Capitalism is depressing

We lost true capitalism a long time ago now we have corperate bailouts and money printing. The fed is now buying toxic debt effectively moveing it to us instead of the banks yea. The fed killed the free market and capitalism.

Bigboss232

We never had true capitalism. Not since the 30s, not since prohibition not since the Civil War, not since ever. There were some form of restriction such as anti-trust, tariffs, isolationist policies, etc.

Truth is there will be some form of restriction but it depends on how those restrictions effect the American economy.

Entitlement? Economic ignorance? I argued that health and education were quintessential to humanity. And you can, yes, make a man capable of doing a job: by ensuring that education is something available to the entire population, not just the wealthy. Also, if the state is indeed socialist, it would have a centralized control over the industry and employment, and would be able to adapt what it offers to the needs of the population (and not the other way around, which many people think natural...) - it wouldn't be TAKING jobs from anyone, it would be creating and diverting resources as needed by the population.

The issue with capitalism that so many fail to see is that work is done in the name of money, not progress or evolution. Sometimes, it happens to coincide: private investments into healthcare, education, science that lead to a progress of mankind as a whole. More often than not, however, it creates jobs with the sole function of generating more money (not actual resources or improvements).

The reason the U.S.'s capitalism is so envied (and rarely well-copied) is because of the massive middle-class the country has. It can, then, rely on the fact that the majority of its population will be able to, by themselves, pay for dwelling, healthcare, food, education, etc. It considers the population that isn't part of the middle class as collateral damage - that alone should be reason for criticism. The true issue is when 3rd world countries and countries that have an even worse wealth-distribution than the United States try to copy the model, and end up committing an even larger percentage of their population as 'collateral damage' (easily observed in upcoming nations like the BRICS).

Don't be so quick to call others ignorant, specially when the only thing you back your claims with is conjecture. Conjecture contributes in nothing to the veracity of your statement.

iHarlequin

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"] Entitlement? Economic ignorance? I argued that health and education were quintessential to humanity. And you can, yes, make a man capable of doing a job: by ensuring that education is something available to the entire population, not just the wealthy. Also, if the state is indeed socialist, it would have a centralized control over the industry and employment, and would be able to adapt what it offers to the needs of the population (and not the other way around, which many people think natural...) - it wouldn't be TAKING jobs from anyone, it would be creating and diverting resources as needed by the population.

The issue with capitalism that so many fail to see is that work is done in the name of money, not progress or evolution. Sometimes, it happens to coincide: private investments into healthcare, education, science that lead to a progress of mankind as a whole. More often than not, however, it creates jobs with the sole function of generating more money (not actual resources or improvements).

The reason the U.S.'s capitalism is so envied (and rarely well-copied) is because of the massive middle-class the country has. It can, then, rely on the fact that the majority of its population will be able to, by themselves, pay for dwelling, healthcare, food, education, etc. It considers the population that isn't part of the middle class as collateral damage - that alone should be reason for criticism. The true issue is when 3rd world countries and countries that have an even worse wealth-distribution than the United States try to copy the model, and end up committing an even larger percentage of their population as 'collateral damage' (easily observed in upcoming nations like the BRICS).

Don't be so quick to call others ignorant, specially when the only thing you back your claims with is conjecture. Conjecture contributes in nothing to the veracity of your statement.

famicommander

Uh-huh. I've read this article before, and I'm not going to debate it -- I don't need to, either. You prove yourself wrong by your source: without discussing how credible Rothbard used to be, it's a fact that he was an avid supporter of not only capitalism but of reduction of state presence. How am I going to debate with someone who has views that are not only diametrically opposed to mine, but starts each post with an insult and a validation of his sources and beliefs as the one and only truth? It'd be as stupid as me quoting K. Marx or Lenin and saying you're wrong for disagreeing with them.

Again, you resort to ad hominem because your writing is weak - you wrote two paragraphs of personal insults and a single line (which was actually a link to the words of someone else) that could be compared to me asking Henry Ford if he thought personal vehicles were better than public transportation and, when (obviously) answered with a 'Yes', use that as the entirety of my argument against anyone who claims trains/buses/horses/pedecabs are better.

Capitalism isnt depressing. Greed is.

You really just sound like a lazy malcontent.

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="iHarlequin"] Entitlement? Economic ignorance? I argued that health and education were quintessential to humanity. And you can, yes, make a man capable of doing a job: by ensuring that education is something available to the entire population, not just the wealthy. Also, if the state is indeed socialist, it would have a centralized control over the industry and employment, and would be able to adapt what it offers to the needs of the population (and not the other way around, which many people think natural...) - it wouldn't be TAKING jobs from anyone, it would be creating and diverting resources as needed by the population.

The issue with capitalism that so many fail to see is that work is done in the name of money, not progress or evolution. Sometimes, it happens to coincide: private investments into healthcare, education, science that lead to a progress of mankind as a whole. More often than not, however, it creates jobs with the sole function of generating more money (not actual resources or improvements).

