Capitalism - a device for economic progress for everyone everywhere, every time it is tried.

[John21652]

I simply asked you to explain your definition of free enterprise.

I am not going to be waylaid from this very simple request by your attempt to deflect.

Are you not actually able to define free enterprise and what it means in real terms for us readers???

Why don’t you?

And please, stop using that underlined red typing. It’s very aggressive, in your face writing.

 

[essie7777]

Why don’t you?

And please, stop using that underlined red typing. It’s very aggressive, in your face writing.

I don’t support or promote free enterprise constantly in threads so why would i need to define it when i am asking as Abu’s definition seems to vary depending on what he’s trying to say! I think its more than reasonable to ask Abu what he ACTUALLY means then by free enterprise so there’s no confusion or misinterpretation of their POV.

If questions are ignored constantly, then repeating them in bold and underlined is hardly aggressive, that’s your interpretation, its emphasis!

 

[John21652]

I don’t support or promote free enterprise constantly in threads so why would i need to define it when i am asking as Abu’s definition seems to vary depending on what he’s trying to say! I think its more than reasonable to ask Abu what he ACTUALLY means then by free enterprise so there’s no confusion or misinterpretation of their POV.

If questions are ignored constantly, then repeating them in bold and underlined is hardly aggressive, that’s your interpretation, its emphasis!

Yes it is. Unless you’ve been living under a rock and never learned anything about net etiquette.

You are constantly harping at Abu to provide a definition. You are like a stuck record on the topic. I, for one, don’t see anything variable about Abu’s approach to free enterprise. No-one else has broached the subject either. So if you are unhappy and miserable about the way Abu defines free enterprise, then show us all just how it should be defined. If you can…

 

[Abu]

John21652,
Do you have a problem in understanding Bl JP II when he defines a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy” in *Centesimus Annus *below?
Centesimus Annus 42, 1991, Bl John Paul II:
‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.’

Do you have a problem in understanding Bl JP II when in *Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(On Human Concerns), Encyclical, 1987, #42, he declares as a basic human right: the “fundamental human ‘right to freedom of economic initiative.’ ”?

Do you have a problem with the fact that initiative = enterprise?

And therefore do you have a problem with business economy = market economy = free economy = free enterprise?

I just wondered if you, or anyone you know, had a problem in understanding the clarity of Bl JPII, if you don’t mind my asking.

 

[John21652]

John21652,
Do you have a problem in understanding Bl JP II when he defines a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy” in *Centesimus Annus *below?
Centesimus Annus 42, 1991, Bl John Paul II:
‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.’

No.

Do you have a problem in understanding Bl JP II when in *Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(On Human Concerns), Encyclical, 1987, #42, he declares as a basic human right: the “fundamental human ‘right to freedom of economic initiative.’ ”?

No.

Do you have a problem with the fact that initiative = enterprise?

Nope.

And therefore do you have a problem with business economy = market economy = free economy = free enterprise?

Nope again.

I just wondered if you, or anyone you know, had a problem in understanding the clarity of Bl JPII, if you don’t mind my asking.

Me? Have a problem in understanding clearly what JP II wrote about? Nope.

Others? It seems there are some who attempt to use a very convoluted logic to distort what he was writing about. However, I don’t know anyone personally who has such a problem.

 

[essie7777]

LOL –

Abu and John – you’re a tag team of political misrepresentation – so your asking each other if you each understand your own myopic political “propaganda” is hardly conclusive of anything …

So, to confirm, rather than answer a direct, simple question you and your “friend” have decided mocking and sarcasm is the right way to approach it …

I rest my case … you clearly cant do it then can you???

I made very clear i’m not interested in your justification of free enterprise but your definition of what that means. Certainly suggests you both don’t understand anything more than how to say the two words … and John you simply follow Abu posts chastising and insulting anyone who challenges his opinion – hardly the behavior of an adult!

It’s not complicated i have asked more than once now, define what you mean by free enterprise to save confusion and misinterpretations?!

 

[John21652]

LOL –

Abu and John – you’re a tag team of political misrepresentation – so your asking each other if you each understand your own myopic political “propaganda” is hardly conclusive of anything …

So, to confirm, rather than answer a direct, simple question you and your “friend” have decided mocking and sarcasm is the right way to approach it …

I rest my case … you clearly cant do it then can you???

I made very clear i’m not interested in your justification of free enterprise but your definition of what that means. Certainly suggests you both don’t understand anything more than how to say the two words … and John you simply follow Abu posts chastising and insulting anyone who challenges his opinion – hardly the behavior of an adult!

