Capitalism

[linuxcbon]

It is the fairest system: those who work hard and work smart, thus producing the most wanted stuff, get the most money (yes I'm not talking about crony capitalism).

Where does it exist ? You are talking about dreams. Get real. The american dream ? Please...

To me, the exploiters are the parasites in government. Only they live off theft and violence. Only they (and their cronies) find it profitable to kill innocent Libyans, Iraqis and Afghans.

The government is elected by citizens. So it's citizens fault . The gov is elected, it's democracy, deal with it, it's people's choice or leave it.

[jpeps]

It is supposed to be a 'fractional reserve' system (that is they are supposed to typically lend out ten times as much as they have in reserve). In reality they keep lending more money to the economy and increasing the debt.

Absolutely true. You deposit your borrowed money, and it get's lent out again. The whole fiat system is a ponzi scheme. Monitory Supply depends on increasing levels of debt....it's nuts! (guess who's behind it...the FED).

[darkcity]

Quote:
Big companies spend a lot of money lobbying for de-regularisation or to have voluntary rules instead of laws.

No they don't. Sure, there is some propaganda out there that maintains this is so, but it is exactly that, propaganda. If you actually follow the legislative process in detail, and follow the money, you will find that ordinary people do not by and large call for more regulation. It is all driven by the very largest corporations, and the largest unions too, the ones that put the money in the politicians pockets. You have to understand that regulation is no burden to large corporations. Why? Because they already have large internal bureaucracies to deal with the paperwork. Small companies cannot afford to have such things - I once worked for a computer company where the president regularly swept the floor. By putting regulations in place, large corporations can very effectively strangle competition from their smaller, more nimble competitors. This means goods that we buy are priced higher than they need be, because there is less competition to drive down the price. I have seen this happen over and over. It is unknown to the general public because the same large corporations also own the gateways to information (until the Internet appeared anyway). BTW you can be sure that the money behind Internet regulation is from large corporations and cronies of the ruling class. It's sure not for "protecting the children" or "fighting terrorism".

I'm not disagreeing that large companies use regulation for there own ends. Some (maybe a lot) regulation is over-the-top or plain bad. However, is your argument against *bad* regulation or all regulation?

For example, do you believe people should have a safe working environment? Or that the air should be safe to breath? Because companies with shareholders would be legally bound to externalise these costs if it wasn't for laws AKA regulation.

[darkcity]

It is supposed to be a 'fractional reserve' system (that is they are supposed to typically lend out ten times as much as they have in reserve). In reality they keep lending more money to the economy and increasing the debt.

Absolutely true. You deposit your borrowed money, and it get's lent out again. The whole fiat system is a ponzi scheme. Monitory Supply depends on increasing levels of debt....it's nuts! (guess who's behind it...the FED).

They lend out many times what people have in put. Before electronic money many in many countries only national banks could print money and some had the gold standard.

Okay, here's a harder question, who in society should have the right to create money?

At the moment national banks can create money (although they may be privatised ie the FED). Also, private banks can create money. A campaign in the UK says it should be an independent body-
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/ [/url]

[jpeps]

. So it's citizens fault . The gov is elected, it's democracy, deal with it, it's people's choice or leave it.

Strong centralized government negates local representation. It represents the rich less than 1% that you don't seem to like.

[linuxcbon]

Strong centralized government negates local representation.

That's not true, local representation does exist in the form of mayor for instance.

It represents the rich less than 1% that you don't seem to like.

I like all kinds of people. But is the debate about my love affairs ?
And the government does not represent the rich but the citizens who elected her.

[jpeps]

Strong centralized government negates local representation.

That's not true, local representation does exist in the form of mayor for instance.

I recall spending two years getting nowhere just trying to get a number from Palmetto to able to see Medicare clients that weren't able to get help. I felt bad about that, and tried even though it would be a financial loss to me (it pays so badly). After turning down application after application for reasons like them mailing some notification or other to the wrong email address, etc., someone suggested I probably needed the assistance of a government representative. This was following unsuccessful attempts at finding a lawyer to handle the paperwork with Palmetto (never found one who would touch it)/

After writing about five local reps, I finally got back one form letter thanking me for my inquiry and asking for a donation to her campaign. So much for old people getting help.

I posted the details to a blog I respect, and got a bunch of similar stories from other doctors. The overall gist was that accepting Medicare clients was like putting a target on your back. Most of them get frequently audited, and some had been sued for not having the "proper" paperwork.

Interestingly, I saw one older client (a former police officer) after her insurance carrier assured me that they would cover her with a letter of denial from Medicare...since I wasn't a provider. The denial letter from Medicare took over 10 months. I also got a letter from (Medicare) them threatening to fine me $5000 for seeing the client.

