America - The Official Thread

[ryzno]

When it comes to "socialism" it's a lot like the story of Goldilocks & the Three Bears. Rigid communism has proved to be a failure. But rigid capitalism hasn't had too great a record either. Democratic socialism - which all the western countries, including the US, have adopted to one degree or another - has been spectacularly successful, resulting in unprecedented general prosperity & (relative) international peace. The various western countries have made continual adjustments over the decades to the balance between socialism & unfettered capitalism - all is not perfect, but it's a system that clearly works better than the alternatives.

@ ryzno - your perspective remains worthwhile to this forum, but I would ask you: have you ever been outside the US? Have you traveled in Europe - in the UK, Germany, France or Sweden? If not, I would suggest your insight is limited by your lack of experience.

I have not. Yet I see a lot of very similar complaints about what is happening over there. I'm unloading. I'll post my links later.

 

[AbeFroman75]

When it comes to "socialism" it's a lot like the story of Goldilocks & the Three Bears. Rigid communism has proved to be a failure. But rigid capitalism hasn't had too great a record either. Democratic socialism - which all the western countries, including the US, have adopted to one degree or another - has been spectacularly successful, resulting in unprecedented general prosperity & (relative) international peace. The various western countries have made continual adjustments over the decades to the balance between socialism & unfettered capitalism - all is not perfect, but it's a system that clearly works better than the alternatives.

@ ryzno - your perspective remains worthwhile to this forum, but I would ask you: have you ever been outside the US? Have you traveled in Europe - in the UK, Germany, France or Sweden? If not, I would suggest your insight is limited by your lack of experience.

I'm curious, what has capitalism done that is even remotely on the same level as communism/socialism. What has raising the prosperity of most of the global population (once again, thank you America's history of capitalism) done to compare it to enslaving billions and murdering tens of millions?

Look my family and I are from a, now former, socialist paradise so I completely understand the line of bs that you've been fed (my parents kept the books from their Marxism/Leninism classes and they would be hilarious in their stupidity if the reality wasn't pure evil). I understand the appeal of socialism, basically in order for it to take hold you (the individual) need to do absolutely nothing. Just relinquish you're own free will and self interest (and money) and let somebody else take care of it for you.

 

[Scaff]

I'm curious, what has capitalism done that is even remotely on the same level as communism/socialism. What has raising the prosperity of most of the global population (once again, thank you America's history of capitalism) done to compare it to enslaving billions and murdering tens of millions?

Look my family and I are from a, now former, socialist paradise so I completely understand the line of bs that you've been fed (my parents kept the books from their Marxism/Leninism classes and they would be hilarious in their stupidity if the reality wasn't pure evil). I understand the appeal of socialism, basically in order for it to take hold you (the individual) need to do absolutely nothing. Just relinquish you're own free will and self interest (and money) and let somebody else take care of it for you.

Wrong socialism (it's not as if the difference hasn't been mentioned repeatedly).

However if you want an example of the damage unfettered capitalism has arguably caused, the damage to the very planet we live on could be argued to be one.

 

[Biggles]

Unfettered capitalism went hand-hand with nationalism, imperialism & colonialism, & led to decades of continual violent boom & bust cycles, extremes of wealth inequality, the slaughter of the Great War, the upheaval of the Great Depression & the rise of totalitarian states on the left & the right in reaction. In contrast, the years since 1945 were marked by the emergence of improved social services, public health & education & less wealth inequality. Access to better universal education & health care led to much more social mobility & wealth creation for the populations as a whole. Capitalism combined with more responsive social welfare measures have resulted in a higher standard of living for everyone.

Both my parents were from Eastern bloc countries. I can assure you I never heard any "line of bs" about the wonders of communism from them.

 

[AbeFroman75]

Wrong socialism (it's not as if the difference hasn't been mentioned repeatedly).

However if you want an example of the damage unfettered capitalism has arguably caused, the damage to the very planet we live on could be argued to be one.

Oh, you guys are still peddling the "it's not real socialism" line of crap. Lol ok enjoy.

As for your second part. Lol. You comrades have fun (but only in the manner that is approved).

Unfettered capitalism went hand-hand with nationalism, imperialism & colonialism, & led to decades of continual violent boom & bust cycles, extremes of wealth inequality, the slaughter of the Great War, the upheaval of the Great Depression & the rise of totalitarian states on the left & the right in reaction. In contrast, the years since 1945 were marked by the emergence of improved social services, public health & education & less wealth inequality. Access to better universal education & health care led to much more social mobility & wealth creation for the populations as a whole. Capitalism combined with more responsive social welfare measures have resulted in a higher standard of living for everyone.