The reason the U.S.'s capitalism is so envied (and rarely well-copied) is because of the massive middle-class the country has. It can, then, rely on the fact that the majority of its population will be able to, by themselves, pay for dwelling, healthcare, food, education, etc. It considers the population that isn't part of the middle class as collateral damage - that alone should be reason for criticism. The true issue is when 3rd world countries and countries that have an even worse wealth-distribution than the United States try to copy the model, and end up committing an even larger percentage of their population as 'collateral damage' (easily observed in upcoming nations like the BRICS).

Don't be so quick to call others ignorant, specially when the only thing you back your claims with is conjecture. Conjecture contributes in nothing to the veracity of your statement.

iHarlequin

Uh-huh. I've read this article before, and I'm not going to debate it -- I don't need to, either. You prove yourself wrong by your source: without discussing how credible Rothbard used to be, it's a fact that he was an avid supporter of not only capitalism but of reduction of state presence. How am I going to debate with someone who has views that are not only diametrically opposed to mine, but starts each post with an insult and a validation of his sources and beliefs as the one and only truth? It'd be as stupid as me quoting K. Marx or Lenin and saying you're wrong for disagreeing with them.

Again, you resort to ad hominem because your writing is weak - you wrote two paragraphs of personal insults and a single line (which was actually a link to the words of someone else) that could be compared to me asking Henry Ford if he thought personal vehicles were better than public transportation and, when (obviously) answered with a 'Yes', use that as the entirety of my argument against anyone who claims trains/buses/horses/pedecabs are better.

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] Wow, this post validates my assertions about you far better than I ever could have hoped to in my own words. From top to bottom this entire post is so riddled with fallacious economic thinking one might think it were written in jest by someone who actually knew thing one about economics in an effort to make socialism and/or Keynesianism look silly. It just wreaks of someone who hasn't even attempted to understand the ideology they're attacking. I don't have all night, so I'll focus on the single most ridiculous line and leave it at that: "Also, if the state is indeed socialist, it would have a centralized control over the industry and employment, and would be able to adapt what it offers to the needs of the population (and not the other way around, which many people think natural...) - it wouldn't be TAKING jobs from anyone, it would be creating and diverting resources as needed by the population." Socialism HAS no means for the rational allocation of resources. Resources are allocated on the market by the use of the price system. Prices, by their very nature, reflect the wants and needs of the consumers as judged by the producers. I refer you to Professor Rothbard: articleRhazakna

Uh-huh. I've read this article before, and I'm not going to debate it -- I don't need to, either. You prove yourself wrong by your source: without discussing how credible Rothbard used to be, it's a fact that he was an avid supporter of not only capitalism but of reduction of state presence. How am I going to debate with someone who has views that are not only diametrically opposed to mine, but starts each post with an insult and a validation of his sources and beliefs as the one and only truth? It'd be as stupid as me quoting K. Marx or Lenin and saying you're wrong for disagreeing with them.

Again, you resort to ad hominem because your writing is weak - you wrote two paragraphs of personal insults and a single line (which was actually a link to the words of someone else) that could be compared to me asking Henry Ford if he thought personal vehicles were better than public transportation and, when (obviously) answered with a 'Yes', use that as the entirety of my argument against anyone who claims trains/buses/horses/pedecabs are better.

I didn't dismiss him. Unless I'm debating with his ghost, I don't see why you expect me to answer his ideas and concepts with my own. I posted a comment that asked less for reply than it did for thought, and you answered by calling me (and others) ignorant and providing no information to back you up. After that, you actually requested that I read a fairly long article instead of giving me the thoughts YOU derived from reading it (at this point I'm just assuming you picked someone's ideology to follow blindly). I'll 1-up you in stupidity and order: start with http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/" title="http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/">this, once you've finished you can read the other volumes, and then feel free to transition to the Communist Manifesto.

People often forget that you quote reputable authors to give credibility to your own arguments. You don't sustain an entire conversation on the efforts and thoughts of someone else. You should study more - you seem to be stuck in that midway limbo where you've read enough authors to know how to argue different points of view (based on what they think, not you), but you aren't sufficiently aware to derive a synthesis of your own from their thoughts and your observations.

The college system does need to be fixed (the whole education system does) but capitalism it's self has it's benefits. Sure it has it's downsides and it's not perfect, but it allows people to pursue their dreams and gives people an incentive to work harder, to achieve their goals and dreams. The American Dream is based heavily upon capitalism.

However you need socialism as well, socailism and capitalism are both required to have a civilized society. You can't have one without the other, it's a balance and the sooner people realize this the better. To have pure capitalism or pure socailism would be disasterous.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

Uh-huh. I've read this article before, and I'm not going to debate it -- I don't need to, either. You prove yourself wrong by your source: without discussing how credible Rothbard used to be, it's a fact that he was an avid supporter of not only capitalism but of reduction of state presence. How am I going to debate with someone who has views that are not only diametrically opposed to mine, but starts each post with an insult and a validation of his sources and beliefs as the one and only truth? It'd be as stupid as me quoting K. Marx or Lenin and saying you're wrong for disagreeing with them.

