Is it ludicrous to think that the world will remain Capitalistic?

[minkymurph]

Do you have any idea how many times you have conceded “points” to me since this Never ending adventure began? There are a quite a few “I agree with you” also. .

Are you implying this is a weakness? Or a sign you think you are winning?

‘Conceding,’ or perhaps those with a more charitable spirit would call it, ‘agreeing,’ can be done for several reasons:

1. A debate strategy to make one look reasonable and the opponent unreasonable.
2. To demonstrate the ability to critically analyse one’s own and others theories. A theory can never be considered sound unless it has been critically analysed and claiming to be right all the time demonstrates little more than arrogance.
3. It may be a case of genuine agreement and not a concession.
4. Demonstrating the opponents misunderstanding of the arguments being presented.

No matter what you state, capitalism destroyed many peoples lives and that is a fact you can never change. You can ignore it, but you can’t change it.

There are many points you ducked such as; the destruction of the rain forest, fishing, the tragedy of the commons.

You contradict yourself. One minute you are arguing laissez-faire and the next regulation by the rule of law. Libertarians such as Nozick would not only argue against discrimination laws but argues there should be no laws on immigration as he should be able to employ a group of Mexicans is he wants to. In fact, when I read Nozick what screams at me from the pages is,’ I want to do what I like when I like irrespective of how it affects anyone and a hissy fit about taxes.’

I spoke to my lecturer yesterday. He has been lecturing in politics for years. He has never heard of capitalists arguing full employment. He also found the arguments you were presenting very strange.

You have admitted you don’t know you own theory. The fact you say it is can’t see any weaknesses demonstrates you have not critically analysed it. There are many academic writings on the weaknesses of capitalism written by capitalists to justify them. Obviously you have chosen to ignore them. Arguing it is perfect and yet doesn’t exist is just silly.

What you have stated in regards to Ireland and Industrialized Britain demonstrates you lack of knowledge in this area.

On our never ending adventure -
I don’t know what you and your fan club - all these people who have PM’d you feel you have achieved or what have been going on. I am not really interested enough to find out, but I have concluded there is nothing genuine about your arguments. Irrespective of what evidence you are presented with I have no doubt you will feel you have won and achieved a great deal, as anyone who thinks their arguments are perfect. You said yourself you would refute everything no matter what. So, you and your fan club can give yourselves a big pat on the back that I am the one bringing the adventure to an end, but I know which one of us would get good marks for their arguments if this was an essay for university, and which one would fail. But then the marker would probably be wrong.

 

[minkymurph]

How does the government encourage demand for labor? Through saving and investing. But that’s not the playbook they go by. The US government and the Federal Reserve are still following the Keynesian playbook and focusing on aggregate demand and consumer spending. If you want companies to hire more people then you need to focus on production, not consumer spending. You need to focus on supply, not demand.

This was posted by Rigderunner in response to me. Not by me.

 

[sallybutler]

How does the government encourage demand for labor? Through saving and investing. But that’s not the playbook they go by. The US government and the Federal Reserve are still following the Keynesian playbook and focusing on aggregate demand and consumer spending. If you want companies to hire more people then you need to focus on production, not consumer spending. You need to focus on supply, not demand.

What constitutes government investment? Generally, in order to invest, you have to spend money.

The problem with focusing only on supply, is that if there is no demand, why bother? And if there is a high demand and no supply, people find alternatives, eventually killing the demand.

There needs to be balances between investment and savings. There also needs be balance between supply and demand. Concentrating on one over the other tends to kill the other, which then leads to the starvation of the first.

 

[minkymurph]

Economically, the forced demands of one group create hardships for all others, thus producing a mixture of actual victims and plain parasites.

And in a capitalist system the wealthy can force their demands and create hardships for all others because wealth brings power. So they get to set the agenda, dictate the terms and have greater influence with government. Not a bad thing if your one of wealthy. If your not? Maybe you are too insignificant to matter.

But then in your capitalist utopia the wealthy and powerful would collectively be far too nice to do that, wouldn’t they?