Both my parents were from Eastern bloc countries. I can assure you I never heard any "line of bs" about the wonders of communism from them.

All of those things you listed (up until "In contrast") were a result of governments. Not capitalism. Education and healthcare being better...capitalism...governments just make them worse. If you think that in the US we have a free market higher education and healthcare system, you're sorely mistaken. It's gotten out of control expensive because of government involvement, luckily it's staying high quality because of what little aspect of free market is left.

 

[Scaff]

Oh, you guys are still peddling the "it's not real socialism" line of crap. Lol ok enjoy.

As for your second part. Lol. You comrades have fun (but only in the manner that is approved).

So your rebuttal is basically sticking your fingers in your ears and going la-la-la.

 

[UKMikey]

I had no idea that when I visited my NHS GP for a niggling cough or a sprained ankle, or settled down to watch the big match without commercial advert breaks, I was contributing to a system which had enslaved and killed millions.

I guess things really were better when we were toiling in the fields tugging the forelock when the master walked by.

After all free elections every few years are overrated, right? Just ask the Scandinavian countries, Western Europe, New Zealand, etc. They're virtually Marxist/Leninist enclaves, aren't they?

This forum used to be so much better when you could insult democratic socialists and get away with it without the personal experiences of other people getting in the way.

/sarcasm

So your rebuttal is basically sticking your fingers in your ears and going la-la-la.

A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, nudge nudge, know what I mean?

 

[baldgye]

I had no idea that when I visited my NHS GP for a nigling cough or a sprained ankle, or settled down to watch the big match without commercial advert breaks, I was contributing to a system which had enslaved and killed millions.

Hey, you know what they say; ‘live and learn’

 

[Scaff]

I had no idea that when I visited my NHS GP for a niggling cough or a sprained ankle, or settled down to watch the big match without commercial advert breaks, I was contributing to a system which had enslaved and killed millions.

Those nasty socialist concept that people forget about, but happen to actually be all around us.

I guess things really were better when we were toiling in the fields tugging the forelock when the master walked by.

What! You want rights as an employee. Begone you foul communist, talk like that will not allow us to maintain you in your rightful place. You will be wanting PPE and weekends next.

 

[Biggles]

.

Oh, you guys are still peddling the "it's not real socialism" line of crap.

All of those things you listed (up until "In contrast") were a result of governments. Not capitalism. Education and healthcare being better...capitalism...governments just make them worse. If you think that in the US we have a free market higher education and healthcare system, you're sorely mistaken. It's gotten out of control expensive because of government involvement, luckily it's staying high quality because of what little aspect of free market is left.

Oh, you are still peddling the "it's not real capitalism it's the government" line of crap.

 

[Scaff]

Oh, you are still peddling the "it's not real capitalism it's the government" line of crap.

He seems to have forgotten the influence corporate lobbyists have on government. Lobbyists that are a direct product of? I wonder if he can work it out.

 

[Danoff]

When it comes to "socialism" it's a lot like the story of Goldilocks & the Three Bears. Rigid communism has proved to be a failure. But rigid capitalism hasn't had too great a record either. Democratic socialism - which all the western countries, including the US, have adopted to one degree or another - has been spectacularly successful, resulting in unprecedented general prosperity & (relative) international peace. The various western countries have made continual adjustments over the decades to the balance between socialism & unfettered capitalism - all is not perfect, but it's a system that clearly works better than the alternatives.

I'm not sure what exactly "unfettered capitalism" is, but I suspect that it's a system in which human rights are not adequately preserved. Capitalism is more an economic system (or even model) than a system of government. I would say that I agree with you that the various western countries have made those adjustments you talk about, and that the balancing of socialism and capitalism has taken place during a period of relative prosperity and peace. That doesn't mean to me that we have the balance right, but it does mean to me that we're trying something that is at least fairly successful and stable. Even if not principled.

However if you want an example of the damage unfettered capitalism has arguably caused, the damage to the very planet we live on could be argued to be one.

This is kinda what I was getting at above. There's nothing about capitalism that says you can pollute someone else's property. If fact, the existence of property rights is a principled way to combat pollution.

In contrast, the years since 1945 were marked by the emergence of improved social services, public health & education & less wealth inequality.

I don't see wealth inequality being a problem, but since 1945 we've lived in a world where the US was a super power that could hold oppressive governments at bay and trade extensively on a global scale. Technology led to multiple things during the second world war that made the world smaller (for trade) and safer. Developments in air travel and nuclear bombs. Mutually assured destruction and global trade ushered in a relative era of peace and productivity.

He seems to have forgotten the influence corporate lobbyists have on government. Lobbyists that are a direct product of? I wonder if he can work it out.

