“Capitalism is a necessary condition for freedom, but not a sufficient condition for freedom.”  Milton Friedman
Because the value of products falls over time as labor-saving techniques and machinery are introduced, and as the maldistribution of income becomes so acute as not to allow workers to consume enough to support all the accumulated capital.
Well then you’re flat wrong. As much as the US has invaded, bombed, and killed for it, you still have your doubts? Think about it: if you employ $1 million in capital, you must earn some return on it, at least about 3%, to make it worthwhile. So if you make your 3%, next year, you’ve got to make 3% on $1,030,000. Next year you have to make 3% on $1,060,900… Everyone who employes capital must make a profit on it to continue in that endeavor. There’s no way around accepting the fact that capitalism must expand or die.
[quote]For example, a shoemaker repairs shoes for the people in a small town and can earn a living doing so.
He doesn’t need to hire an assistant or start another business at the other end of the street.
His price may have to go up because the electriccosts has increased for instance. Maybe I’m wrong but I just don’t get it.[/quote]
If he’s working, then he’s not investing. Investment is what is applicable. If he built up a capital stock over the years, he would have to employ it gainfull somehow, or else it would just sit there.
It skews demand toward capital goods and eventually causes a recession when people become unable to buy the things they make.
[quote]How does a socialist society keep on existing when the parasitical class i.e those who recieve government benefits, outgrows the productive class i.e. those who actually work?
[/quote]
Those who receive government benefits frequently only do so because capitalism has rendered them jobless. There is full employment in a socialist country. The real parasitic class is the capitalist class, that does no work yet reaps the rewards, that charges you a fee for the privilege of working and supporting yourself.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But I guess to help start you off, I’ll mention the fact yet again that profitability is the mechanism of capitalism, and if something is not profitable, it doesn’t get done. I have talked about the drastic inequalities in income that in inherent in capitalism, and the danger they pose to the economy. This fact is very relevant here since, over time, profit rates fall, leading to more intense exploitation of workers. But, since they only way the capitalists can sufficiently cut their expenses (in the absence if technological innovation, which tends to happen in bursts) is to reduce the wages of the workers, which eventually, causes them to be unable to buy all of the products the economy produces. Eventually, this underconsumption will lead to depression, since if they are not buying the products, those capitalists with unsold goods are losing money, which causes them to reduce production, and lay people off, which only adds to the problem. Eventually, people either rebel or the system crashes.
Unless capitalists are able to expand into new markets (such as developing countries). The higher rates of exploitation and profits in the under-industrialized areas gives capitalism space to breathe. It is competition for these markets that has led to several wars, especially in the 20 century. However, once the planet is industrialized, and the capitalists are out of new markets, it will suffocate. Capitalism needs to constantly expand (make a profit) to survive, and there are definite limits to this expansion. [/quote]
Thanks - i’ll have my response posted up for you by very soon.
1 - It resolves the “inherent contradictions in capitalism”
1A - The inherent contradiction is that productive resources are utilized, means of production are implemented and operated and products are produced collectively, and then the profits are collected by a small class.
1B - The small class profiting from the utilization of the resources controls the means of production so that their profits are ensured
1C - This small class does little to no work involved in the actual production process
1D - This necessarily results in a “mismatch” between the need of the public and the wants of the small class and thus causes tensions
-
It diffuses the “tensions that necessarily result”
-
It ends exploitation
-
It provides the “foundation for a class-less society”
How does socialism correct these four main areas?
Based on the assumption that the only means of accomplishing anything in capitalism is via profitability - no profitability means that it will not be done
Based on the assumption that over time profit rates fall - this leads to more exploitation of the worker to maintain profitability levels by cutting of wages. Cutting wages of workers leads to inability to purchase goods. Lose of ability to purchase goods leads to economic depression. Loss of demand leads to loss of production. Loss of production leads to decreased production. Decreased production leads to smaller workforce. Smaller workforce leads to even less purchasing and eventually total system collapse or rebellion.