A self made millionaire I knew personally stated he would not give famine aid to African countries because there are too many people in those countries and famine is natures way of getting rid of excess people. Do you want to argue this is humanitarian?

 

[minkymurph]

What constitutes government investment? Generally, in order to invest, you have to spend money.

The problem with focusing only on supply, is that if there is no demand, why bother? And if there is a high demand and no supply, people find alternatives, eventually killing the demand.

There needs to be balances between investment and savings. There also needs be balance between supply and demand. Concentrating on one over the other tends to kill the other, which then leads to the starvation of the first.

Well said.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

There needs to be balances between investment and savings. There also needs be balance between supply and demand. Concentrating on one over the other tends to kill the other, which then leads to the starvation of the first.

In a free, unregulated market system, market forces establish equilibrium in prices
and exchange quantities very efficiently.

Trouble begins when government begins to regulate prices and production.

Market outcomes have never been improved by government regulations.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

No matter what you state, capitalism destroyed many peoples lives and that is a fact you can never change. You can ignore it, but you can’t change it.

Now that little comment just BEGS for an example or two…

There are many points you ducked such as; the destruction of the rain forest, fishing, the tragedy of the commons.

Rain forests…fishing…the tragedy in the commons(?)

When did we get into environmentalism?
What has fishing got to do with Capitalism?

I spoke to my lecturer yesterday. He has been lecturing in politics for years. He has never heard of capitalists arguing full employment. He also found the arguments you were presenting very strange.

Ahhhh, that explains it. You have a “lecturer” who has poisoned your mind about Capitalism. (I’ll bet he is a communist)
If he finds my arguments “strange” then he has not done much political/economic research. Ask him if he knows Zoltan Cobalt?

 

[minkymurph]

Now that little comment just BEGS for an example or two…

It does, but you said you would reject any evidence I presented and the alternative argument would be capitalism never harmed anyone.

Rain forests…fishing…the tragedy in the commons(?)

When did we get into environmentalism?
What has fishing got to do with Capitalism?

Unregulated and reckless depletion of natural resources for profit.

Ahhhh, that explains it. You have a “lecturer” who has poisoned your mind about Capitalism. (I’ll bet he is a communist)
If he finds my arguments “strange” then he has not done much political/economic research. Ask him if he knows Zoltan Cobalt?

Another wild assumption Zoltan. He is not a ‘lecturer’ in inverted commons. He actually does lecture in university I attend, his name is Cillian McBride {QUB and I’m sure you can look him up and he is not a communist. It may surprise you to know not everyone who disagrees with unbridled capitalism is a communist. Admittedly they may be to you.

He has not poisoned my mind. In fact my views have somewhat modified in recent years. During the Thatcher era I was fully behind communism and a centralized economy and was devastated when the Berlin wall collapsed. I changed my mind when I visited East Germany. I spent one night in it and that was enough! However my views have not shifted so far right I would be willing to trample my fellow man for purely profit and I continue to fight the cause of the underdog.

I will ask my lecturer if he has heard of you.

 

[minkymurph]

Another wild assumption Zoltan. He is not a ‘lecturer’ in inverted commons. He actually does lecture in university I attend, his name is Cillian McBride {QUB and I’m sure you can look him up and he is not a communist. It may surprise you to know not everyone who disagrees with unbridled capitalism is a communist. Admittedly they may be to you.

And he has published a book called, ‘Recognition’ which can be purchased on Amazon.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It does, but you said you would reject any evidence I presented and the alternative argument would be capitalism never harmed anyone.

Awww, come on Murph…just one little example to support your “factual” claim **“capitalism destroyed many peoples lives and that is a fact you can never change”
**

I promise I won’t reject your evidence even if it is absurd. I will only discuss it with you…OK?

Unregulated and reckless depletion of natural resources for profit.

Ridiculous!

That can only happen when environmental protections are lax and/or government agencies are bribed to look the other way.

Another wild assumption Zoltan. He is not a ‘lecturer’ in inverted commons. He actually does lecture in university I attend, his name is Cillian McBride {QUB and I’m sure you can look him up and he is not a communist. It may surprise you to know not everyone who disagrees with unbridled capitalism is a communist. Admittedly they may be to you.