Government intervention.

 

[Scaff]

I'm not sure what exactly "unfettered capitalism" is, but I suspect that it's a system in which human rights are not adequately preserved. Capitalism is more an economic system (or even model) than a system of government. I would say that I agree with you that the various western countries have made those adjustments you talk about, and that the balancing of socialism and capitalism has taken place during a period of relative prosperity and peace. That doesn't mean to me that we have the balance right, but it does mean to me that we're trying something that is at least fairly successful and stable. Even if not principled.

Historic examples of it being utterly unfettered would be the likes of Company Stores (complete with company coinage), or the entire history of the East India company.

Capitalism can be entirely economic, it can also be benign. However it can also be totalitarian, replace the mechanisms of government (on many levels and scales), it can operate its own military, be above the law, and can certainly go beyond being just economic.

I totally agree that a balance needs to be struck between the two, I don't think we would however agree at the same balance point, but rather that the extremes of either are dangerous.

I don't see wealth inequality being a problem, but since 1945 we've lived in a world where the US was a super power that could hold oppressive governments at bay and trade extensively on a global scale. Technology led to multiple things during the second world war that made the world smaller (for trade) and safer. Developments in air travel and nuclear bombs. Mutually assured destruction and global trade ushered in a relative era of peace the productivity.

Technology has brought many gains to the world, and caused huge damage. It's again not a digital picture in that regard.

I however can't agree that wealth inequality isn't a problem, I think it remains a significant one.

Government intervention.

I would argue it's corporate intervention, often to bias government policy via money and at times outright corruption.

 

[Danoff]

Historic examples of it being utterly unfettered would be the likes of Company Stores (complete with company coinage), or the entire history of the East India company.

Capitalism can be entirely economic, it can also be benign. However it can also be totalitarian, replace the mechanisms of government (on many levels and scales), it can operate its own military, be above the law, and can certainly go beyond being just economic.

I totally agree that a balance needs to be struck between the two, I don't think we would however agree at the same balance point, but rather that the extremes of either are dangerous.

None of the things you're mentioning are a problem if they're done with adherence to human rights. Capitalism doesn't protect human rights in and of itself, it's really just a description of human activity when people are left to their own devices but prevented from beating each other up. Socialism doesn't directly combat these issues either. It isn't socialism that prevents companies from going "above the law".

I however can't agree that wealth inequality isn't a problem, I think it remains a significant one.

There's a thread on this subject, but so far I have yet to hear of a good reason why it's a problem.

I would argue it's corporate intervention, often to bias government policy via money and at times outright corruption.

Corporations pay lobbyists only if they think the lobbyist can earn that much money. That's how all jobs work. The reason they think a lobbyist can earn that much money is because they think the lobbyist can get the government to give the corporation a benefit that is worth that much. The only way that's possible is through government intervention. The more governments intervene, the easier it is for lobbyists to find ways to make their lobbying pay.

 

[Scaff]

None of the things you're mentioning are a problem if they're done with adherence to human rights. Capitalism doesn't protect human rights in and of itself, it's really just a description of human activity when people are left to their own devices but prevented from beating each other up. Socialism doesn't directly combat these issues either.

You argued that capitalism is purely economic, human rights don't factor into that. These are real world examples of what has happened when it's left utterly unchecked. One of which resulted in the deliberate and targeted addiction to opium of a large section of a countries population.

In regard to socialism not targeting these areas, it can (as can forms of capitalism). However I was asked about examples of the risks of utterly unchecked capitalism (as some have argued it's benign). I've already acknowledged the risk exist at the extremes of both.

It isn't socialism that prevents companies from going "above the law".

That depends on how you would classify unions, but yes socialism can work to prevent companies from going above the law (it's not however the only option and depends on the firm of socialism and capitalism being discussed).

There's a thread on this subject, but so far I have yet to hear of a good reason why it's a problem.

Wealth collected at the top does not effectively ''trickle down' the was majority simply stays put. The better the distribution, the more of it actually gets spent, which actually benefits the economy, puts less burden on government for welfare and raises living standards across the board.

Corporations pay lobbyists only if they think the lobbyist can earn that much money. That's how all jobs work. The reason they think a lobbyist can earn that much money is because they think the lobbyist can get the government to give the corporation a benefit that is worth that much. The only way that's possible is through government intervention. The more governments intervene, the easier it is for lobbyists to find ways to make their lobbying pay.

It's not the only way. Lack of action, removal of protection are both example in which it can occur (and to argue the latter is government intervention is lazy reasoning). One example would be the recent removal of clean water protection.

Another would be the lobbying that the NRA does in support of arms manufacturing to ensure that government inactivity remains the order of the day.