To avoid that outcome, capitalists are forced to expand into new markets, where the cycle can be propagated until there are no new markets left to exploit.
Where to begin? I stared at your model for some time. I examined the lack of any actual concrete “how” in your explanation.
Let’s just start with 1A. Foundational flaw = Not all resources, production or products are collectively produced. You miss the foundational principles of capitalism and in doing so you fail to understand the inherent equality built into the structure. In a capitalist society, the means of production are available to be privately owned by any individual or any legal entity representing a group of people bound together in common interest. The freedom of private property. I can own a gold mine all by myself and mine it all by myself and enjoy the profits all by myself. I can choose to employ people to help me mine my gold and I will pay them a wage we both can agree upon. If my wage is too low, they can refuse to work for me. If their demand is too high, I can refuse to hire them. If I want to vastly increase my earning potential, I can gather a group of investors to finance expansion efforts, new equipment, and more workers in exchange for a percentage of the remaining profit. If they demand too high an interest share, I can refuse them. If I offer too low of an interest share, they can refuse to invest in my company. On the flip side, since I own the gold mine, I never have to do anything with it. I can sit on it and build a rose garden if I so choose. There is the foundational concept - no one is coerced to do anything. I choose what I will do, those who want to can choose to work for me or not, those who want to can choose to invest in my company or not - the individual’s freedom is never compromised. This applies to every facet of the economy and it is why capitalism thrives in all areas where that freedom of choice is unfettered.
Next foundational flaw of 1A = profits are not just collected by a small group. This is based on a misconception of profitability. The generic term profits used by corporations (which is the definition socialism bases it criticisms of capitalism upon) is that money remaining after all expenses of operation are paid. That is a uselessly narrow definition that does not explain the heart of the capitalist engine which is wealth exchange. To use my previous example; I own a gold mine. It is doing absolutely nothing until I INVEST my physical effort in extracting and refining the ore - I have turned my effort into a commodity. Now, if others want my commodity I can trade that commodity for other commodities that I want like a keg or two of Guinness. I get to thinking maybe I would like to buy some new clothes and maybe a tent to sleep in - I invest more labor and get more of that commodity so that I can continue to exchange it for other commodities. I get to thinking I haven’t had any sex for a while, I can exchange my commodity for some services. This is the basic model of capitalism - I take something I possess invest some type of capital (labor in this case) into it to produce a tradable good/commodity, or I can invest time and energy into my education and learn how to provide a service that others want/need so that I can receive an exchange of commodities or services for my service. When I go to hire workers for my gold mine â?? I am exchanging some type of good/commodity for their services. When I go to get investors in my company, I am exchanging goods/commodities for their goods/commodities in order to produce more goods/commodities for additional exchanges. Money was invented as a means of facilitating this exchange of good/commodities and services.
Now taking a step back to the profitability question; profit results from any enterprise where I get a greater return of value that the item I invested into that enterprise. For example, I invested my manual labor into extracting the gold from my mine. I now have a commodity I can enter the market with. If I accept a cup of rice for three weeks of hard labor in my mine - I have a loss and no profit. If I exchange that gold for three weeks of food, clothing, lodging and entertainment - I have a neutral exchange. If I exchange that gold for a new house, new truck, new shotgun and a years worth of supplies I have a net profit. When I hire my workers, the same model exists - they are investing their labor into my mine in exchange for a return on that investment - if they chose wisely, they will profit from their investment and if I also chose wisely, I will still profit from my investment into their labor. That is profit - not just the remaining dollars on a corporate ledger at the end of a fiscal year, but the value added from an investment of time/energy/resources by an individual into an economic endeavor. Everyone has the potential to profit from every level of the economic activity.
