[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:Because we get more corporations, not less each year and the idea that media conglomerates might rule us while most traditional news media struggle to survive is preposterous.
Meanwhile governments DO rule us.
…keep on dreaming boy, of your capitalist utopia and freemarket paradise. It’ll never happen…[/quote]
The mere suggestion that it may never happen is no reason for why it shouldn’t happen.
Hey 3IdSpetsnaz, if it’s any consolation to you, the point of view
expressed in that article represents a tiny fraction of the American public and intelligentsia.
You’ve just happened to stumble across a small corner of the internet where that minority point of view is in the majority. It goes by many names: Libertarianism, Austrian economics, classical liberalism, paleoconservatism, anarcho-capitalism are some of the most widely used.
Most American academics are sympathetic to socialism and socialist states (certainly more so than to right wing ideologies) and as for the general public, they don’t have any educated opinion on the subjec since most of them couldn’t locate France on a world map.
The person who wrote that article would argue, in response to your comments, that the economic system in place in America most certainly does not represent capitalism but rather economic fascism.
[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
If you think believing in the market, and supporting the big corporations makes you right, think about this… Do the big corporations believe in the market, and American elbow-grease economics? Fuck no. They are twisting and wring out the government dry to dump your tax money into their pockets, is that the Capitalism you were looking for? They don’t believe in Capitalism, they believe in enriching themselves by any means necessary.
[/quote]
As libertarians, we aren’t particularly concerned about corporations wanting to enrich themselves by means of unfettered business dealings in the market.
We’re very concerned about corporations enriching themselves by colluding with big government, often under the guise of “consumer protection”.
If working in city factories for long hours at the turn of the century was so dreadful, as the popular line goes, then why do you think so many people left the countryside to go do it?
Could it be that the factory jobs created by capitalism and the industrialization of society were really not so dreadful relative to the living and work standards which preceded them?
In other words, that capitalism resulted in a net improvement of overall living conditions?
Why else would people have gone to work in the factories?
For generations born in the 20th century, the claim could be made that no feasible alternative existed. But in 1870, there was a choice. People could have stayed on their farms and continued to subsist off the land. So why did they go to the factories voluntarily?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i’m not advocating communism or socialism in the oldskool way, instead i think that a semi-free market, where government oversees sensitive areas like finance and keep multinationals reigned in, is a good thing. It’s people on this board who oppose this mix, as if any hint of socialism is abhorrent, who seem to believe that there’s only one way, one right and just way. That is why i likened this attitude to religion, because there’s little room for the middle way…[/quote]
The “middle way” you speak of is hardly a novel concept. It’s called social democracy, Keynesianism, the Third Way, moderatism, and so forth. It’s the dominant politico-economic institution in the West today.
Our contention is that it doesn’t work, plain and simple. Unfettered capitalism is superior for various reasons.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…capitalism is founded on greed, without it it has no purpose. Remove all checks and balances from a system that’s already rife with self-gratification upto the point of absurdity, and you’ve created a lobsided monster. A monster i tell you! [/quote]
[quote]The “middle way” you speak of is hardly a novel concept. It’s called social democracy, Keynesianism, the Third Way, moderatism, and so forth. It’s the dominant politico-economic institution in the West today.
Our contention is that it doesn’t work, plain and simple. Unfettered capitalism is superior for various reasons.[/quote]
In Spanish, it’s called Third Way. I am a major proponent for third way economy and government.
I thin the main problem with ruling systems, is people mistake a government brand name, for a bona fide system, when truly the system varies from place to place and time to time. The largest and most important aspect of a Society is the ‘Culture,’ it doesn’t matter what system you live under, you are either a part of one culture or various competing cultures. A government system of a nation, should be one holistic culture that embodies the spirit of the nation. This is why, Nazi Germany, was Socialist but EFFICIENT as fuck, and the USA has a terrible lagging Government Service Infrastructure.
Just go into any government office, count how many fat obese black women you see, do you think the problem is the system or the people working it? Regulations and strategy don’t work if everyone is too lazy to follow it.