 

[AbeFroman75]

So your rebuttal is basically sticking your fingers in your ears and going la-la-la.

No it has more to do with you using a tired (and frankly idiotic)argument that is not worth my time. I genuinely thought there might be something new, but nope it's same stupid thing. So that is why I say you guys can go and enjoy.

I had no idea that when I visited my NHS GP for a niggling cough or a sprained ankle, or settled down to watch the big match without commercial advert breaks, I was contributing to a system which had enslaved and killed millions.

Make sure you thank America and the protection we, the American taxpayers and our military, provide that allows you to enjoy your "free" healthcare (which is apparently your NHS is in massive debt, yay government!) . Also the medical patents that we develop for you guys to utilize.

You're welcome.

What's really funny is that when I go back to visit family in my country of origin I'll hear morons say stupid things similar to what you said "Things were better under communism, I had every thing taken care of, I didn't have to work very hard, everything was provided for me." Not realizing that you guys are actually happy with the **** sandwich you're given simply because it comes off the work of others and it requires that you do nothing. So yes, apathetic attitudes like yours have led to a system that has enslaved and killed millions.

I guess things really were better when we were toiling in the fields tugging the forelock when the master walked by.

You realize that if not for capitalism, you would be toiling away in the fields. Lol....With capitalism people that actually have a strong work ethic and desire to achieve upward mobility have the choice and option to rise above.


You clearly love socialism/marxism/etc. so I hope you enjoy it. I, from personal and direct family experience happen to find it absurd and evil and I want the government to have as little involvement in my life as possible. We shall agree to disagree.

Oh, you are still peddling the "it's not real capitalism it's the government" line of crap.

You don't now the difference between the free market and government involvement? But by all means keep thinking that capitalism is in anyway equal to killing tens of millions. Fantastic logic you have.

He seems to have forgotten the influence corporate lobbyists have on government. Lobbyists that are a direct product of? I wonder if he can work it out.

Ah yes, because corrupt politicians didn't exist prior to capitalism. They were all pure angels.

 

[AbeFroman75]

Meant to add to other post

 

[Danoff]

You argued that capitalism is purely economic, human rights don't factor into that. These are real world examples of what has happened when it's left utterly unchecked.

I'm a little lost here. When you say "unchecked" you mean anarchy right? Because... yea I'm with you. If you leave capitalism unchecked (meaning no government), it is anarchy and results in dictatorship.

One of which resulted in the deliberate and targeted addiction to opium of a large section of a countries population.

I'm not sure that this is really socialism vs. capitalism. Maaaybe... you're saying that anti-drug laws are socialist? I'm squinting to see the angle here.

That depends on how you would classify unions, but yes socialism can work to prevent companies from going above the law (it's not however the only option and depends on the firm of socialism and capitalism being discussed).

Can you explain what exactly about socialism prevents companies from violating the law and getting away with it? I have a feeling the first thing you're going to say is not socialism.

Wealth collected at the top does not effectively ''trickle down' the was majority simply stays put. The better the distribution, the more of it actually gets spent, which actually benefits the economy, puts less burden on government for welfare and raises living standards across the board.

So you're simply arguing that if a billionaire has an extra million in the bank that the extra million does more good if it's taken from his bank account and spread around... simple math right? Except for all of the distorted signals you just sent by doing that. This is still not a harm caused by wealth inequality though. It's just an argument that it would be better to seize some peoples' property if you don't account for any of the consequences of doing so. Can you give me an actual harm caused by wealth inequality?

It's not the only way. Lack of action, removal of protection are both example in which it can occur (and to argue the latter is government intervention is lazy reasoning). One example would be the recent removal of clean water protection.

The existence of clean water protection intervention causes lobbying for the removal. Forget, for a moment, about whether you think that clean water protection intervention by governments is a worthy cause, or important, or whatever. Surely you can see that the introduction of that regulation directly creates the value of its removal.

 

[Scaff]

No it has more to do with you using a tired (and frankly idiotic)argument that is not worth my time. I genuinely thought there might be something new, but nope it's same stupid thing. So that is why I say you guys can go and enjoy.

So your not actually able to communicate an answer, resorting instead to insults and attacks.

Make sure you thank America and the protection we, the American taxpayers and our military, provide that

Did you actually just use a government funded (from taxes) body that has nothing at all to do with capitalism (and its a collective body designed to provide equal good to all of society) as an example of why capitalism is the way to go? Let it sink in for a few minutes.

allows you to enjoy your "free" healthcare (which is apparently your NHS is in massive debt, yay government!) . Also the medical patents that we develop for you guys to utilize.