It’s not complicated i have asked more than once now, define what you mean by free enterprise to save confusion and misinterpretations?!

You should really stop using the red text. It makes you look frustrated.

Now, let me take a guess - you don’t know exactly what free enterprise is and you’re too scared to have a crack at providing a definition yourself. To maintain ‘face’ you just slag off at anyone who doesn’t write what you want to hear. That’s not very brave, is it? “Rest my case” you say. What case?

 

[ProVobis]

I think the government is spending between $4 billion and $5 billion every day more than it takes in. As to what it spends it for, I wish I could break it down. Part of it, of course, is to pay interest on the debt. And if interest rates rise, as they surely will, the cost of debt service will go up exponentially. Not only that, but programs such as social security and Medicare have enormous unfunded future liabilities. It will end either in monetary collapse or hyperinflation.

One person’s debt is another’s asset. That’s what fiat IOU’s are. Why do you want to avoid paying the savers the use of their money? Government’s attempts at keeping interest rates artificially low and printing infinite amounts of money make a free market impossible and will continue to drive the economy down. That’s not capitalism. As for the “entitlements,” Social security and Medicare were set up to be self-sustaining funds. Too bad unexpected things like Iraq and corporate bailouts “robbed” from those funds and have now put everything on the chop block.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here.

If you wish to review the subject, please see Charity for specifics, or CAF rules for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

John21652,
Do you have a problem in understanding Bl JP II when he defines a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy” in *Centesimus Annus *below?
Centesimus Annus 42, 1991, Bl John Paul II:
‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.’

Do you have a problem in understanding Bl JP II when in *Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(On Human Concerns), Encyclical, 1987, #42, he declares as a basic human right: the “fundamental human ‘right to freedom of economic initiative.’ ”?

Do you have a problem with the fact that initiative = enterprise?

And therefore do you have a problem with business economy = market economy = free economy = free enterprise?

I just wondered if you, or anyone you know, had a problem in understanding the clarity of Bl JPII, if you don’t mind my asking.

Might this be a useful definition?

Free enterprise = free market economics: a financial transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller.

 

[JimG]

One person’s debt is another’s asset. That’s what fiat IOU’s are. Why do you want to avoid paying the savers the use of their money? Government’s attempts at keeping interest rates artificially low and printing infinite amounts of money make a free market impossible and will continue to drive the economy down. That’s not capitalism. As for the “entitlements,” Social security and Medicare were set up to be self-sustaining funds. Too bad unexpected things like Iraq and corporate bailouts “robbed” from those funds and have now put everything on the chop block.

I entirely agree. The Federal Reserve in artificially holding down interest rates does a disservice to savers and favors spenders. It is really an injustice to savers, who may have saved their whole life, now to see their income (interest) cut down to nearly zero by Fed action.

That still, however, does nothing to answer the question as to whether the government can continue to borrow nearly 40% of its daily spending. It simply is not sustainable, and at some point will lead to collapse. Medicare and Social Security are really not self-sustaining, because they depend on current taxes going to pay current benefits, and the population is aging. When SS first started, there were about 7 workers to support 1 retiree. Now there are about 2 to support one.

 

[essie7777]

@John21652 Your post is a perfect example of why people supporting your position struggle to find any real world credibility and traction with people.

The standard response is personal attack, rude behavior and of course a complete ignoring of the questions asked!!!

Hmmm no wonder this “concept” gets no where in the political world …clearly no substance otherwise surely you’d be more than happy to step into the breech left my Abu’s refusal to define free enterprise and do so yourself. …

:tsktsk:No, you’d rather be rude and attack me for asking a very reasonable questions … Attacking my perceived definition of free enterprise is childish to the extreme, as i am sure you are fully aware the phrase s@#g that you used is as offensive as f%^$ … this behavior is pathetic … i have simply and very politely asked a number of times for a definition of free enterprise from Abu.

I am not the only poster here who is looking for clarification so either answer the question, or stop participating in a discussion if you aren’t going to contribute to that discussion.

See below quotes from Abu’s comments in this thread with highlighted sections that led to misunderstanding by me and other posters. As well as quotes from other posters who were all responding to Abu’s threads, again with highlight demonstrating the need for clarification on the definition of “free enterprise” as it has NEVER been made clear.

… snipped for space…

You appear to be confusing the political interventions of governments, plus graft and corruption, with the free enterprise developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics. Not only has free enterprise raised the welfare of untold millions out of poverty, but is emphatically affirmed by Bl John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 42, 1991.

How does free enterprise raise welfare??? how r political interventions compared to free enterprise??