Do you think if the Government Office was ran by members of T-Nation, ie young fit men, that it’s productivity would go up? You decide.
I’m not arguing free market isn’t effective, I’m just saying these labels of capitalism, democracy, communism, eastern bloc, western ‘free’ countries is entirely misleading. If people would get to the fact of the matter and create a holistic system that defied labels, we’d succeed beyond your wildest dreams.
It’s pretty obvious now that Americans dearly love big government. John S. posted a BBC poll wherein people actually missed the USSR and hated capitalism!
The only logical conclusion is that people would love the idea of National Socialism, just re-name it. Total surveillance, full employment, everyone required to pursue national service. Just don’t invade our neighbors and we have the ideal system!
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
America only had institutionalized slavery for non-indigenous peoples. That doesn’t count. Surely, you might see that?
Whites were enslaved?
No, whites became indigenous after conquering and populating the continent through hundreds of years. America was their creation.[/quote]
[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
Cuba on the other hand, has some if not many people who ant to flee because of the country’s political & economic isolation that cripples its economy and opportunities for growth.[/quote]
So the constant political oppression, destitute conditions and threats of violence play no part in it then?
That is completely false. You’ll find that most defectors are have completed secondary school and that they are hard working and reasonably successful upon reaching here.
Well, if travel restrictions were lifted and if you would no longer be jailed for expressing what you really think, that tune would change rather quickly.
That’s ironic, considering the Cuban government profits handsomely off their service in other countries while people in Cuba can’t even get a tablet of Aspirin for a headache.
Proof? If you’re taken about initial exodus of upper class Cubans post revolution I’d agree, otherwise no, they are generally not highly successful people. Some have educations but most have not benefited from the Cuban system and don’t enjoy living there because of it.
[quote]That’s ironic, considering the Cuban government profits handsomely off their service in other countries while people in Cuba can’t even get a tablet of Aspirin for a headache.
[/quote]
Says who? Since when? How could the Cuban government profit, when the money they make is put back into their own infrastructure.
[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
During the Cold War, Soviet Jews were presumed a security liability or possible traitors.[4] To apply for an exit visa, the applicants (and sometimes their entire families) often had to quit their jobs, which in turn would make them vulnerable to charges of social parasitism, a criminal offense.[3]
Many Jews encountered institutional antisemitism which blocked their opportunities for advancement. Some government sectors were almost entirely off-limits to Jews.[4][5] In addition, Soviet restrictions on religious education and expression prevented Jews from engaging in Jewish cultural and religious life.
While these restrictions led many Jews to seek to emigrate,[6] requesting an exit visa was itself seen as an act of betrayal by Soviet authorities. Thus, prospective emigrants requested permission to emigrate at great risk, knowing that an official refusal would often be accompanied by dismissal from work and other forms of social ostracism and economic pressure.
This is just propaganda like most anti-semitic sob stories. The Communist Party at its founding was 3/4 Jewish, Stalin was a Jew, and most of the gov’t officals that ran away with billions from the treasury at the collapse, were Jews. If Jews were so oppressed, why did they run shyt in the Soviet Union?
Where was this blocking for advancement? These assertions are ridiculous. In one instance they say they were denied VISAs because of the fact they controlled positions of high gov’t import, and then two seconds later it says they were denied of positions of high government import. That makes -ZERO- sense.
You can believe the Israeli propaganda, but I’m not buying it.[/quote]
Ok.
It is all lies, people flocked to the SU because it was so awesomely awesome.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:No but there is no unchecked greed.
But if you divert power to politicians greed suddenly disappears…
And then you have , mwuahahaha, democratic, snicker, contro…
No I cannot even post that as satire.
I prefer the liberty of voting with my wallet.