The US military has nothing to do with that (strawman and a rather poor one at that) and you quite clearly don;t understand the NHS or what is going on with it.

You're welcome.

For your logical fallacy? Its OK you can keep it.

What's really funny is that when I go back to visit family in my country of origin I'll hear morons say stupid things similar to what you said "Things were better under communism, I had every thing taken care of, I didn't have to work very hard, everything was provided for me." Not realizing that you guys are actually happy with the **** sandwich you're given simply because it comes off the work of others and it requires that you do nothing. So yes, apathetic attitudes like yours have led to a system that has enslaved and killed millions.

You realize that if not for capitalism, you would be toiling away in the fields. Lol....With capitalism people that actually have a strong work ethic and desire to achieve upward mobility have the choice and option to rise above.

You clearly love socialism/marxism/etc. so I hope you enjoy it. I, from personal and direct family experience happen to find it absurd and evil and I want the government to have as little involvement in my life as possible. We shall agree to disagree.

Once agian for the cheap seat no one is advocating pure socialism/maxism/comunism, so stop claiming they are.

If that's the sole argument you have (and its certainly seems to be) then you don;t have an argument, you have a strawman (which I have already explained - you can keep).

I'm a little lost here. When you say "unchecked" you mean anarchy right? Because... yea I'm with you. If you leave capitalism unchecked (meaning no government), it is anarchy and results in dictatorship.

Its not anarchy however, in the case of both resulting in a dictatorship (unchecked capitalism or socialism) the system has order it just exists to protect the people in charge.

I'm not sure that this is really socialism vs. capitalism. Maaaybe... you're saying that anti-drug laws are socialist? I'm squinting to see the angle here.

The East India company used Opium as a means of reversing a trade imbalance with China. The Chinese didn't want anything the west had, however demand for Chinese goods in the west was significant (and profitable). So the East India company (using shell traders to bypass Chinese law and its agreements with the Chinese) flooded the Chinese market with dirt cheap Opium.

Can you explain what exactly about socialism prevents companies from violating the law and getting away with it? I have a feeling the first thing you're going to say is not socialism.

To be honest its a rather large field (the law), feel free to give a more specific example and I will be more than happy to have a go.

So you're simply arguing that if a billionaire has an extra million in the bank that the extra million does more good if it's taken from his bank account and spread around... simple math right? Except for all of the distorted signals you just sent by doing that. This is still not a harm caused by wealth inequality though. It's just an argument that it would be better to seize some peoples' property if you don't account for any of the consequences of doing so. Can you give me an actual harm caused by wealth inequality?

We are not talking about taking simple millions out of the system are we, we are talking billions and in some cases trillions out of the system, and yes at its most basic level money in the system is better than money out of the system. The former stimulates the economy, generates revenue, creates demand for goods, raises further taxes, etc. Money left in the bank does none of that.

Now I would rather encourage businesses to invest that money in real activity, as the US system has done in the past. I believe it was in the 50's and 60's that corporate taxes in the US were very high in comparison to today (with the fall starting to take hold in the 70's). However tax breaks existed for companies that invested the profits back into the businesses in material ways. That created jobs, and did actually result in a real trickle-down.

Now you have a situation in which companies can make massive profits, while staff have to rely on welfare to live. The government is effectively supporting business, which I don't for a second see as being anything other than counterproductive. I believe from you past posts that you are anti minimum wage (apologies if that's not the case), however I would argue that the capitalist system hasn't worked in this area to provide the 'trickle-down' or workforce movement to raise wages to a level people can live on (it rather seems to have done the opposite). If a business can't provide it staff with that, without indirect government support, then is the business actually viable?

The existence of clean water protection intervention causes lobbying for the removal. Forget, for a moment, about whether you think that clean water protection intervention by governments is a worthy cause, or important, or whatever. Surely you can see that the introduction of that regulation directly creates the value of its removal.

You see this is what I predicted would be the answer, I don't agree and actually consider it a lazy argument. You can't 'forget' what is a core part of why many of these protections are in place to form an argument, if you need to remove that from the equation, then you are moving the goalposts (and in the end you just keep on a reductionist path to no government - as everything is government intervention if you move them enough and you end up with the unfettered capitalism).

If intervention is required to protect peoples basic rights and a company lobbies to have it removed its not government intervention that's the issue. Its corporate intervention.

However even if you disagree (and I believe you will), the NRA example is not the same and I would argue is a clear example of corporate intervention (as they are clearly acting to stop action).

 

[UKMikey]

Make sure you thank America and the protection we, the American taxpayers and our military, provide that allows you to enjoy your "free" healthcare (which is apparently your NHS is in massive debt, yay government!) . Also the medical patents that we develop for you guys to utilize.