(in response to an ABU post)OK, if we’re going to argue vocabulary: show me a catholic document that affirms your apparent assumption that unrestrained capitalism is the only true form of “free markets.” I can hardly believe that you can read the totality of Rerum Novarum and assert that government regulation and interference, when intended to restrain the excesses that can result from capitalism, is always a slippery slope to tyranny. You appear to be erroneously assuming that any government regulation, differential taxation or legal restrictions on commerce is an abolition of “free enterprise.” It is not…

Notice other posters are reading Abu’s posts as advocating unrestrained capitalism as the great “free enterprise” Again Abu’s comments are being interpretted as against regulation, legal constraints etc …

Clarification is needed.

…Of course free enterprise is NOT based on greed; that is a false assumption. …

So what are you basing it on … how are you suggesting it works then?

those who claim that government intervention is always negative and harmful and that “free markets” (usually defined by these folks as repealing all regulation and oversight) is always an improvement over the status quo?

1. A little too convenient that you cut off JPII right before he got out this part:
   “But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.”
   …

Again Abu’s perception of free enterprise is questioned as well as he “ability” to keep full quotes from comments when they don’t follow his opinion.

…The essence of free enterprise is on the basis of the principles developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics,…

Abu AGAIN talks about the essence of free enterprise without explaining what he is actually meaning…

The great problem for capitalism is that no capitalists are in favor of free markets.

…“A sufficiently free market” is a fallacious construction to suit a pre-conceived assumption to produce a monopoly, …

Having pushed “free enterprise”; in this post Abu now seems to disagree that there can be a free market …so again clarification of what exactly is meant by free enterprise is hardly a leap beyond reasonableness…

…“Freedom” does not mean licence, and never has the free market meant that laws such as referred to in post #53 should not be enacted, in the writings of the Late Scholastics and the Popes. …
No one has ever expected perfection in this life, but there is nothing to compare with Catholic developed free enterprise versus any other economic system.

Abu refers to the fact free enterprise will not be achievable without laws and regulation having made comments tthat myself and other readers understand and see quite plainly as a POV against interventions …hmmmm again clarification would be a good and reasonable request.

SO, with all this misunderstanding, asking for Abu’s definition of what “free enterprise” means in practical terms rather than this theoretical back and forward is more than reasonable … so anytime you want to post a relevant comment, feel free to answer the question.

 

[ProVobis]

…Medicare and Social Security are really not self-sustaining, because they depend on current taxes going to pay current benefits, and the population is aging. When SS first started, there were about 7 workers to support 1 retiree. Now there are about 2 to support one.

True, it is not sustainable the way it’s set up now. Even less so now that the payroll tax cut has been extended and probably will be so for the forseeable future. Seems like the real problem with SS (as I see it anyway) is the unexpected rise of disability payments. Actuaries can easily determine the funding needed based on population and increasing life expectancies but disability criteria is constantly being changed, creating more uncertainty and leaving less money to cover those who should be the prime beneficiaries, if one can call them that. And few politicians will say anything against disability recipients being excluded from SS funds.

 

[John21652]

@John21652 Your post is a perfect example of why people supporting your position struggle to find any real world credibility and traction with people.

It’s fascinating how your mind works. It makes amazing leaps in logic. All I did was to ask you to provide a definition of ‘free enterprise’, and to ask you to stop using the boldened and red coloured text, after which I answered some questions posed by Abu and out you come with all this angry diatribe. I never stated a “position”, as you call it, so it doesn’t make sense to say people who support it struggle to gain credibility.

The standard response is personal attack, rude behavior and of course a complete ignoring of the questions asked!!!

I think you are very mixed up. I didn’t make any personal attack on you. Asking you to provide your own definition of ‘free enterprise’ is hardly rude and in post post #59 I even said “please” when I asked you to stop using the red, emboldened text. However, even a polite request to you is ignored and you come back again with the same coloured and bolded text and use it to tell me and Abu we are rude, mocking and sarcastic. I really think you should apologise.

Hmmm no wonder this “concept” gets no where in the political world …clearly no substance otherwise surely you’d be more than happy to step into the breech left my Abu’s refusal to define free enterprise and do so yourself. …

And this is your response to being asked to get off Abu’s back and to provide a definition yourself. Sad, really…

:tsktsk:No, you’d rather be rude and attack me for asking a very reasonable questions … Attacking my perceived definition of free enterprise is childish to the extreme, as i am sure you are fully aware the phrase s@#g that you used is as offensive as f%^$ … this behavior is pathetic … i have simply and very politely asked a number of times for a definition of free enterprise from Abu.