[PaulBx1]

Where does it exist ? You are talking about dreams. Get real. The american dream ? Please...

I already mentioned my wife. Me too. We worked in an industry that does not require licensing or government-imposed "standards", the computer industry. Neither of us have a computer-related degree.

The government is elected by citizens. So it's citizens fault.

OK. Obama got elected because (in large part) he made noises about ending the wars (after he noticed Ron Paul getting a lot of support for this). What did we get with Obama? More war. Whose fault is that? The voters', or Obama?

It's awfully naive to suggest ordinary people have control of their governments.

However, is your argument against *bad* regulation or all regulation?

This is the "If I were King" fantasy. As in, "If I were King, I would create only just enough regulation to help all the people, and no more." Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Regulation supports the people in control (ruling class, cronies, bureaucracies) not the rest of us (the peons). So we get the amount of regulation that they want, not the amount we want. Even that makes no sense to say it that way, because all of us peons have different ideas how much we want. A car salesman might want car sales regulated and private sales squelched, while wanting no regulation of his home for example. A builder might want home construction regulated, while wanting none for his vehicles. As Bastiat put it, "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." And it always involves violence and the threat of violence; that's the one common element.

Anyway, do you think ordinary people are incapable of looking out for their own safety? Why?

Okay, here's a harder question, who in society should have the right to create money?

How about miners? Those who dig gold and silver out of the ground? In fact, how about anyone who wants to? And letting the market decide if the currency they create is successful? Why do you need to bring government violence into money creation? What you get when you have that, is the spectacle we have in Europe today. Bye-bye Euro...

Bill Bonner has written an article that should be printed off and put into the hands of every Occupy Wall Street protester, and every Tea Partier:

Everybody Hates Capitalism

It's well worth reading, and exactly in line with this subject.

[darkcity]

Anyway, do you think ordinary people are incapable of looking out for their own safety? Why?

Because not all people are nice. You will find people willing to exploit workers to add to there own personal capital. People willing to sell arms for profit. People selling to sell people into sex slavery etc.

The market is incapable of making moral judgements.

Also there isn't a level playing field. Whose with wealth can control those with less.

[darkcity]

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City on March 25, 1911, caused the deaths of 146 garment workers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_S ... ctory_fire

Building regulations ensuring proper escape routes good or bad?

[darkcity]

Read more: Everybody Hates Capitalism http://dailyreckoning.com/everybody-hat ... z1cXw81HP8

Nor, once you’ve succeeded, is there any sure way to maintain your wealth, power and status. Wealth has no fidelity, neither to any one person, group, or family. It goes where it wants. It is fickle and unreliable.

So they are saying the rich and poor have equal opportunity to make more wealth?

Most of the health improvements in a society can be achieved by simple procedures at modest cost. This is another thing we can thank the communists for. They demonstrated that “barefoot doctors

[jpeps]

Anyway, do you think ordinary people are incapable of looking out for their own safety? Why?

Because not all people are nice. You will find people willing to exploit workers to add to there own personal capital. People willing to sell arms for profit. People selling to sell people into sex slavery etc.

The market is incapable of making moral judgements.

Strange comment....who do you think the largest arms supplier is?

There are many types of slavery; ask anyone who's lived under a totalitarian regime.

I don't think anyone who has commented here in favor of a free market system has recommended anarchy.

[darkcity]

a totally unregulated free market is a form of anarchy.

you end up with a system similar to described in the following link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism

PaulBx1 seems to be saying government is only capable of using theft and violence. Although both Socialist and Capitalist system can exist without these.

I think the best thing for everyone involved is separation. Socialists can live together and have whatever society results from the policies that they support, using theft and violence on no one. "Capitalists" (i.e., people who think it is ok for people to do business without interference) can live together and have whatever society results from the policies they support, also using theft and violence on no one. There is no need for theft and violence. It benefits neither socialists nor capitalists. It only benefits the ruling class.

[jpeps]

a totally unregulated free market is a form of anarchy.

you end up with a system similar to described in the following link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism

The link is referring to a type of anarchism that replaces government monopolies, etc. There are many ways to define the role of government. Initially, many protections were set in place to limit its power with the understanding that power leads to corruption.

"Free-market anarchism (sometimes called simply market anarchism,[1] and occasionally libertarian anarchism[2] or propertarian anarchism)[3] refers to an individualist anarchist philosophy in which monopoly of force held by government would be replaced by a competitive market of non-monopolistic organizations providing security, justice, and other defense services."

[jpeps]

Banks lawfully steal by creating money.

Quote by: Catherine Austin Fitts: former Assistant Secretary of Housing under George H. W. Bush, and before that, as Managing Director and board member for the investment bank Dillon, Read & Co.