What has military protection got to do with a centrally funded health system? Are you saying that without NATO the Russkies would come and take it away?

And unless you provide the use of medically patented pharmaceuticals for free then it's a fair exchange. Also if you look at the top ten pharmaceutical companies half of them are non US owned, so you're equally welcome for the patents which were developed in Europe.

You realize that if not for capitalism, you would be toiling away in the fields. Lol....With capitalism people that actually have a strong work ethic and desire to achieve upward mobility have the choice and option to rise above.

I wonder what they taught you about the industrial revolution at school. It certainly didn't begin in the US, and capitalism had nothing to do with improving workers' rights.

You clearly love socialism/marxism/etc. so I hope you enjoy it. I, from personal and direct family experience happen to find it absurd and evil and I want the government to have as little involvement in my life as possible. We shall agree to disagree

The most absurd thing seems to be your confusion of the system in place in Western European countries, and Marxism.

 

[LeMansAid]

@ryzno

Not to open it up again beyond this one post, but there's an angle I didn't see covered in all the banter. If you would also use that term for a woman whose views you agree with, I'd not really have an issue with it. If you wouldn't, you should probably take issue with yourself.

I suspect it rings true as a pejorative term if you'd not apply it across the board.

 

[TexRex]

socialism/maxism/comunism

 

[Famine]

It certainly didn't begin in the US, and capitalism had nothing to do with improving workers' rights.

Well, it wouldn't. Capitalism is a fiscal system, workers' rights (and everyone else's) are a social system.

It's possible to have capitalism that recognises rights (liberal capitalism), and capitalism that doesn't (authoritarian capitalism), just as it's possible to have socialism that recognises rights (liberal socialism) and socialism that doesn't (authoritarian socialism). They're not really linked, except that capitalism and liberalism represent personal freedom in the fiscal and social fields respectively, while socialism and authoritarianism represent regulation in fiscal and social fields respectively.

Authoritarian capitalism should be a contradictory position - fiscal freedom, but social regulation - but that doesn't stop every major political party and figure in both the US and UK being authoritarian capitalist. And most minor ones, except Bernie Sanders, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and Jeremy Corbyn. Macron isn't either, but Merkel is, and so is Trudeau.

 

[Danoff]

The East India company used Opium as a means of reversing a trade imbalance with China. The Chinese didn't want anything the west had, however demand for Chinese goods in the west was significant (and profitable). So the East India company (using shell traders to bypass Chinese law and its agreements with the Chinese) flooded the Chinese market with dirt cheap Opium.

...soooo.... anti-drug laws then? Is that what we're talking about? Or you think socialism fights... trade in this case? I'm not following you at all.

To be honest its a rather large field (the law), feel free to give a more specific example and I will be more than happy to have a go.

I was using your words (I think):

socialism can work to prevent companies from going above the law

So, I think you gave the example of a company having its own military force. How does socialism prevent that from happening?

We are not talking about taking simple millions out of the system are we, we are talking billions and in some cases trillions out of the system,

I don't know what you mean by "out of the system". You mean that some wealth is tied up in highly illiquid or stationary assets? That's not out of the system. I think, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, you're suggesting that somehow if a rich person sits on money they earned that somehow there's less to go around - which is not correct. A person generating $1M of value out of thin air does not deprive a poor person of any of that money. It didn't previously exist.

and yes at its most basic level money in the system is better than money out of the system. The former stimulates the economy, generates revenue, creates demand for goods, raises further taxes, etc. Money left in the bank does none of that.

That's really not true, because money left in the bank gets used. Money left in the stock market gets used. Money used to purchase illiquid assets like real estate, artwork, etc. also gets used (it gets handed to someone in exchange for said asset).

Also, money that is stored as a hedge is used directly as a hedge. It is insurance, stability, economic resilience.

Now I would rather encourage businesses to invest that money in real activity, as the US system has done in the past. I believe it was in the 50's and 60's that corporate taxes in the US were very high in comparison to today (with the fall starting to take hold in the 70's). However tax breaks existed for companies that invested the profits back into the businesses in material ways. That created jobs, and did actually result in a real trickle-down.

That's still how it is now.

The government is effectively supporting business, which I don't for a second see as being anything other than counterproductive.

Yes, government shouldn't support business.

I believe from you past posts that you are anti minimum wage (apologies if that's not the case), however I would argue that the capitalist system hasn't worked in this area to provide the 'trickle-down' or workforce movement to raise wages to a level people can live on (it rather seems to have done the opposite).