Again, you resort to ad hominem because your writing is weak - you wrote two paragraphs of personal insults and a single line (which was actually a link to the words of someone else) that could be compared to me asking Henry Ford if he thought personal vehicles were better than public transportation and, when (obviously) answered with a 'Yes', use that as the entirety of my argument against anyone who claims trains/buses/horses/pedecabs are better.

iHarlequin

I didn't dismiss him. Unless I'm debating with his ghost, I don't see why you expect me to answer his ideas and concepts with my own. I posted a comment that asked less for reply than it did for thought, and you answered by calling me (and others) ignorant and providing no information to back you up. After that, you actually requested that I read a fairly long article instead of giving me the thoughts YOU derived from reading it (at this point I'm just assuming you picked someone's ideology to follow blindly). I'll 1-up you in stupidity and order: start with http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/" title="http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/">this, once you've finished you can read the other volumes, and then feel free to transition to the Communist Manifesto.

People often forget that you quote reputable authors to give credibility to your own arguments. You don't sustain an entire conversation on the efforts and thoughts of someone else. You should study more - you seem to be stuck in that midway limbo where you've read enough authors to know how to argue different points of view (based on what they think, not you), but you aren't sufficiently aware to derive a synthesis of your own from their thoughts and your observations.

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] How does citing an economist as a source somehow prove someone wrong or invalidate what they said in any way? The calculation problem is an old and important issue in economics, and anyone who advocates state intervention in the economy has to deal with it. You just seem to be dismissing Rothbard because he's an ancap and therefore biased, in which case all economists should be dismissed because they al belong to conflicting ideological schools.Rhazakna

I didn't dismiss him. Unless I'm debating with his ghost, I don't see why you expect me to answer his ideas and concepts with my own. I posted a comment that asked less for reply than it did for thought, and you answered by calling me (and others) ignorant and providing no information to back you up. After that, you actually requested that I read a fairly long article instead of giving me the thoughts YOU derived from reading it (at this point I'm just assuming you picked someone's ideology to follow blindly). I'll 1-up you in stupidity and order: start with http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/" title="http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/">this, once you've finished you can read the other volumes, and then feel free to transition to the Communist Manifesto.

People often forget that you quote reputable authors to give credibility to your own arguments. You don't sustain an entire conversation on the efforts and thoughts of someone else. You should study more - you seem to be stuck in that midway limbo where you've read enough authors to know how to argue different points of view (based on what they think, not you), but you aren't sufficiently aware to derive a synthesis of your own from their thoughts and your observations.

Apparently, I don't. I thought it had been his reply to my reply, and just answered it. And it's honestly too late for me to even be bothered by that slight of mine...

Condenscending tone wasn't aimed at you, but what I said still stands. Besides, it was Ludwig von Mises (who Rothbard studied intensely) who elaborated the economic calculation problem, which was later expanded by another economist (the name eludes me, but it wasn't Rothbard). It is a theory, much like Marx's labor value theory, and it doesn't argue for a solution - it simply states how market control in a Socialist state would be inefficient without a market economy per se.

My initial post contained nothing concerning socialism, I simply stated I thought it was absurd this poorly conceived notion of capitalism fairly rewarding merit, and how I thought it was inhumane that certain conditions shouldn't be available to every human being (given the state has the capacity to provide it). I'm also not going to enter a dick-measuring contest with you and say I know more about Socialism than you do; and you certainly shouldn't say you know more than I do without any evidence to prove so.

The only thing I'll apologize for is confounding you with the other poster.

Apparently, I don't. I thought it had been his reply to my reply, and just answered it. And it's honestly too late for me to even be bothered by that slight of mine...

Condenscending tone wasn't aimed at you, but what I said still stands. Besides, it was Ludwig von Mises (who Rothbard studied intensely) who elaborated the economic calculation problem, which was later expanded by another economist (the name eludes me, but it wasn't Rothbard). It is a theory, much like Marx's labor value theory, and it doesn't argue for a solution - it simply states how market control in a Socialist state would be inefficient without a market economy per se.

My initial post contained nothing concerning socialism, I simply stated I thought it was absurd this poorly conceived notion of capitalism fairly rewarding merit, and how I thought it was inhumane that certain conditions shouldn't be available to every human being (given the state has the capacity to provide it). I'm also not going to enter a dick-measuring contest with you and say I know more about Socialism than you do; and you certainly shouldn't say you know more than I do without any evidence to prove so.