He has not poisoned my mind. In fact my views have somewhat modified in recent years. During the Thatcher era I was fully behind communism and a centralized economy and was devastated when the Berlin wall collapsed. I changed my mind when I visited East Germany. I spent one night in it and that was enough! However my views have not shifted so far right I would be willing to trample my fellow man for purely profit and I continue to fight the cause of the underdog.

I will ask my lecturer if he has heard of you.

Ah yes, Cillian McBride…

You may not believe this, but that name rang a bell. I have not read his book but I did read something he wrote. I went digging through my dusty old research/reference files and found an article he wrote. * Demanding Recognition: Equality, Respect, and Esteem*
My note attached to it says “save for reference…some good points”. You may pass that along as a Zoltan Cobalt compliment.

However, now I am more confused…I cannot understand why Cillian, of all people, has never heard of capitalists arguing full employment. And also why he finds my arguments to be very strange.

 

[sallybutler]

In a free, unregulated market system, market forces establish equilibrium in prices
and exchange quantities very efficiently.

Trouble begins when government begins to regulate prices and production.

Market outcomes have never been improved by government regulations.

That sounds very good in theory. However, in practice not so much.

For example, I pay $10 for product A. However, a defective product A is delivered. How do I get my money back? Who determines it was defective? How do I prove it was defective? Who even determines what the agreement was? And who determines what $10 looks like?

Once we decide on the 3rd party, who pays them for their time? How do we insure the judge fairly? What recourse do either party have if they don’t agree. Also, who protects the 3rd party from the disgruntled parties?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That sounds very good in theory. However, in practice not so much.

For example, I pay $10 for product A. However, a defective product A is delivered. How do I get my money back? Who determines it was defective? How do I prove it was defective? Who even determines what the agreement was? And who determines what $10 looks like?

Once we decide on the 3rd party, who pays them for their time? How do we insure the judge fairly? What recourse do either party have if they don’t agree. Also, who protects the 3rd party from the disgruntled parties?

You are complicating things. Actually, in practice, it works very well.

For items selling for $10.00 or less most manufacturers provide a defective or return policy to their retailers. This assumes that a percentage of products may be defective or may be returned for whatever reason. “Money Back Guarantee” if you will. The retailer merely exchanges products or issues a refund to the customer. The manufacturer periodically collects the defective/returned merchandise and credits the retailer.

 

[Raskolnikov]

minkymurph:

No matter what you state, capitalism destroyed many peoples lives and that is a fact you can never change. You can ignore it, but you can’t change it.

Capitalism has created more wealth than any other economic system in human history. It is not perfect. But is beyond a shadow of a doubt, the best, most prosperous type of economy to ever exist. No alternative, neither ancient not modern, has ever approached in efficiency.

Think of the poorest, most marginalized people in a capitalist society today, then go get a history book about life of the richest people in pre-capitalist Europe, and compare them, if you are unconvinced. Look at the per capita GDP of major western countries from all of recorded history until 1820 (see the works of Angus Maddison for the actual numbers if you’re interested) and then look at it from 1820 until today. I’m sorry, but by every quantifiable measure of standard of living, we, Americans, humans, are overall much better off today largely because of capitalism.

sallybutler:

That sounds very good in theory. However, in practice not so much.

For example, I pay $10 for product A. However, a defective product A is delivered. How do I get my money back? Who determines it was defective? How do I prove it was defective? Who even determines what the agreement was? And who determines what $10 looks like?

Once we decide on the 3rd party, who pays them for their time? How do we insure the judge fairly? What recourse do either party have if they don’t agree. Also, who protects the 3rd party from the disgruntled parties?

No third party necessary. If a company refuses to refund defective products, people will stop buying from them and buy from an alternative company, and the first company will go out of business. If no company provides refunds for defective products, then someone will realize that they can make a profit by offering refundable products, go into business, and compete with the other companies, either forcing them to provide the service or go out of business. Competition is what regulates companies, what forces them to obey the demands of the consumer.

