Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Capitalism      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 226
view profile
History
CapitalismPage 10 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Actually Ice, though you were chastising me again, with this post you did start to give some of the kind of details I was looking for. Bravo.
Especially the part about differentiating between "objective laws and Regulations telling you how to live and how to run your business." That is BEGINNING to clarify some of what you must have meant before, but weren't saying straight out. It's still a LITTLE vague, but it's something that is viable to discuss, whereas "all government regulation is bad, but rule of law is good" doesn't say anything at all, by itself.

I would again, very likely side with you on things such as opposition to laws that get into the DETAILS of how to accomplish something in business. My ex used to drive me NUTS, asking me to accomplish some task for her, then spelling out in excruciating detail, how I should do every small element of it, all despite the fact that she wanted ME to do it, because SHE didn't actually know how.
You and I are probably still at odds about some forms of regulation, however, in that I know that there ARE a large number of business ventures that have already been proven to be prone to either damaging the general welfare of the nation, or to be unlikely to be other than straight up acts of thievery. Some government regulation that is PREVENTIVE in nature is a GOOD idea, to my thinking, so I would NOT support your notion that you should be allowed to do ANYTHING you want, until you actually screw up and make a mess of things.
(Maybe again, the line between "regulatory" and "objective" isn't as clear as your post suggests. )

As to the person who mentions the "lead paint" example, and how that bears on the difference between regulated and unregulated markets: it is a very good example of an situation where it doesn't actually MATTER whether or not a truly free market would or would not correct for the poisonous product. It doesn't matter, because as a nation, we have decided that we are not willing to WAIT for such things to be resolved naturally. We are not willing to ACCEPT the death and long-term destruction that a defective product causes. Therefore, as a nation, we decided to step away from the free market on such instances, in favor of 'manual control' of the marketplace. I support this sort of thing, even though I DO prefer basic competitive capitalism in many other areas. Those who want to return to the days when we would simply wait until almost everyone knew first hand that something was bad, and also to wait until someone CHANCED to provide a reasonable alternative, will always find me in opposition.
Thus, though I DO realize that the FDA sometimes makes mistakes, and withholds approval of drugs that could save peoples lives, and that they sometimes make mistakes, and ALLOW dugs to be marketed that kill people, I will nevertheless continue to support the attempt to greatly reduce such things happening, that the REGULATION of the pharmaceutical industry is all about. It SOUNDS as though the "free market" advocates would support the elimination of the FDA, and go back to waiting for many deaths, and/or millions of dollars of ineffective 'medicine' was promulgated upon the populace, before the "market forces" caused people to stop using the bad medicines.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 227
Capitalism
Posted: 5/23/2011 2:33:39 AM
I generally agree with a lot what you have to say but this one I dont agree with Brother MJ, as mentioned before a truly free market doesn't require anarchism to function, that as they say my friend is a economic fallacy, objective laws are needed yes, regulation on how to run a business etc isn't.

Before I tackle this I'll just add a couple of others... They go together... really... they do...

the government comes in is to protect a person's rights ( property rights) and society rights from fraud , force and things like that, the Governments job isn't to tell a company how to run its company or how to live your life or grant special favors to certain companies.


the government should be there if someone/company uses fraud or deliberately injures someone .

OK... right about now, I'm trying to think of a way that an "objective law", rather than a "regulation on how to run a business etc" (that "etc" rather bothers me), can be crafted in the example of the "lead paint"... I'm going to keep using this one because it works so well on so many levels...

So we know that lead paint is toxic, especially to children in whom it causes mental retardation, learning disabilities, and behavioural problems, even after it is fully dried and remains that way for it's entire 'lifespan'...

In order for people to even know the hazards of this paint and make a rational decision they have to know what is in it...

Now, in an ideal, theoretical world how are we now, going to address the issue of companies that actively market this product while concealing its hazards...?

Do we pass a labelling law and how do we craft it to be "objective" (e.g. a "truth in labelling" law would be "objective", in so much as it was crafted to specifically address fraudulent claims on labels)...? Passing a law which required them to place a hazard warning (e.g. "This product will f*ck up your kid if you use it on interior surfaces, toys, etc.") wouldn't be... It isn't addressing fraud or force and it doesn't protect property rights... it does, however, "regulate how they run their business etc"... It also handicaps them in the marketplace relative to other, inferior paint formulations... Even a law which required them to put the words "lead" in big letters on their cans wouldn't pass the "objective" standard (this isn't, in reality, really a concern as will become obvious later)...