The only thing I'll apologize for is confounding you with the other poster.

iHarlequin

You're thinking of FA Hayek, he expounded on Mises' idea of the calculation problem. It makes no sense to say it "doesn't argue for a solution". The argument is that the state is inherently unable to efficiently allocate resources. They argue that there is no solution as long as the state is allocating the resources. Saying "it is a theory" is a meaningless statement that adds nothing to what's being discussed.

I agree that capitalism is not a meritocracy, in fact I'm an anti-capitalist. But I'm just as opposed to state-socialism. I also still don't understand why you think that citing an economist's explanation of an economic argument somehow invalidates it, or means that you don't have to address it. If you want the state to provide X, the calculation problem has to be argued against.

I've spent the last several years studying political philosophy, reading about all different forms of socialism, capitalism mixed economics and anarchism. Under some definitions, I am a libertarian-socialist. I know more about these things than most people on this site. Maybe you're an exception.... but I doubt it.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]As an anarchist, this thread is depressing, and the philosophy is not being defended well by RushKing. Anyone who claims that "people with guns would just take over" or that "there would be no law and people would fight over food" is laughably ignorant about the philosophy, but this thread won't make anyone educate themselves on it,Vesica_Prime

Communism intended to make a classless utopia and was about "peace, land, bread." The end results of Communism was far from that. Intentions =/= Results, same thing applies to any society that goes through anarchy.

When you get born, every squre foot of land around you is owned by someone. So you end up taking orders from your parents for the first 18 years of your life. You go to college and explode with debt. And after you need to get a job to pay it off and end up taking even more orders from the land owners. Capitalism is punishing people for existing.RushKing

Obvious troll attempt. Nothing in that lame post is true.TheWalkingGhost

There is nothing depressing about capitalism. And I am starting to tire of people who don't know what capitalism is and is not, yet who insist on labelling it as the source of all their problems.

Your personal angst has nothing to do with capitalism.

There is nothing depressing about capitalism. And I am starting to tire of people who don't know what capitalism is and is not, yet who insist on labelling it as the source of all their problems.

Your personal angst has nothing to do with capitalism.

SUD123456

There is nothing depressing about capitalism. And I am starting to tire of people who don't know what capitalism is and is not, yet who insist on labelling it as the source of all their problems.

Your personal angst has nothing to do with capitalism.

SUD123456

Absolutely. Captalism isn't the problem. Human beings are the problem.

Why should people get punished for educating themselves? Do you think eduacated people are of no value to society? Capitalism seems to only be good at crushing unprivileged people. Why should I be forced to conform to arbitrary land distinctions? Without land, how could I grow food for myself? Capitalism crushes individualism.RushKing

In a free liberal society, capitalism benefits the individual. How you think it crushes them, I'll never know why.

There's always going to be winners and losers, there will always be those who are underprivileged, but there are also those who will rise to the greatest potential, and just because there's going to be winners, losers, and the underprivileged, it doesn't mean they're going to be like that forever. Not everyone started off rich, some had to work at it.

Free Market Capitalism is only depressing if the state gets involved. While in a true free market capitalist system you could sell whatever you want, to whoever you want, whenever and whereever you want, and in whatever way you want, you are severely limited in your abilities when the state gets involved.

You've probably all heard of this but here is a story of government essentially shutting down a burger joint:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/landmark-calif-burger-joint-forced-to-shut-down-over-ada-lawsuit/

And I know a guy in my city who sells ice cream out of an ice cream cart (at certain government allowed times and locations, of course). He has really good homemade ice cream and wanted to package it in quarts or pints and wholesale it to businesses around the city (and there would have been alot that would have taken his product), but the government wouldn't let him. According to him the government (i'm not sure if it was state or local) wouldn't grant him a license to wholesale his ice cream. He ended up just taking orders over the phone and delivering it straight to the customers, but he would do much better if he could wholesale it. Thanks to government his business isn't growing as fast as it could.

So it isn't that capitalism is depressing, it is government beating down on an otherwise good system that is depressing.

[QUOTE="RushKing"]Why should people get punished for educating themselves? Do you think eduacated people are of no value to society? Capitalism seems to only be good at crushing unprivileged people. Why should I be forced to conform to arbitrary land distinctions? Without land, how could I grow food for myself? Capitalism crushes individualism.leviathan91

In a free liberal society, capitalism benefits the individual. How you think it crushes them, I'll never know why.

There's always going to be winners and losers, there will always be those who are underprivileged, but there are also those who will rise to the greatest potential, and just because there's going to be winners, losers, and the underprivileged, it doesn't mean they're going to be like that forever. Not everyone started off rich, some had to work at it.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

There is nothing depressing about capitalism. And I am starting to tire of people who don't know what capitalism is and is not, yet who insist on labelling it as the source of all their problems.

Your personal angst has nothing to do with capitalism.

RushKing

Hooray for made up statements. Let me try. You are a Pol Pot mass murderer wannabee. See how that works?