If you are British, as you claim, then you’d know that the phrase “slag off at …” simply means to berate someone. Your feigned outrage makes me wonder about your credentials. Telling you that slagging off at Abu is not insulting you; it is pointing out that your denigration of his argument does not help your own.

I am not the only poster here who is looking for clarification so either answer the question, or stop participating in a discussion if you aren’t going to contribute to that discussion.

Anyone is free to participate on these threads. You have no right to tell someone they can’t simply because they wont post what you want them to post. That’s why you go off at Abu, isn’t it?

See below quotes from Abu’s comments in this thread with highlighted sections that led to misunderstanding by me and other posters. As well as quotes from other posters who were all responding to Abu’s threads, again with highlight demonstrating the need for clarification on the definition of “free enterprise” as it has NEVER been made clear.

So what’s stopping you from making it clear? Oh yeah, I already figured that out, didn’t I.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

True, it is not sustainable the way it’s set up now. Even less so now that the payroll tax cut has been extended and probably will be so for the forseeable future. Seems like the real problem with SS (as I see it anyway) is the unexpected rise of disability payments. Actuaries can easily determine the funding needed based on population and increasing life expectancies but disability criteria is constantly being changed, creating more uncertainty and leaving less money to cover those who should be the prime beneficiaries, if one can call them that. And few politicians will say anything against disability recipients being excluded from SS funds.

Folks might want to consider restructuring Social Security along the lines of the alternate plan, which is the plan that has been in use in parts of Texas for 30+ years. The Galveston County Plan. It works.

Similarly, Medicare can be restructured along the lines of the Indiana Plan, which Mitch Daniels, the governor, installed a few years ago, and which people seem to like. It is based on the HSA type of program.

And someone suggested that the Federal government issue bonds to Social Security to represent the money that was “borrowed”. Actual bonds.

 

[ProVobis]

And someone suggested that the Federal government issue bonds to Social Security to represent the money that was “borrowed”. Actual bonds.

It’s also been suggested that the U.S. sell of some of its hard assets (land, gold, etc.) to compensate those who have already contributed into the SS system. Problem there, though, would be the dramatic drop in prices of those hard assets.

 

[Abu]

essie7777 #70
How does free enterprise raise welfare???

As welfare = something that aids or promotes well-being/a contented state of being happy and healthy and prosperous, the answer is obvious. That untold millions have benefited is unchallengeable.

Unfortunately what is obvious is apparently beyond some. See post #49 – Dr Chafuen states: “The objective of policy, according to the Medieval Doctors, is to favour the common good. This is in agreement with the principle that the general welfare is more important than individual interest.” Christians For Freedom, Ignatius, 1986, p 159-160].

The misconception that free enterprise should function without wise law was torpedoed in post #4 against Ayn Rand, to expose manualman’s #35 error that “You appear to be erroneously assuming that any government regulation, differential taxation or legal restrictions on commerce is an abolition of “free enterprise.”

“Hardly useful as her definition and meaning of “uncontrolled and unregulated” is quite unacceptable as the State has the right and duty to make wise laws, and that’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and against monopolies as people can, and some do, undermine the common good, and the primary role of government is to support families in solidarity, and the role of the Church in subsidiarity and, yes, the common good.”

Jumping to conclusions seems endemic to some, and an inability, or refusal, to think logically and discuss factually is a definite handicap.

 

[Abu]

tinyurl.com/7g5dhb7
January 29, 2012 8:42 pm (FT)
A veteran Wall-Streeter confronts the Occupy movement
By Stephen Roach
(The 2012 World Economic Forum, topic: “remodelling capitalism”)

At last some sense?
Stephen Roach, a veteran Wall-Street economist of over 30 years sees the Davos 2012 World Economic Forum end with a confused conglomeration of ideas. yet emerge to face reality:
Redesign policy and regulations to formulate a more sustainable balance between growth and stability.

This would seem to be an essential step in the right direction against the State interventions that destabilize by engineering booms and busts – the wrong regulating that is the cause.

Harding in the 1920’s sought to restrain government and let the free market make the necessary adjustments – the economy was restored to health.
More intervention cannot solve previous interventions which have distorted free enterprise.

The debacle of the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), Fannie May and Freddie Mac, that bought loans from the Banks and often bundled them as mortgage–backed securities for sale to investors, enabled the banks to issue more mortgages, fuelling the inflation of home prices by artificially diverting resources into mortgage lending. These are known as sub-prime mortgage securities. Adjustable rate mortgages, fueled by people speculating in house purchases, and artificially low interest rates created by the Federal Reserve, were a major factor in defaults as prices fell in 2006.