Is banning it an "objective" law... ? Some would argue not... Some would argue that people should have the right to choose, that it is their money, their health, their decision... It is, after all, one of the best paint formulations available (safety aside)... It's relatively quick drying, highly durable, holds its colour very well and cleans easily... Not everyone has children... Some would argue that a ban interferes with their property rights by "regulating" their right to use and enjoyment as they see fit... And all of them would be right (in the context of free market principles)... A ban of this sort doesn't address the issues of fraud, force or property rights leaving it a "regulation on how to run a business etc"...

Perhaps we can address it from the fraud angle...? Are we able to prosecute these companies for fraud...? Is merely "not mentioning" the ingredient or its hazards (as opposed to deliberately denying when directly asked) fraud...? Not by any definition I have heard of... And I'm not seeing any way of passing a "special" law redefining fraud in a way that would cover this and not amount to "regulation on how to run a business etc"... Perhaps you can think of one...?

So, it seems that anything beyond a law which prohibits deliberately false marketing of the product (fraud) is out... I guess we're left with only one choice...

Market forces...

Let's just see how that works out, shall we...?

Climb on the Magic School Bus boys and girls...!


“Cater to the Children”:
The Role of The Lead Industry in a Public Health Tragedy, 1900–1955

American Journal of Public Health, January 2000

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/90/1/36


It is quite the gripping tale... I'd really rather post the article rather than leave people to link to it but, it's several pages long... Type in the link and click on "Begin manual download" if necessary...

Pay special attention to the relative relationships and contributions (or lack thereof) of "free market forces" and "regulation on how to run a business etc"...

When you are done, if you are interested, perhaps I can regale you with a tale of an epidemic... A tale of rates of lead toxicity (remember those effects I mentioned?) as high as 20-45% for urban kids (as high as 60+% for African American children) in America's cities in the 60's-70's... Rates which even today sit at ~13% for all African American children (~22% for those urban kids living in their pre '78 housing)... Imagine the effect on a population group of having up to 22% of its kids suffering those effects I mentioned (22%?!? Heck, imagine it at up to 60%?)... Imagine it as the legacy of "free markets" and the power of "market forces"...
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 228
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 5/23/2011 12:39:08 PM

fly guy, Ive already said that a long time ago, there is no " truly free market" I said I wish there was one.


Oh, I dunno. What you describe sounds a lot like the illegal drug trade, illegal weapons market, prostitution, gambling, old time booze runners and any number of other markets that have had ample time to demonstrate how they work outside of any sort of regulation or controls. What exactly is it you wish for again?

Dave
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 229
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 5/23/2011 2:32:47 PM
Well done post, mungo. That's a much better, and more specific way of saying some of what I was getting at. So far, no advocate of "no regulation of markets or businesses" have come up with any realistic way to address the problems presented by BAD products and BAD businesses using ONLY the "natural" free-market forces, without requiring that we simply ACCEPT a certain amount of death, destruction, and indifference to damage to our lives.
 chisel_st_virile
Joined: 5/20/2011
Msg: 230
Capitalism
Posted: 5/24/2011 2:12:59 AM

So far the "pure free market" advoates' points have been PURELY theoretical and expressed in the most abstract ways... There has been little to no discussion of how those highly theoretical processes work as actual applied processes..

It's not really meant to be viewed as a "system" so much as a description of natural forces.
More of describing natural human behavior from a certain perspective or belief.
i.e. when people possess something they value, they tend to believe they own it.
They can then trade it for what they want, or use it as income, to further help obtain what they want.
Hence property rights and ownership, basis for capitalism.

Human beings are companies, companies are human beings, or groups of human beings.

There aren't human beings...and then companies.
Everyone buys and sells. Constantly. You reading this are making a transaction. According to capitalism.