Instead of throwing out random statements, why don't you try to actually make an argument?

Starting with either the economic principles that lead to capitalism beating on the poor...or a description of the outcomes which you believe to be evidence of your proposition.

I'll start with the latter topic since you seem ill equipped to deal with the former, with two of my own simple outcome based propositions.

1. The poor under modern capitalist societies are vastly better off now than they were before (either pre or early capitalism).

2. The poor under modern capitalist societies are vastly better off than the poor in any other society in this age that is not capitalist.

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]Why should people get punished for educating themselves? Do you think eduacated people are of no value to society? Capitalism seems to only be good at crushing unprivileged people. Why should I be forced to conform to arbitrary land distinctions? Without land, how could I grow food for myself? Capitalism crushes individualism.RushKing

In a free liberal society, capitalism benefits the individual. How you think it crushes them, I'll never know why.

There's always going to be winners and losers, there will always be those who are underprivileged, but there are also those who will rise to the greatest potential, and just because there's going to be winners, losers, and the underprivileged, it doesn't mean they're going to be like that forever. Not everyone started off rich, some had to work at it.

What!? If we're talking about wage slavery, that also doesn't exist and cannot exist for one simple goddamn reason: If you were a person looking for work, would you honestly take a job that paid .50 cents an hour? Everyone with a brain would say no.

As for slavery itself, again, in a liberal society as in human rights are protected so a corporation can't force you to purchase a product or make you into a slave just because it can.

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="leviathan91"]

In a free liberal society, capitalism benefits the individual. How you think it crushes them, I'll never know why.

There's always going to be winners and losers, there will always be those who are underprivileged, but there are also those who will rise to the greatest potential, and just because there's going to be winners, losers, and the underprivileged, it doesn't mean they're going to be like that forever. Not everyone started off rich, some had to work at it.

leviathan91

What!? If we're talking about wage slavery, that also doesn't exist and cannot exist for one simple goddamn reason: If you were a person looking for work, would you honestly take a job that paid .50 cents an hour? Everyone with a brain would say no.

As for slavery itself, again, in a liberal society as in human rights are protected so a corporation can't force you to purchase a product or make you into a slave just because it can.

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

There are more people than there are jobs. I don't need god to give me money, but I'd appreciate it if the State could at least guarantee that I have some means of making a living.

iHarlequin

Entitlement? Economic ignorance? I argued that health and education were quintessential to humanity. And you can, yes, make a man capable of doing a job: by ensuring that education is something available to the entire population, not just the wealthy. Also, if the state is indeed socialist, it would have a centralized control over the industry and employment, and would be able to adapt what it offers to the needs of the population (and not the other way around, which many people think natural...) - it wouldn't be TAKING jobs from anyone, it would be creating and diverting resources as needed by the population.

The issue with capitalism that so many fail to see is that work is done in the name of money, not progress or evolution. Sometimes, it happens to coincide: private investments into healthcare, education, science that lead to a progress of mankind as a whole. More often than not, however, it creates jobs with the sole function of generating more money (not actual resources or improvements).

The reason the U.S.'s capitalism is so envied (and rarely well-copied) is because of the massive middle-class the country has. It can, then, rely on the fact that the majority of its population will be able to, by themselves, pay for dwelling, healthcare, food, education, etc. It considers the population that isn't part of the middle class as collateral damage - that alone should be reason for criticism. The true issue is when 3rd world countries and countries that have an even worse wealth-distribution than the United States try to copy the model, and end up committing an even larger percentage of their population as 'collateral damage' (easily observed in upcoming nations like the BRICS).

Don't be so quick to call others ignorant, specially when the only thing you back your claims with is conjecture. Conjecture contributes in nothing to the veracity of your statement.

Explain.

Too much authority in capitalism. I think it all should just get torn down.RushKing

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

Apparently, I don't. I thought it had been his reply to my reply, and just answered it. And it's honestly too late for me to even be bothered by that slight of mine...

Condenscending tone wasn't aimed at you, but what I said still stands. Besides, it was Ludwig von Mises (who Rothbard studied intensely) who elaborated the economic calculation problem, which was later expanded by another economist (the name eludes me, but it wasn't Rothbard). It is a theory, much like Marx's labor value theory, and it doesn't argue for a solution - it simply states how market control in a Socialist state would be inefficient without a market economy per se.

My initial post contained nothing concerning socialism, I simply stated I thought it was absurd this poorly conceived notion of capitalism fairly rewarding merit, and how I thought it was inhumane that certain conditions shouldn't be available to every human being (given the state has the capacity to provide it). I'm also not going to enter a dick-measuring contest with you and say I know more about Socialism than you do; and you certainly shouldn't say you know more than I do without any evidence to prove so.

The only thing I'll apologize for is confounding you with the other poster.

