Capitalism is just a system that allows for free market transactions. How human beings interact within the system, be it in good faith or not, is wholly separate from the system itself.
2 Likes
Gotta disagree with you here. In a regulated market, screwing is verboten, so it either doesn’t happen (fear of going to jail), or it is punished when it does happen (go directly to jail, do not collect $200). Not so in lassez-faire, caveat-emptor capitalism.
[quote=“EyeDentist, post:282, topic:230931”]
In a regulated market, screwing is verboten, unless it’s done or approved by the regulators.
[/quote]
1 Like
It is less honorable as people either don’t have the money to purchase the SUV or don’t want it. With cheap garbage food it may be the only thing they can afford. To hook people on garbage food is not honorable at all. Making money off of helping to ruin people’s health is disgusting. So fuck capitalism.
Madoff stole from people who had money and that is why he is in jail.
While the big banks scammed the poor and middle class and no upper level management went to jail.
Again, the fact that person A might screw person B in a consensual transaction has nothing to with the system itsel.
It is inherent in the system itself.
You really have no idea how it works in the real world only your fantasyland.
Not for the rich and powerful. Punishment is rarely doled out.
And the regulators are usually bought and paid for.
Fixed. Regardless of the system, there will be individuals who seek benefitting themselves at the extreme detriment of others.[quote=“Zeppelin795, post:286, topic:230931, full:true”]
I really have no idea how it works in the real world only my fantasyland.
[/quote]
EDIT: Also fixed the above for you.
1 Like
Define “screwing”. A shrewd businessman can take advantage (screw) a nieve one while remaining perfectly within the law.
Regulating capitalism/markets (something I agree with) does not change what the theory of capitalism is.
We’ve been over this. Point out who should have gone to jail and provide the evidence to back this up. Otherwise, shut it.
Ya, sure. I have two degrees in accounting, am a CMA, and am a Senior Business Analyst for a multiple billion dollar company, but what the fuck do I know. You’re a fucking idiot.
Ding ding ding.
Talk about the dumbest comment on the fucking planet. “They” provides the only food some people (according to you) can afford and you think this is a bad thing. The alternative is they starve to death. Awesome. You’re an idiot.
More regulation = cost of sales goes up
An increase in the minimum wage (something I know you want) = the cost of sales goes up.
What YOUR DUMB ASS wants actually prices people out of the only food they can afford.
No, fuck you. Seriously, just shut your mouth already.
I think you’re missing the part where money goes away and people are given good clean food from the government. We’d spend our days frolick’n along the beach nekkid during the day, djembay circles at night and tend to our pot farms and community gardens as we desire.
1 Like
Lol, of course, how did I miss that? I guess it’s because I’m stuck in a fantasyland where we have math.
2 Likes
In another thread I had a coalition of the willing to fund your one-way ticket to Venezuela. Myself included. @zeb1 @anon50325502 @Aragorn
Got your bags packed yet?
In every system since the dawn of time there are evil people. Free enterprise, voluntary association and individual liberty is the least oppressive system humanity has ever devised.
It isn’t perfect, no system involving humans ever will be.
Ask a starving Venezuelan if they’d like access to a $1 McChicken.
2 Likes
IDK free market is great Im a capitalist pig myself but Insurance is all about taking in and minimizing risk… So insuring old, sick, hurt isnt profitable… What we had sucked, what we have sucks a bit less… I know it will suck but Im hoping less not more… Im on Ocare and Id say its just meh…but what I had before was shit
I know you’re talking to a dunderhead but this is highly dependent on how quickly any business this affects can adjust to the change. They COULD increase their prices if they NEED to keep x number of employees. This results in higher prices for the consumer.
They COULD adjust their business model to shift tasks to less people while still producing the same amt of output and keeping costs relatively the same (thus keeping prices the same). This results in more work for less employees; consumers remain largely unaffected but unemployment rises (i.e. income is reduced) among the marginally skilled (who these laws CLAIM to want to help but never do).
The business COULD choose to relocate their business, assuming its financially feasible to do so. This results in a shift in unemployment and, depending on local labor laws and general economic conditions in their destination, could be a net economic gain, net economic loss or neutral between the two locations. In this scenario, there is no clear outcome.
Another scenario is the business owner cashes out. Assuming no one fills the economic void (which is the likely scenario considering there is no a larger barrier to entry) it’s a net loss for consumers, workers and government as a whole (less economic activity = less taxes). OR someone does fill the void and we circle back to the top two scenarios as likely possibilities for the new entrant.
But I know you knew this and I’m just at a loss why y’all feel the need to feed this troll - aside from you like the mental exercise. i.e. you’re mental 
1 Like
90% of the activity on this forum is due to two trolls in particular.
2 Likes
Trolls, good for business.
2 Likes
Breaking News at 6: raj, zeb, and Zep are all actually Chris Colucci posting under different aliases to drive up forum traffic and get us to pick up some Biotest supps while we’re here…
3 Likes
I’ll just leave this here…
2 Likes