Capitalism is describing that everyone is a buyer and seller of something.
That people interact for the sake of fulfilling self interest, sometimes "enlightened" self interest.
That fulfillment is "profit."
Profit does not have to be money, or tangible. Usually when there is more of one, there is less of another.
i.e. charities

It was more to argue against the idea that people behave due to altruistic and holy inspired reasons.
That you didn't give money to charity for pious reasons, but selfish ones; to make yourself feel good, to get something you valued greater than what you gave up.

"free markets" are just the places where people interact.
Every interaction is a transaction, for the sake of some type of profit.
The more free the market, the greater the interaction, the greater the profit.
Since people want "good" in their lives, the more interaction and greater profit, then the greater "good."
It's just natural association. If it has little to no perceived value, it must be "bad."
The higher perceived value, the more it's "good." Perceptions change based on motivation and information and utility.

So the "mechanisms" used in capitalism and free markets are things like "caveat emptor," and, "personal responsibility," and, "common sense," and, "better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it," and, "always be prepared," and, "don't shyt where you eat."

Mechanisms are more social in nature. Like ostracizing. The most powerful form of social mechanism. What do you think prisons are for. That's a capitalism mechanism.
If something is "bad" it is not reinforced, over the long run, and in worst case is shunned.
i.e. jack in the box and the contaminated meat scare, all the e. coli outbreaks, lead paint on chinese toys.

Government regulation did not fix these things, government regulation did not keep these things from happening. Market forces fixed them. There was a scare, the media business reported, people stopped eating jack in the box and food they simply thought may be contaminated. The companies then put in place measures to make sure it never happened again...THEN the government came along and passed regulations and fines to get its cut.

Look at McDonalds. Over the years they've been attempting to become more healthy. Not because of government regulation, but because of market forces. Changing consumer preferences and tastes, information and technology.

Capitalism and free markets work in self regulation, just not in the time scale that many people can accept. Especially in the age of immediate gratification, a government that feels the need to be constantly working, and the constant bombardment of fear media so people need to have a greater sense of control over everyone else since greater (perceived) personal security=less feelings of fear.

I can't remember the quote I read, but Kissinger talked about world peace coming about through economic interdependence.
Are armies massing on the borders of Greece? It's a weakened nation. Can't really afford its military. Are countries coming to plunder and take over since it can't pay its debts?
Why not? Capitalism and market forces. It's more profitable to subsidize and help it limp along, bigger interest rates from loans, and possibly buy things from it in a fire sale than invade, war, and slaughter.
There is greater fulfillment of self interest for countries to not exert themselves through war and invasion. So the mechanism is to do nothing, charge higher interest rates, build good will, not piss off the global community, and get what you can while you can.


A truly free market cannot function in a large scale, diverse society organized around the rule of law.

Free market capitalism works in a country based on law only if those laws aren't also dictating social behavior.

i.e. free expression and fulfillment of personal rights, since capitalist mechanisms are based on naturally occurring social behavior.
Also, why are so many U.S. companies holding on to cash, not really hiring full time, upgrading? Lots of fear wondering what the government will do next. If the health care plan lives and what they will have to pay. Political turmoil equals less desire to let cash or income flow out, it might be needed in the near future to pay government rather than employees. Employees can be fired and/or not hired. Can't fire the IRS, can't refuse to deal with it.


It doesn't matter, because as a nation, we have decided that we are not willing to WAIT for such things to be resolved naturally.

This is laughable.
We as a nation ARE willing to wait for such things to be resolved naturally.
The government isn't.
For centuries people knew lead and lead based paint was toxic. Yet still used it.
The U.S. government outlawed it 50 years after every other country did.
I'd say the government likes to make big productions in order to try and make itself look useful and justify taking your money and asserting control.
People are totally willing to WAIT for such things, or until they have to pay for their decisions...then they can't wait for such things.


We are not willing to ACCEPT the death and long-term destruction that a defective product causes.

Lead paint wasn't "defective."
It did as advertised. It was just dangerous. Like cigarettes.
And people are perfectly willing to ACCEPT death and long-term destruction.
Just, as George Carlin put it, NIMBY.
And of course as soon as it is in my back yard, who is going to pay for my choices.