Rhazakna

You're thinking of FA Hayek, he expounded on Mises' idea of the calculation problem. It makes no sense to say it "doesn't argue for a solution". The argument is that the state is inherently unable to efficiently allocate resources. They argue that there is no solution as long as the state is allocating the resources. Saying "it is a theory" is a meaningless statement that adds nothing to what's being discussed.

I agree that capitalism is not a meritocracy, in fact I'm an anti-capitalist. But I'm just as opposed to state-socialism. I also still don't understand why you think that citing an economist's explanation of an economic argument somehow invalidates it, or means that you don't have to address it. If you want the state to provide X, the calculation problem has to be argued against.

I've spent the last several years studying political philosophy, reading about all different forms of socialism, capitalism mixed economics and anarchism. Under some definitions, I am a libertarian-socialist. I know more about these things than most people on this site. Maybe you're an exception.... but I doubt it.

Oh, I agree. What I'm saying isn't that it's 'just a theory' (so is evolution and gravity, and I believe in them), what I'm saying is that there are others, such as the labor value theory, a theory that argues the same issue of resource allocation and is one more aligned with what I think.

I'm a Social Sciences (Political Sciences, Anthropology and Sociology... not related to social services) drop-out (did roughly two out of the five years in the course before I realized it was more of a hobby and side-interest of mine rather than something I wanted to work with, if work there was...), ideally a Communist, realistically a Socialist (Communist is too perfect for humanity) andde fato a Capitalist. Since my main interest was in Sociology, and I had heavy tendency to economy and statistics, economic models were a topic I studied intensely.

Explain.

SpartanMSU

A good chunk of the services area just serves to promote futile products. Other than that, there's an unecessarily large market for banks and speculation/investing (investing for the sake of making money and then drawing upon the investment, not actually investing into a company or idea you're fond of or agree with and then slowly reaping the benefits as it grows).

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="SUD123456"]

There is nothing depressing about capitalism. And I am starting to tire of people who don't know what capitalism is and is not, yet who insist on labelling it as the source of all their problems.

Your personal angst has nothing to do with capitalism.

SUD123456

Hooray for made up statements. Let me try. You are a Pol Pot mass murderer wannabee. See how that works?

Instead of throwing out random statements, why don't you try to actually make an argument?

Starting with either the economic principles that lead to capitalism beating on the poor...or a description of the outcomes which you believe to be evidence of your proposition.

I'll start with the latter topic since you seem ill equipped to deal with the former, with two of my own simple outcome based propositions.

1. The poor under modern capitalist societies are vastly better off now than they were before (either pre or early capitalism).

2. The poor under modern capitalist societies are vastly better off than the poor in any other society in this age that is not capitalist.

No, they aren't. Unless by modern capitalist society you mean the twelve or fifteen countries comprised of Canada and a few of Western European countries, and even then, it's not something sure. You may argue that the USSR was a dictatorship, but the nations that were a part of it experienced a leap in quality of life that capitalism could never hope to provide. The difference Lenin and the Communist party made in twenty or so years in Russia was massive - they went from a Monarchic capitalism (a capitalism nonetheless) where the vast majority of the population lived in sub-human conditions to one of the greatest superpowers in the late 40's, with better wealth distribution and public systems (healthcare, education, work) than before. Unfortunately, corruption happened, Stalin happened (I'm not a fan of alternate history (other than for Science fiction), but had Leon Trotsky prevailed along with Lenin's ideals, the world as we know it would be considerably different), and the ideals of the nation were corrupted.

Tito's Yugoslavia, and all the other nations that took independent roads to communism, had better QoL projections than many developed (capitalist) countries have today. Unfortunately, capitalism's 'fantastic plastic' is much more appealing than ideals and concepts.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

You're thinking of FA Hayek, he expounded on Mises' idea of the calculation problem. It makes no sense to say it "doesn't argue for a solution". The argument is that the state is inherently unable to efficiently allocate resources. They argue that there is no solution as long as the state is allocating the resources. Saying "it is a theory" is a meaningless statement that adds nothing to what's being discussed.

I agree that capitalism is not a meritocracy, in fact I'm an anti-capitalist. But I'm just as opposed to state-socialism. I also still don't understand why you think that citing an economist's explanation of an economic argument somehow invalidates it, or means that you don't have to address it. If you want the state to provide X, the calculation problem has to be argued against.

I've spent the last several years studying political philosophy, reading about all different forms of socialism, capitalism mixed economics and anarchism. Under some definitions, I am a libertarian-socialist. I know more about these things than most people on this site. Maybe you're an exception.... but I doubt it.

iHarlequin

Oh, I agree. What I'm saying isn't that it's 'just a theory' (so is evolution and gravity, and I believe in them), what I'm saying is that there are others, such as the labor value theory, a theory that argues the same issue of resource allocation and is one more aligned with what I think.