"However, the federal government lacks sovereignty. It lacks financial sovereignty - it is financially dependent on the banks that control its depository and slush funds, create the currency through the Federal Reserve and manage the accumulated capital of the same syndicates outside the government. It lacks information sovereignty as its data, information, and payments systems are controlled and operated by private corporations, primarily defense contractors. If we could dig out the true ownership of both banks and defense contractors, my guess is that it would look identical. Finally, the members of the Administration have no way of guaranteeing their safety and the safety of their families if they defy orders of those who have the weaponry and power to enforce their will by any means necessary. This means that essentially there is no government"

"Since WWII, the American economy has been "fiscalized." By that I mean that most households, state and municipal governments, and local economies have become highly dependent on federal government credit, contracts, subsidies, and other forms of income and are heavily regulated by federal agencies. This widespread dependency on the federal financial mechanism is the basis for extraordinary central control."

"What this means is that there is widespread political support for the federal credit mechanism to continue to extract global subsidy through a policy of printing dollars and Treasury bonds, forcing people around the world to take them, and using them to attract and engage in trillions of financial fraud and covert capital and operations.

Between 1998 and 2002, over $4 trillion went missing from the federal government. During the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, the US Treasury has consistently refused to produce audited financial statements, as required by law since 1995, or account for missing funds. This is two decades of financial operations run completely outside of the US Constitution and the law."

http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/stra ... etat/51951

[Aitch]

Here's an interesting view of the shift of capital....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOwZwkhF ... re=related

Personally, I think there'll be a struggle with that relinquishment happening.....

Here's an alternate view.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHwlJKKj8SE

In the 60's Bob Dylan sang...."The times they are a-changin' "

Aitch

[jpeps]

Thanks Aitch. The Wolfensohn video was worth watching twice. I couldn't argue with his use of the terms "madmen" and "tragedy" regarding the denial and failure to respond to changes that are exactly as he described (he would know!).

I found myself making bets about whether Rushkoff would drink the coffee or the water first... interesting examples regarding corporations that add absolutely no value to the society and the need for centralized government to get out of the way. When questioned, however, he seems to back off from all his points.

[PaulBx1]

I don't think anyone who has commented here in favor of a free market system has recommended anarchy.

Well, I recommend anarchy, since that is freedom. It just means "no rulers", no one with a "legitimate" monopoly on violence. Anarchy also is the only system that allows any form of political organization that people desire, as long as they want it. They just can't impose it on others who don't want it.

I listened to that Wolfensohn video, found it extremely boring. Who cares if things shift around? I say more power to the Chinese. It's a big step up from the days of Mao, and that's good.

How would a completely free-market stop doctors charging what they like?

I guess I don't understand why this is a question. Have people never heard of competition? Is this so hard? Keep in mind that in a completely free system, anyone who wants could hang out his shingle as a doctor. No licensing requirements, so there is no way to prevent undercutting prices. No government-supported medical cartels. There would be some free market equivalents of licensing, which would satisfy customers who like that and can afford the extra cost, but whether a doctor went along with that would be his call.

Do you think the market should be completely free?

Yes. Why should two people who want to trade, not be allowed to?

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City on March 25, 1911, caused the deaths of 146 garment workers.

It's estimated over 200 million people were killed by governments last century, most by their own government.

Building regulations ensuring proper escape routes good or bad?

Buildings having escape routes are good. Even building codes would be good, as long as they are not mandatory. Putting government in a position of power over you is not by and large a good thing, even if you can think of specific instances where it might appear desirable. Governments never stop at the bounds of "reasonable". Governments ruin entire economies. The US government, and state governments, have driven our entire manufacturing base offshore due to just such regulations, and due to taxes.

[jpeps]

I don't think anyone who has commented here in favor of a free market system has recommended anarchy.

Well, I recommend anarchy, since that is freedom.

Capitalism can't work under pure anarchy. A significant level of social order has to prevail to even consider it.

[darkcity]

While I agree with many aspects Anarchy, I don't understand how it would prevent groups of people forming power structures that are harmful and unfair.

For example, a gang wants to extort money from anyone trading in fish in the area. They say you must give us half your profit or will use violence against you or your family. The only way to prevent it would be if more people believe in 'free trade' and could threaten the gang, or if the gang could be made to see it wasn't in their long term interest to behave in this way.

Another problem is markets favour short term gain over long term considerations.

Another problem is while people have local interests that served well by Anarchistic systems, they have national and global interests. For example, it may be in people's personal interest to manufacture widgets that in the process poison the air, but not in his global interest of having healthy air to breath.

Also, if someone is born in a resource rich area, for example there is oil. Is it fair that they can get rich just because of where any are born?