Since we use money as a means of facilitating the exchange of commodities and services, I can choose to exchange my gold for a certain amount of money. In doing so, I establish a value for my commodity. If others are also producing gold, then we can cooperate to see what price we can all agree on as the value of exchange for the commodity we produce. However, those seeking to purchase our commodity also have a say in the setting of the value of that commodity as well. They have to be willing to pay the price for our commodity. In addition anyone of the producers of gold can change the price that they are willing to accept and anyone purchasing the gold can increase or decrease the price they are willing to pay for that gold - if each can find a willing party on the other side. Once again, freedom of choice for all individuals is found within the capitalist system. This illustrates another vital aspect of capitalism - no single economic activity is completely owned by just one party. If just one party owned the whole of a single economic activity, they kill the ability for price and value adjustment according to the needs and abilities of those needing that particular economic activity. This is monopolization and it is the premise of socialism.
To sum up point 1A - capitalism provides freedom of choice to every participant in the system; every participant is free to choose the means and manner of investing/not-investing their time, energy and resources into any activity they see fit and by that investment can realize loss or profit depending on their own free choices. Profits are not just collected by a small group, but are found throughout the entire system by every participant provided that they are wise in their choices. This is why capitalism flourishes when coupled with an excellent education system, and why education has always been so important in civilizations.
OK, 1B - The small class profiting from the utilization of the resources controls the means of production so that their profits are ensured.
Foundational flaw = this assumes that the totality of that resource and the production means are controlled by that single entity. That is a monopoly and is illegal in all capitalist economies. This is actually true of the socialist model, where the entire system is controlled by a single entity. The truth of the capitalist system is that every one is capable of maximizing their own individual profit at whatever level of participation that they are on during that economic process. In adidition, any individual can invest their time, energy and resources and gain control of any corporate entity, of a segment of the production capacity and even of a particular resource source. There are no limitations on individual success.
Ok, 1C - This small class does little to no work involved in the actual production process
Foundational Flaw = gross oversimplification and unfounded assumptions. Every business owner I have worked for has been an active and vital part of the business he owns. This is something that is of vital interest to him. You will respond to that comment by saying that you were speaking of corporations, not private business owners. That is the gross oversimplification - capitalism is not made up of just corporations. It is a myriad of sole proprietors, partnerships, LLC’s, companies and corporations. Companies and corporations can be privately owned or publicly owned (traded on the open market) - this means individuals are free to influence the practices and decisions of a company or corporation. What you are trying to do is to introduce class distinctions into a system that doe snot make class distinctions. The fact is that there is no class involved here. There are only different levels at which individuals (by means of their individual investment of their time, energy and resources) are participating in the economic system. That is the beauty and freedom of capitalism - if I want to be a bum, with no education and no marketable skills - I can sit on my ass and accomplish just that! If I want to own the largest oil conglomerate in the world - i can bust my ass and accomplish that as well. AHH sweet freedom!
This is also allows for freedom of the individual via the choice of motivation - the capitalist system allows for all manner of motivations, from greed to charity to exist and cooperate within it. It even allows for socialism to be practiced within it as a valid component. Socialism doe snot allow for this same freedom within it. Greed (the perpetual bane of socialists everywhere) is actually a great thing within economic systems because it gets people involved who would otherwise not invest their talents, skills and resources into the mix. Socialism depends on universal alturism, when this is actually an impossibility. Capitalism on the other hand accepts beggars, thiefs, and saints. It grants freedoms to every individual regardless of gender, religion or nationality. It works with greedy bastards and sweet old grandmothers who want to give everything away. It is the sweet sweet siren call of allowing individuals to rise or fall according to their own desires and choices.
It also made the unfounded assumption that theya re not actually involved - you cannot know this without visiting every corporation in the world to verify it . . . assumption will kill an argument every time
1D - This necessarily results in a “mismatch” between the need of the public and the wants of the small class and thus causes tensions
Foundational Flaw = needs/wants of the public are more readily meet by a free and open system where individuals are able to provide the needs/wants of the public in exhcange for that individual’s needs/wants.