I'm a Social Sciences (Political Sciences, Anthropology and Sociology... not related to social services) drop-out (did roughly two out of the five years in the course before I realized it was more of a hobby and side-interest of mine rather than something I wanted to work with, if work there was...), ideally a Communist, realistically a Socialist (Communist is too perfect for humanity) andde fato a Capitalist. Since my main interest was in Sociology, and I had heavy tendency to economy and statistics, economic models were a topic I studied intensely.

Explain.

SpartanMSU

A good chunk of the services area just serves to promote futile products. Other than that, there's an unecessarily large market for banks and speculation/investing (investing for the sake of making money and then drawing upon the investment, not actually investing into a company or idea you're fond of or agree with and then slowly reaping the benefits as it grows).

Seems like you need to do a little research on why capital markets exist and why they're important. Without it firms wouldn't be able to raise even close to the amount of capital they do now.

Oh, and you always invest for the "sake of money". The whole point of investing is to consumption smooth.

You basically just told me that what I do for a living is BS.:x

I wouldn't wanna live anywhere else. And capitalism at its worse is still preferable to socialism and communism. I'm pretty sure North Koreans would be completely fine with our situation.

1. The poor under modern capitalist societies are vastly better off now than they were before (either pre or early capitalism).

2. The poor under modern capitalist societies are vastly better off than the poor in any other society in this age that is not capitalist.

SUD123456

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

Oh, I agree. What I'm saying isn't that it's 'just a theory' (so is evolution and gravity, and I believe in them), what I'm saying is that there are others, such as the labor value theory, a theory that argues the same issue of resource allocation and is one more aligned with what I think.

I'm a Social Sciences (Political Sciences, Anthropology and Sociology... not related to social services) drop-out (did roughly two out of the five years in the course before I realized it was more of a hobby and side-interest of mine rather than something I wanted to work with, if work there was...), ideally a Communist, realistically a Socialist (Communist is too perfect for humanity) andde fato a Capitalist. Since my main interest was in Sociology, and I had heavy tendency to economy and statistics, economic models were a topic I studied intensely.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Explain.

SpartanMSU

A good chunk of the services area just serves to promote futile products. Other than that, there's an unecessarily large market for banks and speculation/investing (investing for the sake of making money and then drawing upon the investment, not actually investing into a company or idea you're fond of or agree with and then slowly reaping the benefits as it grows).

Seems like you need to do a little research on why capital markets exist and why they're important. Without it firms wouldn't be able to raise even close to the amount of capital they do now.

Oh, and you always invest for the "sake of money". The whole point of investing is to consumption smooth.

You basically just told me that what I do for a living is BS.:x

My whole argument is that the amount of capital companies ARE raising for a select amount of people is absurd. We could sustain similar production values without nearly as much surplus value exploration. I'm arguing against consumerism - it's implied when I support Communism.

It's not my fault if it is. I'm sorry, but if I worked with anything related to sales or exploration of other people's work I would not be content. If you are content with what you do, me calling it BS shouldn't make a difference to you.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

A good chunk of the services area just serves to promote futile products. Other than that, there's an unecessarily large market for banks and speculation/investing (investing for the sake of making money and then drawing upon the investment, not actually investing into a company or idea you're fond of or agree with and then slowly reaping the benefits as it grows).

iHarlequin

Seems like you need to do a little research on why capital markets exist and why they're important. Without it firms wouldn't be able to raise even close to the amount of capital they do now.

Oh, and you always invest for the "sake of money". The whole point of investing is to consumption smooth.

You basically just told me that what I do for a living is BS.:x

My whole argument is that the amount of capital companies ARE raising for a select amount of people is absurd. We could sustain similar production values without nearly as much surplus value exploration. I'm arguing against consumerism - it's implied when I support Communism.

It's not my fault if it is. I'm sorry, but if I worked with anything related to sales or exploration of other people's work I would not be content. If you are content with what you do, me calling it BS shouldn't make a difference to you.

Companies issue securities so they can raise capital for operations. How is the amount they raise a bad thing?

I was kidding with my last statement, I really don't care what you think about my career. However, who exactly am I exploiting and how?

[QUOTE="dave123321"]Happy as a clamKiIIyou

The very idea of social classes is morally abhorrent, for no one group of people ought to be born with financial and social advantages over another. The fact that many people genuinely believe that both the rich and the poor are deserving of their status is deeply saddening. Unfortunately, capitalists and other Social Darwinists have a stranglehold over the zeitgeist of the Western world and continue to despoil mother nature and destroy her people. Until we are able to completely revamp our current system, we can look forward to more endless war, famine, and disease.

As for communism, I would say it's probably the best system in theory, and I even think it could work in practice under certain circumstances, but Marx's concept of social progress (Capitalism -> Socialism -> Communism) is flawed in that socialism will generally not lead to communism, but to a consolidation of power that will expand indefinitely until the system eventually collapses.