Ironically, it is the introduction of the third party that is most likely to enable companies to exploit customers, rather than remedying it. Only if a company has a monopoly can it do whatever it wants to its customers without having to worry about the customer just buying from someone else; and a monopoly can only be enforced if you have a third party (like a state) to guarantee (such as on pain of imprisonment) that no other entrepreneurs can enter that industry. Hence why many of the most consumer-exploitative companies come from state-sanctioned monopolies (cable companies’ infamously terrible customer service comes to mind as an example).

 

[minkymurph]

Awww, come on Murph…just one little example to support your “factual” claim **“capitalism destroyed many peoples lives and that is a fact you can never change”
**

I promise I won’t reject your evidence even if it is absurd. I will only discuss it with you…OK?

youtube.com/watch?v=jZw7vNRYmL8

If this link doesn’t work look up a song on Youtube by Christy Moore called Ordinary Man.

Based on the evidence I would argue laissez-faire was a contributory factor to the Wall St Crash and the current recession. Out of greed the banks lent people money they knew they could not pay, actively encouraged debt by easy credit, charged horrendous unfair fees out of greed and the government had to step in to prevent the economy from going under. Did none of this happen?

Parasitic capitalism and ‘get rich quick’ schemes rapidly increased under laissez-faire. Mind you, most of them have gone now and in the case of some I would say serves them right they were so mean spirited. The good businesses have survived as they did following the Crash of 29.

Capitalism preys on the vulnerable. The UK has become known as the Prozac nation and one of the reasons given is if you don’t have the look, the car, the house, the job you are nobody. People shop to solve their problems instead of talking. People don’t believe in waiting or saving for things. They go into debt because capitalism tells us we must have and now. People are now more superficial because we have to have the false eyelashes, the hair extensions, liposuction on those troublesome areas - people are miserable and the motive is profit.

None of these things are in themselves bad but you cannot say no one exploits the vulnerable for profit in a capitalist system. It may not happen in a Utopian one but we have established that one will never exist.

Ridiculous!

That can only happen when environmental protections are lax and/or government agencies are bribed to look the other way.

Are the Rain Forests being destroyed?
Are other natural resources being depleted?
For what motive? Is the motive profit?
Does the government need to pass legislation to protect the environment?
Is that interference?
Do you agree with Nozick there should be no regulation on immigration because he should be able to employ people from another country if he wants?

Ah yes, Cillian McBride…

You may not believe this, but that name rang a bell. I have not read his book but I did read something he wrote. I went digging through my dusty old research/reference files and found an article he wrote. * Demanding Recognition: Equality, Respect, and Esteem*
My note attached to it says “save for reference…some good points”. You may pass that along as a Zoltan Cobalt compliment.

However, now I am more confused…I cannot understand why Cillian, of all people, has never heard of capitalists arguing full employment. And also why he finds my arguments to be very strange.

Well, that’s what he said. If people such as Nozick were permitted to employ whom they wanted due to no restrictions on immigration do you not think that at least might lead to higher unemployment?

 

[minkymurph]

Capitalism has created more wealth than any other economic system in human history. It is not perfect. But is beyond a shadow of a doubt, the best, most prosperous type of economy to ever exist. No alternative, neither ancient not modern, has ever approached in efficiency.

Think of the poorest, most marginalized people in a capitalist society today, then go get a history book about life of the richest people in pre-capitalist Europe, and compare them, if you are unconvinced. Look at the per capita GDP of major western countries from all of recorded history until 1820 (see the works of Angus Maddison for the actual numbers if you’re interested) and then look at it from 1820 until today. I’m sorry, but by every quantifiable measure of standard of living, we, Americans, humans, are overall much better off today largely because of capitalism.

There is no dispute about the efficiency of capitalism by comparison to centralized planning. It can certainly be argued it is ‘classless’ by comparison to previous feudal system etc. and has allowed the working class to prosper. I was a ‘factory fodder’ child in that there were lots of factories around Belfast and the working classes went to schools that fed the factories. It served its purpose at the time and the working class became very affluent as a consequence. I now own my house outright which was unheard of for someone of my background before the factory and I am so proud. :yeah_me:

Now the factories have all moved out to places like Sri Lanka. The only jobs available are low paid jobs in the service industries which has resulted in a ‘brain drain’ and an ‘old’ population. There are not enough people working and my in-laws, who are in their eighties and paid into the national welfare system from they were 14 may need to go into a nursing home and the law allows the finance company to take the house they worked for all their lives to pay for it.