The percentage of workers in the US that earn minimum wage is 2.3 percent. So, what is that... 97.7% of hourly jobs voluntarily pay higher.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm

You see this is what I predicted would be the answer, I don't agree and actually consider it a lazy argument. You can't 'forget' what is a core part of why many of these protections are in place to form an argument, if you need to remove that from the equation, then you are moving the goalposts (and in the end you just keep on a reductionist path to no government - as everything is government intervention if you move them enough and you end up with the unfettered capitalism).

If intervention is required to protect peoples basic rights and a company lobbies to have it removed its not government intervention that's the issue. Its corporate intervention.

However even if you disagree (and I believe you will), the NRA example is not the same and I would argue is a clear example of corporate intervention (as they are clearly acting to stop action).

You're not following the reason to "forget". It's because the argument is not about whether lobbying is avoidable, or good, or bad, it's where it comes from. You can think that a regulation is necessary all you want... no problem... it has no bearing on whether that regulation will create an incentive to lobby. Maybe the regulation is the best thing since sliced bread and solves all problems and will end world hunger and cure cancer. Will it create lobbyists is the question. Yes, in this case it does.

 

[UKMikey]

Well, it wouldn't. Capitalism is a fiscal system, workers' rights (and everyone else's) are a social system.

No kidding, but it sounds like your explanation would be better addressed to the person who's trying to tell me that the reason we're not still "tugging the forelock to the master" is purely because of capitalism, rather than to me since @Johnnypenso's like seems to indicate think you're proving me wrong rather than providing an explanation that appears to support my previous post.

The political figures you mentioned may support capitalism, but the democratic socialism we practice in Western Europe is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. The argument started when other posters tried to claim the two can't coexist and that @Scaff and I were straight up Marxists for even daring to suggest this.

 

[TexRex]

"This just in, Scott Pruitt resigns position as head of EPA..."

"...and EPA deputy director Andrew Wheeler takes his place."

 

[Famine]

The political figures you mentioned may support capitalism, but the democratic socialism we practice in Western Europe is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. The argument started when other posters tried to claim the two can't coexist and that @Scaff and I were straight up Marxists for even daring to suggest this.

Fiscal left/right is a sliding scale - perhaps even a spectrum. Outright state ownership of all production and services is 100% socialism/0% capitalism, outright free market is 100% capitalism/0% socialism.

There's no system in the world I'm aware of that is either of those extremes. Most Western nations are significantly capitalist with a soupcon of socialism - taxation (especially income tax) is, by definition, a socialist concept as it's the redistribution of wealth from producers to state, and anything the state provides from its treasury is, by definition, a socialist concept as it's state ownership of production or services.

Most recognise that there are some services the state should provide, as it's the state's job to protect rights. These things include a military (protecting rights against outside agency) and police (protecting rights domestically), and should blind to who is funding them and who they serve. The limits of what you think the state should provide is essentially what rights you think you should have. Those who think people should have the right to good health, clean water and shelter think that the government should own healthcare provision, water production and housing (rarely food, which is interesting). These tend to be more socialist ideals and less capitalist ones - and commonly there's a mix of attitudes here that allows people who want access to better healthcare, better water and better housing can have it if they pay for it, with the state-provided version being typically inferior.

In principle, the more social policies the state wishes to enforce, the more authoritarian it should be and the more money it will need to take from people (itself by force) to pay for them, so the more socialist it should be - and vice versa. Weirdly this is rarely the case, with most nations being authoritarian/capitalist. I suspect this comes from a surprisingly prevalent mindset that people think people richer than them should pay for things (because they can afford it), people poorer are spongers, and most people are dumber than they are so should be prevented from doing things that would interfere with their lives or harming themselves (drugs) - but they are special and should be trusted to look after themselves and keep their own money.

 

[Scaff]

...soooo.... anti-drug laws then? Is that what we're talking about? Or you think socialism fights... trade in this case? I'm not following you at all.

Its an example (as I was requested to provide) of how unchecked capitalism can cause harm, nothing more.

I was using your words (I think):

So, I think you gave the example of a company having its own military force. How does socialism prevent that from happening?

The establishment of a military force for the benefit of all in society would remove the need. Legislative framework would be required (and is not exclusively a socialist concept) to prevent companies operating their own military forces.

I don't know what you mean by "out of the system". You mean that some wealth is tied up in highly illiquid or stationary assets? That's not out of the system. I think, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, you're suggesting that somehow if a rich person sits on money they earned that somehow there's less to go around - which is not correct. A person generating $1M of value out of thin air does not deprive a poor person of any of that money. It didn't previously exist.

That's really not true, because money left in the bank gets used. Money left in the stock market gets used. Money used to purchase illiquid assets like real estate, artwork, etc. also gets used (it gets handed to someone in exchange for said asset).