However, I also believe the USSR and Joseph Stalin in particular are unfairly demonized by the West in an attempt to make communism look bad. For one thing, the USSR was never a communist country, as communism is, by its very definition, stateless and classless. The USSR was a form of highly centralized state socialism, which was eventually supposed to lead to communism (though unfortunately, it never did). Second, anti-communists claim that Stalin's regime brought about mass famine, while overlooking the fact that, in the span of a decade or less, Stalin raised his people up from the poverty of a post-revolutionary warzone and turned it into the most prosperous nation on the planet. The photos you see in American textbooks that were supposedly taken during famines from Stalin's regime have actually been dated back to the 1920s, long before Stalin had any true power. Third, most of what we have been taught about the Soviet Union is (literal) Nazi propaganda that was initially published by the German press to justify Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union. This includes lies concerning the number of deaths in the Ukraine, which Western propagandists love to bring up during debates. Such propaganda was later adopted by McCarthyists and other American anti-communists during the Cold War, and the death tolls were inflated to an even greater number to make it appear as though Stalin was worse than Hitler Truth be told, actual numbers estimate somewhere in the hundred thousands, a death rate which can almost entirely be chalked up to diseases which were incurable at the time. Anyone who blames Stalin for those deaths might as well blame Churchill and FDR for the deaths due to disease that occurred in their respective countries, yet we don't hear people refer to either Churchill or FDR as "the most evil man who ever lived", do we? That's not to say there were absolutely no deaths due to starvation, but it's important to look at when most of them occurred - right around the time Nazi Germany broke its pact and invaded the Soviet Union, which of course led to food shortages.

With all that being said, I detest much of went on during Stalin's years as a leader. Political crime? Consolidation of power? Bureaucracy? You bet I have a problem with such injustices. Of course, it's often overlooked that many of the same things were unfolding in Western nations around the same time, i.e. McCarthyism. I don't consider myself a communist, but I can't in good conscience say that socialism and communism are any more detestable than capitalism. For all the negativity that can be hurled at non-Western socialist nations, at least they have the decency to stay on their side of the map, unlike the murderous, imperialistic Western capitalists who like to drop preemptive bombs on third world countries dozens of times weaker than themselves, often in the name of "liberation".

So is life.

What you just explained is literally every form of government, ever, in the history of time. You can whine about it or you can get over it and just accept that you're part of a system and you always will be, and that you should just strive to be successful.

That's not really a "life is beautiful" arguement, but sometimes you just have to take the pragmatic route and forget that life isn't perfect.

So is life.

What you just explained is literally every form of government, ever, in the history of time. You can whine about it or you can get over it and just accept that you're part of a system and you always will be, and that you should just strive to be successful.

That's not really a "life is beautiful" arguement, but sometimes you just have to take the pragmatic route and forget that life isn't perfect.

-TheSecondSign-

I love when people blame capatalism for things caused by insane state socialism. dkdk999

Which is why European countries with far more socialist policies than the US are doing much better than we are. Though in a sense, I agree that true socialism could never work in such a large and populated country as the US. It's just too much for a centralized system to handle.

[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"]

So is life.

What you just explained is literally every form of government, ever, in the history of time. You can whine about it or you can get over it and just accept that you're part of a system and you always will be, and that you should just strive to be successful.

That's not really a "life is beautiful" arguement, but sometimes you just have to take the pragmatic route and forget that life isn't perfect.

Radiatedrich91

Man what am I supposed to do about it? Its like I said it sucks, yeah, but am I supposed to be everyone's solution to their economic strife?

[QUOTE="dkdk999"]I love when people blame capatalism for things caused by insane state socialism. Radiatedrich91

Which is why European countries with far more socialist policies than the US are doing much better than we are. Though in a sense, I agree that true socialism could never work in such a large and populated country as the US. It's just too much for a centralized system to handle.

Yeah Greece and Spain are doing great.

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

[QUOTE="dkdk999"]I love when people blame capatalism for things caused by insane state socialism. SpartanMSU

Which is why European countries with far more socialist policies than the US are doing much better than we are. Though in a sense, I agree that true socialism could never work in such a large and populated country as the US. It's just too much for a centralized system to handle.

Yeah Greece and Spain are doing great.

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

[QUOTE="dkdk999"]I love when people blame capatalism for things caused by insane state socialism. SpartanMSU

Which is why European countries with far more socialist policies than the US are doing much better than we are. Though in a sense, I agree that true socialism could never work in such a large and populated country as the US. It's just too much for a centralized system to handle.

Yeah Greece and Spain are doing great.

I was referring more to places like Sweden. Switzerland, an extremely free market capitalist country, is also doing quite well for itself compared to the rest of the world. The fact that Sweden and Switzerland, virtually opposites when it comes to economic policy, are able to thrive, indicates to me that smaller countries with less dense populations are better able to thrive whether they're capitalistic or socialistic. Personally, I think we should embrace the positive attributes of both capitalism and socialism to eliminate the negative attributes that they can bring about when left unchecked on their own.