The dispute concerns whether or not it is humanitarian. My position is radical capitalism and radical socialism are equally inhuman because anything that is extreme will be inevitably be inhuman. Putting the extremes to the side, the liberal left are the humanitarians of politics because of all the political groupings they are the most concerned about people yet not radical socialists and yes, my political profile is liberal/left. The ‘small man’ can be treated very badly in a capitalist system. In my home town the small businesses have been squeezed out by the giants and the farmers have been forced to sell their milk at a loss.

 

[freeRadical]

What constitutes government investment? Generally, in order to invest, you have to spend money.

The problem with focusing only on supply, is that if there is no demand, why bother? And if there is a high demand and no supply, people find alternatives, eventually killing the demand.

There needs to be balances between investment and savings. There also needs be balance between supply and demand. Concentrating on one over the other tends to kill the other, which then leads to the starvation of the first.

I should have been clearer. I didn’t mean to say the government should invest money. I meant to say that the government and the Federal Reserve should pursue policies that encourage private saving and investing, because that is what grows the economy, not demand. But they are doing the opposite. They are pursuing policies that encourage consumption and borrowing and discourage private saving and investing.

Who cares about demand if there is no supply to match it? Excess demand, that is, an increase in demand without an increase in supply, always leads to higher prices. And if there is anything that hurts the poor the most, it is rising prices. That’s why government subsidies always lead to rising prices, they increase demand without increasing supply. That’s the main reason, for example, that the price of a college eduction has risen so much.

Say’s law has never been refuted, not even by Keynes. Supply creates demand, demand does not create supply. An increase in demand does not lead to an increase in employment, only an increase in supply can increase employment. But this government pursues policies that discourage hiring in business not encourage it.

The government needs to stop encouraging consumption and borrowing, and instead encourage saving and investing. They don’t need to spend any money to do this.

 

[minkymurph]

The government needs to stop encouraging consumption and borrowing, and instead encourage saving and investing. They don’t need to spend any money to do this.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[sallybutler]

You are complicating things. Actually, in practice, it works very well.

For items selling for $10.00 or less most manufacturers provide a defective or return policy to their retailers. This assumes that a percentage of products may be defective or may be returned for whatever reason. “Money Back Guarantee” if you will. The retailer merely exchanges products or issues a refund to the customer. The manufacturer periodically collects the defective/returned merchandise and credits the retailer.

I don’t think I’m complicating things. I think I’m talking about real life.

So basically the retailer is stuck. If the manufacturer doesn’t credit them, oh well?

Or is the end user stuck because the retailer won’t refund?

Let’s imagine something more expensive. Say a house. If someone builds a defective house & sells it, are you saying that there should be no 3rd party involved in the transaction any where along the way. No community standards, no safety standards on the builder, no recourse for the buyer when the house burns down because the electrical sytem was faulty.

A complete free-market system is a Utopian myth that is not practicable.

I like some regulations (building codes come to mind). I like knowing that if someone cheats, there are ways to recoup the money and punish them.

 

[sallybutler]

No third party necessary. If a company refuses to refund defective products, people will stop buying from them and buy from an alternative company, and the first company will go out of business. If no company provides refunds for defective products, then someone will realize that they can make a profit by offering refundable products, go into business, and compete with the other companies, either forcing them to provide the service or go out of business. Competition is what regulates companies, what forces them to obey the demands of the consumer.

So you have no problem with someone selling you a defective product and refusing to refund you the money you spent on it.

 

[minkymurph]

A complete free-market system is a Utopian myth that is not practicable.

I like some regulations (building codes come to mind). I like knowing that if someone cheats, there are ways to recoup the money and punish them.

Thanks Sally. I was beginning to think I was the only one who realized this.

The only way I know of to regulate a capitalist system with minimal government interference is through government watchdogs.