It SOUNDS as though the "free market" advocates would support the elimination of the FDA, and go back to waiting for many deaths, and/or millions of dollars of ineffective 'medicine' was promulgated upon the populace, before the "market forces" caused people to stop using the bad medicines.

Not necessarily. Universal standards, weights, measures, and processes lends itself to profits.
Although look at VHS and Beta, or Hi Def vs Blu Ray. Too bad market forces never whittle down standards to something universal.
And no competing company would ever in it's right mind advertise how their product is safer or more consistent than any others, like Volvo, or that company that advertises first time every time.
So the FDA might perform a necessary function that everyone would agree to.
Too bad toll roads are the worst kept roads in the country, or they might make another example.


In order for people to even know the hazards of this paint and make a rational decision they have to know what is in it...

That reminds me. The whole contents label was a marketing ploy by companies, innovation. They went over well with consumers.
Then companies competed on who would be the most clear and honest on them.
Then the government starts mandating them. Thanks government. Way to show those capitalists.
The mechanism was a cheap way of increasing perceived value, giving people what they wanted, attempting to differentiate themselves from their competitors.
Just like an online profile. You can put little information, or put your whole history on there.
Companies and people. They aren't different things in capitalism.
The "mechanisms" for regulation are the same for both.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 231
Capitalism
Posted: 5/24/2011 7:10:49 AM
Igor , I wasn't chastising you , I was just laying out the facts..... Look .....you're a intelligent guy, you and Mungo Joe, Im just pointing out facts.

I just realized why I seem to contradict my self according to you , A while back I said to you Capitalism is a social system based on Recognition of Individual and property rights and all property ( including the mind) is privately owned, you countered with that im wrong.

You say all of us that advocate free market systems offers no solutions, to which we have said many times that if we had a truly free market problems like we have now wouldn't exist, its because Free markets are self regulated , why I kept saying most of the fine folks out here dont understand Capitalism is because most of you think Market value is the same as Intrinsic value , ITS NOT THE SAME.

When one understand the true meaning of Capitalism, you will see there is 4 key stones of Capitalism
1) Metaphysically...requirement of human nature and survival
2)Epistemology....Reason and Knowledge
3)Ethically...Individual rights
4))Politically.. freedom

Capitalism is based on a Objective theory of value ( which may answer Mungo Joe's question of Objective laws vs Regulations) the other systems Socialism,Fascism, Statism believe in Intrinsic and/or Subjective theories of value.

Free markets represents the social application of the Objective Theory that recognizes individual rights, not concept stealing, concept dropping, coercion, fraud etc.

The free market is a place where one has the ability to trade voluntarily , the laws of supply and demand and the rejection of two brutal doctrines 1) Tribal premise ( the good for the community,state etc) and 2) altruism
Man or woman isnt the property of the State,tribe,government, the mind doesnt belong to anyone but him or her self, he/she is guided by their self interests , free to do what they want to do and create.

Igorfrankensteen, you mentioned earlier that Microsoft was trying to kill Netscape by giving away explorer for free, and I pointed out Netscape was doing the same thing for years as I said in Message 201.

The government didn't create Cars, thank God, or we be still in horse and buggy, Government didn't create airplanes, telephone etc, Thank God for the Vanderbilts, the Rockafellers, and others like that , men that had balls to create businesses, look around in your city and what do you see, products and services created by someone.


Someone mentioned Lead paint, but history has showed us During this time, white and red leads were commonly used in paint, providing a durable and inexpensive covering considered necessary for preserving wooden structures. When mixed with linseed oil, white lead helped the paint mixture hold other pigments; red leads proved the least expensive paints and became commonly used on barns and railroad structures.

The government knew Lead was a problem but didn't do anything about it, DuPont back was the major producer of war supplies. DuPont helped produce the raw materials for parachutes, powder bags, DuPont also played a major role in the Manhattan Project, created things like whats in the Flack jackets that protects our Brave men in women in Law enforcement and the Military............

The government knew what they were doing but chose to do nothing for years , but yet capitalism took the blame for that, where was the " regulation" back then? well because most of the Shareholders had their hands in the pockets of the politicians. Its like tobacco industry now, and No I dont smoke.