Federal intervention creating a feeling of prosperity stimulates the boom-bust cycle, resulting in an inevitable crash. The free market is always blamed for that crash. These artificial booms, wrote economist Henry Hazlitt, must end "in a crisis and a slump, and . . .worse than the slump itself may be the public delusion that the slump has been caused, not by the previous inflation, but by the inherent defects of ‘capitalism.’ " (What You Should Know About Inflation, 2nd ed., Van Nostrand, 1965, 18).
The same political establishment now blamed the banks and Wall Street for the subprime mortgage crisis.
More intervention cannot solve previous interventions which have distorted free enterprise.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

tinyurl.com/7g5dhb7
January 29, 2012 8:42 pm (FT)
A veteran Wall-Streeter confronts the Occupy movement
By Stephen Roach
(The 2012 World Economic Forum, topic: “remodelling capitalism”)

At last some sense?
Stephen Roach, a veteran Wall-Street economist of over 30 years sees the Davos 2012 World Economic Forum end with a confused conglomeration of ideas. yet emerge to face reality:
Redesign policy and regulations to formulate a more sustainable balance between growth and stability.

This would seem to be an essential step in the right direction against the State interventions that destabilize by engineering booms and busts – the wrong regulating that is the cause.

Harding in the 1920’s sought to restrain government and let the free market make the necessary adjustments – the economy was restored to health.
More intervention cannot solve previous interventions which have distorted free enterprise.

The debacle of the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), Fannie May and Freddie Mac, that bought loans from the Banks and often bundled them as mortgage–backed securities for sale to investors, enabled the banks to issue more mortgages, fuelling the inflation of home prices by artificially diverting resources into mortgage lending. These are known as sub-prime mortgage securities. Adjustable rate mortgages, fueled by people speculating in house purchases, and artificially low interest rates created by the Federal Reserve, were a major factor in defaults as prices fell in 2006.

Federal intervention creating a feeling of prosperity stimulates the boom-bust cycle, resulting in an inevitable crash. The free market is always blamed for that crash. These artificial booms, wrote economist Henry Hazlitt, must end "in a crisis and a slump, and . . .worse than the slump itself may be the public delusion that the slump has been caused, not by the previous inflation, but by the inherent defects of ‘capitalism.’ " (What You Should Know About Inflation, 2nd ed., Van Nostrand, 1965, 18).
The same political establishment now blamed the banks and Wall Street for the subprime mortgage crisis.
More intervention cannot solve previous interventions which have distorted free enterprise.

I was watching BookTV last evening and there was an interesting discussion of the failures of FDR and how he pushed his government-control agenda over all objections and even had opponents jailed [after IRS audits].

What ultimately happened is that FDR worked himself to death trying to micromanage all the details of the economy.

booktv.org/Program/13138/FDR+Goes+To+War+How+Expanded+Executive+Power+Spiraling+National+Debt+and+Restricted+Civil+Liberties+Shaped+Wartime+America.aspx

AND, despite all the best intentions by FDR and his very smart advisors, economic growth was lower than in prior and future times when controls were abolished and taxes slashed.

Program description:

Burton and Anita Folsom contend that President Franklin D. Roosevelt used World War II to promote his own agenda, which according to the authors, included the expansion of the executive branch, curtailed civil liberties and excessive spending. The authors also argue that the President’s funding of the New Deal was subsidized by cuts in defense that left the country ill-prepared for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent U.S. entry into World War II. Burton and Anita Folsom speak at the CATO Institute in Washington, D.C.

amazon.com/FDR-Goes-War-Executive-Restricted/dp/1439183201/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327933984&sr=8-1

Other, related books by the authors on economic growth and how central control doesn’t work.

amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&ie=UTF8&field-author=Burton%20W.%20%20Jr.%20Folsom

amazon.com/Myth-Robber-Barons-Business-America/dp/0963020315/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327934499&sr=1-1

 

[essie7777]

…an inability, or refusal, to think logically and discuss factually is a definite handicap.

Absolutely, anytime your ready to define "free enterprise’ and its practical methodoogy would be useful.

A wasted comment ignoring the question does nothing to move discussion forward…all of your posts do this, ignore and deflect.

Are you that unsure of what you mean to define it?

That’s all i have asked constantly …your numerous and repetitive comments don’t define the term. You frequently use the term, and other posters not just myself seem to unsure what you actually mean … so clear the confusion and simply answer the question --define “free enterprise”.