Also, money that is stored as a hedge is used directly as a hedge. It is insurance, stability, economic resilience.

My apologies I worded it a bit to literally, effectively out of the economy may be a better way to describe it.

If the vast bulk of the capital in a system ends up at one end (either end) its a risk to the economy as a whole. Bias it too much to the top and wages stagnate and the economy suffers (and government is expected to pick up the mess), bias it too much to the bottom and businesses can't invest, fail and the economy suffers (and the government is expected to pick up the pieces.

That's still how it is now.

I don't agree. Corporate taxes rates are massively lower, and business investment in its staff (when compared to GDP growth) has slowed down drastically

Yes, government shouldn't support business.

And yet it does.

The percentage of workers in the US that earn minimum wage is 2.3 percent. So, what is that... 97.7% of hourly jobs voluntarily pay higher.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm
That assumes the minimum wages is set at a level that is realistic.

You're not following the reason to "forget". It's because the argument is not about whether lobbying is avoidable, or good, or bad, it's where it comes from. You can think that a regulation is necessary all you want... no problem... it has no bearing on whether that regulation will create an incentive to lobby. Maybe the regulation is the best thing since sliced bread and solves all problems and will end world hunger and cure cancer. Will it create lobbyists is the question. Yes, in this case it does.

Its a chicken and egg situation. I could just as easily say that intervention would not be needed without the actions of the business, making the business the causal factor.

That however doesn't address the example of the NRA.

 

[Danoff]

I don't see what it is about socialism that establishes a military. Are you trying to say that there's a difference between a socialist military and other types? I'm just trying to follow your argument here.

Its a chicken and egg situation. I could just as easily say that intervention would not be needed without the actions of the business, making the business the causal factor.

That's like saying the only reason we need laws is because we have people. Ok let me rephrase slightly to see if i can make this point more clearly. Laws that prevent murder encourage lobbying. Because a law against murder creates (for someone) a valuable opportunity to repeal that law (although it's probably short-sighted). Every law encourages lobbying, and every time one is added, it adds value to lobbyists. You might try to say "but a lack of a law against murder would create lobbying too in that instance". But not nearly so much, because a government which doesn't even step in in cases of murder is not a likely candidate for responding to lobbyists. That's a government that's pretty much doing nothing, just about the least payoff for a lobbyist possible. The more active and involved your government is, the more it encourages lobbying to shift that action. And that's completely irrespective of whether you think the law is just or needed.

That however doesn't address the example of the NRA.

I'm not sure what I was supposed to address there. Perhaps you think the NRA is a counter example because they're trying to prevent laws against guns? They wouldn't be doing that if the government wasn't constantly talking about creating those laws. If they were confident that no laws would be passed in that area, they would cease to exist. They exist solely because of the outspoken pressure to regulate.

 

[Scaff]

Apologises, I missed your reply when the site went down the other day.

I don't see what it is about socialism that establishes a military. Are you trying to say that there's a difference between a socialist military and other types? I'm just trying to follow your argument here.

Good job I never said anything of that then.

My point was that given that the conceoc of an army of the people, for the people, funded by the people, it ticks modem boxes on the socialist concept side than capitalist side.

Now had he threatened to withdraw the support of US based private PMCs from supporting the EU, because of yah capitalism, then fine, but he didn't.

That's like saying the only reason we need laws is because we have people. Ok let me rephrase slightly to see if i can make this point more clearly. Laws that prevent murder encourage lobbying. Because a law against murder creates (for someone) a valuable opportunity to repeal that law (although it's probably short-sighted). Every law encourages lobbying, and every time one is added, it adds value to lobbyists. You might try to say "but a lack of a law against murder would create lobbying too in that instance". But not nearly so much, because a government which doesn't even step in in cases of murder is not a likely candidate for responding to lobbyists. That's a government that's pretty much doing nothing, just about the least payoff for a lobbyist possible. The more active and involved your government is, the more it encourages lobbying to shift that action. And that's completely irrespective of whether you think the law is just or needed.

The only thing that makes clearer is that you seem to want to carry out a reduction exercise to the point it hits the part you wish to blame.

I'm not sure what I was supposed to address there. Perhaps you think the NRA is a counter example because they're trying to prevent laws against guns? They wouldn't be doing that if the government wasn't constantly talking about creating those laws. If they were confident that no laws would be passed in that area, they would cease to exist. They exist solely because of the outspoken pressure to regulate.

Do you honestly think that corporate entities are all that benign?

That if government didn't restrict them they wouldn't still try and leverage government?

That the temptations to get government to, rather than being neutral, act in the direct favour of them wouldnt exist?