…capitalism is founded on greed, without it it has no purpose. Remove all checks and balances from a system that’s already rife with self-gratification upto the point of absurdity, and you’ve created a lobsided monster. A monster i tell you! [/quote]
[quote]John S. wrote:
If we allowed the free market to do its job we would have job surpluses.[/quote]
fail. capitalism runs on maximum efficiency. Low wages = more efficiency, all the jobs go overseas, jobs in U.S plummit. Capitalism does not care about the people, only profit - so people are at its whim and not the other way around.
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
The present economy is nowhere near a free enterprise system. There is no competition between more or less equal private capitalists.
It is dominated by huge corporations that control demand rather than respond to the demands of the market.[/quote]
Correct, in a sense: one group of corporations take over the government and then use it as a club against rivals. In the USA, the banks won. They thus drain the taxpayers and regulate all the rest. That’s why banking was de-regulated while regs soared on everyone else.
Feudalism, with an elite corps of bankers and lawyers at the top, is the goal.
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
John S. wrote:
If we allowed the free market to do its job we would have job surpluses.
fail. capitalism runs on maximum efficiency. Low wages = more efficiency, all the jobs go overseas, jobs in U.S plummit. Capitalism does not care about the people, only profit - so people are at its whim and not the other way around.[/quote]
Not really, because it needs people to run the capital.
Machines do not operate themselves.
Also, companies do not need low wages but high productivity.
That can be achieved through low wages or through more capital per worker, i.e. as long as you are five times as productive as an Indian it would be foolish to hire five Indians instead of you.
SO everyone loves the idea that capitalis destroys wage standards. Might I remind you of Henry Ford? He was of course crazy for paying workers twice the average rate of pay per labor hour in related industries at the time. Other companies were baffled, yet he attracted the best and brightest workers and had his pick. Furthermore as a result of paying his workers TWICE the standard wage, he INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY and dominated the market.
It is no small secret many people take vacations at work if they are unsatisfied with their job. As a result, in spite of cutting corners and reducing costs, the company decreases output. A more contemporary example is Google and other tech startups. If you look at their employee relations it would be tought absurd that they would ever get any work done…oh wait Google is a market giant that treats their employees probably better than any company on earth.
Just goes to show you capitalism does not equal wage slavery, because if you pay that higher wage, your competitor loses his work force. Then if you follow certain aspects of Keynesian thought, wages are sticky due to contracts. Thus the above posters = fail.
[quote]666Rich wrote:
SO everyone loves the idea that capitalis destroys wage standards. Might I remind you of Henry Ford? He was of course crazy for paying workers twice the average rate of pay per labor hour in related industries at the time. Other companies were baffled, yet he attracted the best and brightest workers and had his pick. Furthermore as a result of paying his workers TWICE the standard wage, he INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY and dominated the market.
It is no small secret many people take vacations at work if they are unsatisfied with their job. As a result, in spite of cutting corners and reducing costs, the company decreases output. A more contemporary example is Google and other tech startups. If you look at their employee relations it would be tought absurd that they would ever get any work done…oh wait Google is a market giant that treats their employees probably better than any company on earth.
Just goes to show you capitalism does not equal wage slavery, because if you pay that higher wage, your competitor loses his work force. Then if you follow certain aspects of Keynesian thought, wages are sticky due to contracts. Thus the above posters = fail.[/quote]
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
John S. wrote:
If we allowed the free market to do its job we would have job surpluses.
fail. capitalism runs on maximum efficiency. Low wages = more efficiency, all the jobs go overseas, jobs in U.S plummit. Capitalism does not care about the people, only profit - so people are at its whim and not the other way around.[/quote]
In your own words fail.
Efficiency in a free market is the BEST product at the best price, That does not equal jobs overseas, it means really efficient people who are an asset to the company get paid well. The ones their to dot he monkey work get paid less and the compan can eliminate the waste it currently carries thanks to equal opportunity and other governmental restrictions.
Talented people become a commidity, and people start to strive to be that more desireable commodity themselves.
Thiings become more affordable. So I am failing to see the downside here, less government, less taxes, less people trying mooch off my income, hell we may clean up the gene pool a little by not supporting these fat wateful obese people irresponsibly spending our money on their self imposed problems.