FranknStien902, talks about Walmart and Hedge fund Managers but doesn't know how Fund managers compensation works, which was set up by government in the first place, I dont blame them for taking advantage of laws and regulations the government set up.
He states " is that fair?" what is fair? I cant dunk to save my life but Im a decent point guard. He sends a link to Panle Jai thesis, but I really believe he hasn't read it or understands it.



Oh, I dunno. What you describe sounds a lot like the illegal drug trade, illegal weapons market, prostitution, gambling, old time booze runners and any number of other markets that have had ample time to demonstrate how they work outside of any sort of regulation or controls. What exactly is it you wish for again?wvwaterfall
Dave perhaps you need to re read some of our posts s l o w l y next time, no body is advocating criminal uses

Its great that some of you are sending links for us to read, but most of those links are just Opinions from the authors not facts or limited facts, as I said earlier Mungo, that was a interesting article but it fails to address one thing, why National Lead used Lead in the products in the first place?
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 232
Capitalism
Posted: 5/24/2011 11:23:27 AM

The companies then put in place measures to make sure it never happened again...

How was this verified?

This is laughable.
We as a nation ARE willing to wait for such things to be resolved naturally.

The above makes me wonder if you read your own writing:

Capitalism and free markets work in self regulation, just not in the time scale that many people can accept. Especially in the age of immediate gratification...


The U.S. government outlawed it 50 years after every other country did. th

I wouldn't say that:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/25/us-lead-paint-idUSTRE57O64G20090825
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 233
Capitalism
Posted: 5/24/2011 12:27:42 PM
The B.S. is getting quite thick and I don't think that I have the time, and perhaps the clarity of mind, to get involved in the philosophical discussions about this topic. However, there are some points that I find very objectionable and I will address some of those.

I find it a bit silly that some people think that by putting out some theoretical lines about the high principles that they ascribe to Capitalism they can absolve the failings of a system, if you can call it that, seems to glorify the rapacity of human beings who would stop at nothing to get their hands on something that belongs to other people. It is all an old story that repeats itself time after time.

Of course, nothing seems to be easier than to blame governments to hide what human beings and companies do to enrich themselves improperly. If we are to believe that "Capitalism and free markets work in self regulation," then why did the manufacturers of lead paint did nothing despite knowing about the toxicity of their product? Why just blame the government as in


The government knew Lead was a problem but didn't do anything about it,


Well, if the government knew it, then the capitalist owners must have known it also. I wonder why they chose not to do anything about it until the government stepped in. I know, they must have been bad, crony capitalists, because no pure capitalist will ever do anything like make a buck by hurting anyone else.

Just so we don't continue pushing theoretical stuff that doesn't help us much to understand the nature of this new brand of innocent "free-market capitalism," I would like to remind us that sooner or later all the ideas have to meet the test in reality. And just because we assign high and pure values to a set of ideas doesn't mean that they may not, or will not succumb to the contamination that all ideologies have experienced in the past.

Some people here talk about Capitalism and certain individuals associated with it as if they, with clean hands, were bringing to the world a peaceful ideology that carried with it prosperity for everyone.


I can't remember the quote I read, but Kissinger talked about world peace coming about through economic interdependence.


I wonder what kind of peace and what kind of "economic interdependence" was he thinking about when he was ordering, pardon me, I mean advising, Richard Nixon to bomb the 'bejezus' out of North Viet-Nam. Then, I wonder what kind of system he had in mind when he was masterminding the overthrowing of democratically elected governments in Latin-America and then put in motion with his cohorts plans like Operation Condor to eliminate and kill the opponents of the military dictatorships installed so that they could carry out, by force, the installation of the free market capitalism system envisioned by their guru, Milton Friedman and his Chicago boys.

There you have it, ideas and reality. Do you like that picture?

I had an uncle in Chile who really believed in the free market. He was a small capitalist. He had a piece of land with some fruit orchards and a few animals. That piece of land had been in his family for more than a hundred years. I remember enjoying some great tasting fruits eaten right of the tree in the early morning when I would visit him and his family during the summer. I would help him with the harvest and bringing his produce to the farmer's market in the nearby town. We would get to the market, he would unhitch the horses and get them to the stable while I stayed with the cart that had the fruits and vegetables. On the way back from the stable my uncle would check the produce and the prices that the other farmers were charging and then he would set his prices a bit lower so he would be able to sell most of what he had to sell. When the tax collector came by asking for the fee to use the space in the street that functioned as the farmer's market, my uncle would pay it without complaints. When he had some stuff left over, he would stop by a convent and would give it to the nuns.