Your principle only holds true in a monopolized system and as demonstrated earlier, this only occurs within a socialist framework where a single entity controls every aspect of the economic system. Again, your reliance on an assumed “small class” blinds you to the reality that are a myriad of potential need/want meeters within a capitalist society. Indeed, anyone of average intelligence can see that there is not a great market in buggy whips these days, but there is a great market for aftermarket car accessories. In a capitalist system any individual who wants to can apply himself to providing that good/service for the car market and do very well for himself, his employees and his customers - a perfect quid pro quo.
OK, since you did not provide an exact “how” for socialism fixing the non-existent problems you identified. I will address your other supportive arguments.
First: the only means of accomplishing anything in capitalism is via profitability - no profitability means that it will not be done. As I identified earlier - this is merely an assumption
Foundational Flaw - while depending upon altruistic nature of man for the success of socialism, you avoid its presence here. While I hold that not all men are altruistic, the reality is that many are: For example, there is a multi-billionaire here in America who provides completely free medical care for cancer patients. No profit line there, but his personal ability to generate profit for himself made that philanthropy possible.
This is the beauty of capitalism - the freedom to be all that you can possibly be - rich beyond your wildest dreams and a great humanitarian at the same time or poor as a field mouse and still a great humanitarian. By allowing each individual to pursue their own individual profit, the system also allows for the potential of each one’s success to llife others as well, “a rising tide lifts all ships”.
On the flip side - many people pursue activities that generate absolutely no profit at all. the list of non-profit organizations in the US exceeds all of Europe combined, the charitable contributions of the US by both percentage and gross total outpace the rest of the world!
A friend had this as his fb status. It’s pretty fitting.
“The essence of contemporary liberalism is the illberal conviction that Americans, in their comprehensive incompetence, need minute supervision by government, which liberals believe exists to spare citizens the torture of thinking and choosing”
-George Will
And your final assumption regarding falling profits.
This is only true in a monopolistic setting once again. if the system is open and free, the needs/wants of consumers and producers are in a constant state of balancing - over-produce an item and the demand falls, don’t produce enough of an item and the demand/price rises. Since each indiviual is seeking their own individual fulfilment be that for profit, charity, art or entertainment, the system has the capacity to repsond to each demand with a corresponding supply for that demand. Since there is no limit on the number of producers, consumers, wants/needs - the system is always adjusting to present conditions and realities. It is actually the only system capable of adjusting to various natural crises and shortages of goods/services in a reliable and timely manner because of this inherent flexibility.
Now, can individuals or companies abuse the system - yes, but only for a limited amount of time. The consumers and related producers will react by switching their business to another individual or company that is not abusing the system, it’s investors will switch to a more reliable investment - the system self-corrects. there is no such safety mechanism in a socialist system - the monopolization of the economic system does not allow for self-correction.
OK - all done for now. I hope you actually read and understand the rationales within the arguments I laid out for you. You have no compelling argument here, only assumptions based on generalizations that disappear under scrutiny. Good luck with your socialism.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:Where to begin? I stared at your model for some time. I examined the lack of any actual concrete “how” in your explanation.
Let’s just start with 1A. Foundational flaw = Not all resources, production or products are collectively produced.[/quote]
Wow, you wasted no time. This is obviously wrong, and you know it, and your contention to the contrary can only be an attempt to sidestep this hurdle. It is impossible not to notice that there is essentially no such thing as an independent producer anymore, and even to the extent that there is, he does not supply himself with his own materials. Inputs are commodities too, but your model treats them as if they fall from heaven. Today’s division of labor guarantees that everything is collectively produced, and in a sense must be, to maintain a high level of efficiency.
