in the world was Germany. Germany was setting the ground work for the Germany Mark to be the number one World’s Safe Haven currency. The Mark was consider the safest of all the currencies in the world and German companies were spread around the world. By 1921 the Dollar could buy 4 Marks. Ten months later the Dollar could buy 4,200,000,000 Marks. Yes, 4.2 billion Marks.

Yes there was WWI, but WWI was not fought on German soil.
No buddy in 1917 could dream that the Mark would fall, after all Germany was big, smart and powerful and was building museums, universities and spending on Socialist types of programs for the people.  Germany was brought back to life in 1925 by billions of U.S. dollars going to Germany with management controls by the U.S. Capitalist. The Capitalist economy came back to life and Germany once again became a world power.

Mr. Dawes got the Noble reward for the plan. The Marshall Plan was the same system of jump starting the economies in Japan and Europe in the 1950’s.

We know the pumping of funds in the economies will create work and keep the system operating at the cost of inflation.

So why is the system not working now? The Government has and is pumping vast amounts of money into the system and the economy is not responding.

The simple fact is the U.S. is over regulated with Socialist styled management and the American people and business are over taxed. The only thing that is in our favor right now is that as bad as we are, the systems used by the rest of the world is no better otherwise the dollar could fall like the Mark did.

Both China and Europe are developing world safe haven currencies right now to get away from the dollar. Had they been in place a few years ago the dollar would have devalued and crashed.

The more we regulate and raise taxes the more economy classes are created in the population.

The vast amount of money the few rich people have. So what! If you took that money away from them and gave it to the poor. You still would not fix the economy. We would just be a poorer nation overall. The poor see money completely different than the rich. The poor think the rich are stealing from them and not paying their fair share. That could not be further from the truth.

*****

Socialism can exist and give great benefits to the people if it is supported by a good Capitalists system. Without the Capitalist “base support” the benefits for the people may not exist in a highly populated Socialist system.

VYAZMA quote to MadHatter -
What’s your problem? If you can’t make it in the business in the US, then I don’t know what to tell you.
It’s competitive out there. It can be tough. Quit looking for scapegoats.

On this statement I have to agree with MadHatter.

The government is not looking to the Socialist programs to fix the economy. The government is wanting to pump funds into the Capitalist programs hoping the Capitalist will respond and fix the economy again. But the small businessman does not want the money because he has been beaten up and robbed to many times by the government to jump back into business. The stock market is going up because of the dumping of funds into the economy. Some of the top economist are saying that Americans are going to have to adjust to a lesser lifestyle in the future. 

Remember Obama loaning millions to these startup energy companies. Look what happened.  Clear proof that Socialist think they understand capitalism and it is all about the money. Wrong, capitalism is all about laws, labor and trade, the making of money. And Socialism is more about the spending of money than the making of money.

Both systems can work together, the big churches have proven that. But you have to laugh at the extent that the churches go to to hide the land, business and stock investments from the public and church members. The biggest ranches in the U.S. are church owned and churches are Socialist systems.

Have a great day, Mike

VYAZMA The market is not force. It is free exchange of value. Its is only when the government gets involved that there is force. You see the only legitimate force involved in the market ought to be when a contract is breached. That’s all, that’s it.
The fact that I value my work and time highly are why I object to this theft. I dont care if its a penny. If you didnt give me something of value in exchange for it then you are stealing from me. It has nothing to do with the amount. Its that you are taking my money, and putting towards programs and giving it to people I DO NOT agree with. This is the issue. To steal my money is to steal the time it took to earn it, to steal my time is to steal my life. Plain and simple
Finally if you want it bad enough there is equal opportunity in this country. Sure some have to work harder then others but that does not mean they do not have the opportunity to reach the same heights as anyone else. The immigrants that come here with NOTHING and work their way up to the the heights of the business world prove this, the fact that there are millionaires that came from NOTHING prove this. Just because we don’t have equal skill or resources doesn’t mean we cannot reach the same heights if we work for it.

MikeYohe you have it basically right. Hell I am not even against social safety nets. I just disagree with you being FORCED to give to them. I find it laughable that almost EVERY person that wants more taxes on the rich, and MORE social safety nets are the first people to blow their taxes on crap like a big screen rather then donate to charity. I do it, BUT its charity’s that give to things I agree with. I dislike people taking my money with no compensation and pumping to inefficient and wasteful programs with zero accountability for it. Worse still I have no say in the fact that they do this.

MadHatter - 09 January 2014 09:24 PM

VYAZMA The market is not force. It is free exchange of value…

If you steal, cheat, and welfare (as in corporate welfare) your way into owning every apartment complex in the neighborhood, then slowly raise the rent so that a family can’t pay, you’ve used force on that family no different from hiring thugs to literally toss them out physically. And that’s what capitalism devolves into. At a certain point in history, yes, the so-called profit motive was an honest (semi) motivator and still can be to some extent. But as we see nowadays, when it becomes organized and rampant at the corporate level it devolves into sheer crime, grows like cancer in the government, and ruins everything it touches for MOST people. It absolutely does not float all boats.