Again you demonstrate that you are unable to get past the shiny packaging and attractive marketing of capitalism to actually examine the product. On the contrary, the Marxist analysis is far ahead of yours, which does nothing but repeat idealizations and misinformation. Any inherent equality in capitalism is imagined, and begs the question of whether your eyes and ears function correctly. Look around you: bankers, who used other people’s money to speculate on risky assets, and then lost their shirts get bailed out and receive record-breaking bonuses to boot. The oil industry is responsible for one of the biggest environmental disasters in history, and they begin lobbying for more drilling. It was even worse in the 19th century, and in developing countries today, to which we have exported many of the important functions of capitalism. Do you think the workers in the “dark satanic mills” of the 19th century (which was much closer to your pined-for pure capitalism, and was commensurably fuller of flaws and contradictions for it) saw any “inherent equality” in the system that made them work 16 hours a day beside their children for meager wages that many times were not even paid in cash?
This is one of the most unequal societies on Earth, and it is also where capitalism is embraced in a “purer” form than most other places in the world. This is not a coincidence. Just look at how uneven is the growth in income over the last several years:
If you accuse me of “not getting” or “not understanding” your argument (strange, when all it is is the same old propaganda the right has spewing for years; not exactly stultifying), then you’re going to have to do better than giving me these standard lines. This is pure fantasy, and I think you know it. The average citizen has no chance of acquiring a significant stake in any endeavor. Take another look at the chart I provided, and in light of that information, please explain to me how average people are supposed to become owners of means of production with a dwindling share of society’s total wealth.
This all sounds very nice on paper, but I am not interested in what happens on paper. In reality, people under capitalism are subject to various economic forces which, though technically leave them free to choose whichever course of action they wish, in reality impel them toward certain decisions. Such as your statement: “I can sit on it and build a rose garden if I so choose.” In that case, your money is simply sitting there, going to waste and essentially inacessible, so in reality no one would do this. Funnily enough, you can only reach these conclusions by essentially ignoring economic forces. In other situations, when arguing against the feasibility of socialism, you constantly invoke these market forces, so it seems suspicious that they disappear when it is convenient for you. Furthermore, your rosy scenario, though oversimplified, only holds at all for the employers, and is totally wrong with respect to employees, or those who sell their labor-power. In other words, it is totally wrong for the vast majority of society.
If you own your gold mine, you have an obvious source of income. If I am a worker who needs a job, and we negotiate over wages, are we equal? Of course not, which is a concrete (or real-world) fact that you ignore in your propagandizing. Capitalist theorists can only arrive at these nice-sounding conclusions about capitalism by ignoring the material facts of capitalism. If I am the worker, I have no assets except my labor-power, and am not able to support myself for very long if I am out of work (and the Libertarians propose to further stack the deck against me, by eliminating social welfare programs), and thus we enter the negotiations on very uneven footing. The capitalist has a large advantage, which is evident to anyone with a brain, but which this chart and this article helps to make clear:
“It’s a big puzzle,” said Josh Bivens, an economist for the Economic Policy Institute. “If this is a knowledge economy, how come the brains aren’t being compensated? Instead, the owners of physical capital are getting the rewards.”
So now that we have established the emptiness of your objection, let’s move on to the next alleged flaw.
Sorry, again you are flat wrong:
“Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations; only 49 are countries (based on a comparison of corporate sales and country GDPs).”
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=377#key
You attempt to get around this via a weasely definition of “profits,” i.e., you expand the definition from its traditional denotation of the returns on investment to include all sort of other things. But this doesn’t help you either, because wages in this country have been stagnant for the last 30 years. Chart:
http://www.eoionline.org/images/constantcontact/wpr/2009/fig1_ProdWages.jpg
Not surprisingly, the mistake here is again yours. I can understand why you would wish to broaden the definition of “profit,” but in addition to the fact that it doesn’t really help your case, this expansion makes the word essentially useless. Following the logic of your example, any exertion or economic activity could be classified as an investment, and thus through obfuscation you have rendered the word unintelligible. On the contrary, the traditional definition of the word is not only much more useful but, again contrary to your claims, goes much further toward explaining the “capitalist engine,” which is not wealth exchange, but profit-seeking. “Wealth-exchange” could be satisfied by any economic transaction, even a losing one. No no, actors in the capitalist system do not go to market in order to “exchange wealth,” which would result in no orderly pattern of exchange, but they go to market to maximize profits, or utility. Thus, we see that simple “wealth-exchange” can never be an adequate mechanism to explain capitalism. Profitability survives your critique intact as the regulating mechanism of a capitalist society.
Amusingly, in your attempt to sidestep criticism, you have drifted pretty close to the labor theory of value.
Danger, danger! Step back, you’re about to fall headlong into Marx’s trap!
It is evident you have learned nothing from my explanations of socialism, since apparently you imagine that we are Democrats, and that we simply wish to reform capitalism. When I say “abolish capitalism,” I really do mean it, and I do not simply propose to attach a socialist method of distribution onto the existing capitalist state and method of production. Monopolization is the antithesis of socialism (just look at the word, for Christ’s sake), which proposes that society take collective control of the resources that it has built.
Actually, you are wrong about almost every single thing you have said in this post, which I have demonstrated. I have also identified the source of your errors, which is taking an analysis of the ideals of capitalism for an analysis of the real thing, and consequently by ignoring the concrete material forces that drive society.
Fun fact: it was largely the labor unions and the socialists that pressed for public education here in the US.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:OK, 1B - The small class profiting from the utilization of the resources controls the means of production so that their profits are ensured.
Foundational flaw = this assumes that the totality of that resource and the production means are controlled by that single entity. That is a monopoly and is illegal in all capitalist economies.[/quote]
I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but there is nothing about that statement that assumes that “the totality of that resource and the production means are controlled by that single entity.” All that it requires is the small class that owns the bulk of the means of production recognize their own interests, and act accordingly. By your logic, you must deduce that , for instance, a run on a bank is impossible, since its assets are not controlled by a single entity. A ludicrous statement if ever there was one, and an egregious logical fallacy, even for you.
Again, you seem not to believe me when I say that I wish to abolish capitalism, and you seem to think that secretly I’m a liberal. Because you repeat this mistake in assuming that socialists wish to empower the state, which is only further evidence that you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
Unemployment is 10% and has been for going on a year, higher if you use the “real” numbers. Foreclosures continue, and the only thing propping up the economy is the government. Meanwhile, the stock market is surging and bankers are making higher profits than ever. You wanna try again?
So disappointed, but I should have known better . . .oh well.
1st Paragraph - ability to gather resources does not negate independence of production, because the producer can always find new sources of raw materials. What you cal collective is an aberration of the concept.
2P - your fall back position - criticize capitalism, offer no real-world solution
3P - more attack, no substance, zero-sum concept of wealth
4P - I have no idea how you miss the obvious, but you do it very well, your concept of equality is “fairness”
5P - your answer had nothing conclusion to disprove my definition of profit . . .
6P - you response is that my definition moves the concept beyond your theory so it is invalid . . .
7P to the end - nothing but your opinions on various topics . …
so much for substantive discussion . . . we can’t even get onto the same playing field, let alone have a meaningful discussion. Is this all you have? Nothing of substance at all?
It’s like talking to a brick wall - i say something,and the response I get has absolutely nothing to do with what I said . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
So disappointed, but I should have known better . . .oh well.[/quote]
I understand your disappointment at constantly being intellectually “pantsed,” but you do keep asking for it.
Gee, your seven bullet points sure were convincing, but I think maybe I’ll take a crack at responding anyhow.
As for this one, what on God’s green Earth does “ability to gather resources” have to do with this? Actually, Milton Friedman uses a great example that is relevant here. To make a pencil, workers in some country chop down trees and produce the wood for it, while workers, perhaps in another country, provide the metal for the band which attaches the eraser, made from rubber, probably from a different country, provided by differend workers. This is one lousy pencil. Yet you somehow contend that not all commodities are collectively produced? Please explain to me how your response is not blatant obfuscation and hand-waving in an attempt to dismiss an argument that you have lost? I would love to hear it.
And again you demonstrate your short attention span: the solutions which socialism offers come out of the criticism of capitalism, just as the solutions of capitalism came out of the classical economists’ critique of previous economic arrangements.
This error come to us via a confusion of “wealth” and “value.” All of your posts are riddled with vague, sloppy use of terms. You’re confusing yourself.
I really have no idea what you’re trying to say here. It’s obvious you’re very confused (it happens when trying to mount a consistent defense of a contradictory system). You made the statement that “no one is coerced to do anything.” I simply noted that you could technically be correct by ignoring the economic and material forces in society. I’m sorry it angers you that I have introduced the real world into the discussion.
No, but it did outline why it is a stupid, and non-standard definition.
NOt that it is invalid, but that it is useless.
More sloppy use of terms.
I suppose I accept your surrender. If all you can manage is bullet points, and do not address any of the factual information I posted that contradicts your statement, then you are done.
Are you seriously asking me if I have nothing of substance to say, when you respond to a 1,284 word post with seven bullet points? Seriously? 178 words to 1,284, and I’m the one with nothing to say? Please explain this, as you owe an explanation for this confusing allegation. Don’t ignore this, as you did everything in my post. You must explain how your response is anything other than the desperate attempt to extricate yourself from an argument you have lost that it appears to be. Put up or shut up.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
And your final assumption regarding falling profits.
This is only true in a monopolistic setting once again. if the system is open and free, the needs/wants of consumers and producers are in a constant state of balancing - over-produce an item and the demand falls, don’t produce enough of an item and the demand/price rises. Since each indiviual is seeking their own individual fulfilment be that for profit, charity, art or entertainment, the system has the capacity to repsond to each demand with a corresponding supply for that demand. Since there is no limit on the number of producers, consumers, wants/needs - the system is always adjusting to present conditions and realities. It is actually the only system capable of adjusting to various natural crises and shortages of goods/services in a reliable and timely manner because of this inherent flexibility.
Now, can individuals or companies abuse the system - yes, but only for a limited amount of time. The consumers and related producers will react by switching their business to another individual or company that is not abusing the system, it’s investors will switch to a more reliable investment - the system self-corrects. there is no such safety mechanism in a socialist system - the monopolization of the economic system does not allow for self-correction.[/quote]
Please save some face, and bow out now. You have lost this argument too, and your mysterious digressions and obscurantism only underscores that fact. Nothing you wrote here has the first thing to do with falling profits. I thought you had an argument? When you feel like addressing the topic, let me know. Meanwhile, this does nothing to explain the long-term value of items and the changes in returns on investment.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
OK - all done for now. I hope you actually read and understand the rationales within the arguments I laid out for you. You have no compelling argument here, only assumptions based on generalizations that disappear under scrutiny.[/quote]
It’s absolutely hilarious that you write this before you respond minutes later to my 1,284 word post with your pathetic 178 word retreat.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
It’s like talking to a brick wall - i say something,and the response I get has absolutely nothing to do with what I said . . .[/quote]
Ahhh, the joys of debating with ryan. lol
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
OK - all done for now. I hope you actually read and understand the rationales within the arguments I laid out for you. You have no compelling argument here, only assumptions based on generalizations that disappear under scrutiny.[/quote]
It’s absolutely hilarious that you write this before you respond minutes later to my 1,284 word post with your pathetic 178 word retreat.[/quote]
LMAO - you really are a literal moron . . . i posted that 10 HOURS before my response to your nonsensical “answers” - if you can’t get little things like reading in context and “am” and “pm” straight, then its no wonder your are in favor of socialism . . . you need to go back and get some basic education . . . you’re entire “debating” method revolves around nothing more than criticisms and personal attacks - that is your entire arsenal and you can’t even do that right . . . pathetic . . .