He told me that there were some people asking him to sell his fruits to a wholesaler who was exporting them to other countries. He said to me that he wouldn't do that because the prices they offerred him were much lower than what he could get in the open market, and he needed the money to send his small children to live with an aunt in the city so they could start going to school. If he sold his fruits wholesale he wouldn't earn that much money. They were telling him that producing for the export market was the the way of the future, but he didn't think that it would be the best thing for him. The agent for the wholesaler wasn't very happy with him, but there wasn't much that he could do because my uncle owned his land and didn't have to take order from anyone. He was making a living and thinking of the future for his children.

Soon after the military coup lead to the Pinochet dictatorship installed by Kissinger and Nixon on September 11, 1973, the wholesaler, accompanied by some military personnel showed up at my uncle's orchard and told him that he needed to commit to sell his fruits for export at the price determined by the wholesaler. My uncle said that it was just the beginning of the Spring season, and he didn't know what the crop would look like. A couple of months later, a military unit showed up at his house and accused my uncle of being a communist, and they shot him in front of his family. Soon after, the wholesaler showed up at the orchards and went to talk to my aunt. He told her that since there wasn't anyone to take care of the orchard, he would help her to get some people to collect the fruits and would pay her the wholesale prices. What was left after paying for the people who collected the fruits was not enough for her family to live in the their land.

I wonder what kind of grand design of "free-market capitalism" would justify killing a man who was a truly free-market capitalist, and destroy his family? What was it that he didn't understand? To tell you the truth, I know what happened but I can't really understand it if you tell me that "free-market capitalism" is free of all the ugly reality that accompany the actions of people who will stop at nothing to help themselves to what belongs to other people.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 234
Capitalism
Posted: 5/24/2011 1:07:19 PM
In all seriousness, that is a truly tragic story, and it sounds like your uncle was a capitalist, but the men at the wholesalers were not, that is a extreme example of crony capitalism, using force and obviously Government intervention or a agent of the government in this case the Military of the corrupt government to do its bidding, that's not capitalism.

While you can probably give me first hand knowledge of what happened in Chile in the 70's and 80's I dont see how capitalism played a role? Pinochet yes with the backing of Nixon overthrew Allende from what Ive read really messed up the country financially before that prick Pinochet took over.

Like I said you would know from first hand experience on what really went on down there, second The lead in paint, what I also said was the CEO and a lot of the board of directors was in bed with the politicians back in the day, Is it right what they did? of course not, but to lump them in with true capitalist, Eleuthère DuPont was the capitalist but was long dead before the paint problem occurred, the CEO of the company at the time was the one making the decision, he was the one with the board of directors that probably knew what was going on but hey cant piss off the shareholders when some of the shareholders were and had connections to government right?
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 235
Capitalism
Posted: 5/24/2011 2:15:18 PM

While you can probably give me first hand knowledge of what happened in Chile in the 70's and 80's I dont see how capitalism played a role? Pinochet yes with the backing of Nixon overthrew Allende from what Ive read really messed up the country financially before that prick Pinochet took over.


The financial problems that developed during the Allende presidency were the result of the American intervention who supported the corporations that didn't want Allende elected in the first place. They tried everything that they could do to destabilize the country, and they never were able to undermine the support that Allende had among the working class. So, they finally had to resort to the military to overthrow Allende by bombing the presidential palace and killing him, although they publicized the story that Allende had shot himself.

If you don't think that Capitalism had anything to do with it, you would probably change you mind if you research about the role of ITT and other corporations in the years of 1970 to 1973, and of Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys during the Pinochet dictatorship.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 236
Capitalism
Posted: 5/24/2011 3:14:01 PM

...it sounds like your uncle was a capitalist, but the men at the wholesalers were not, that is a extreme example of crony capitalism...

A quick, short post...

This is the biggest problem with your argument... You continuously resort to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy as a defense of your position by pretending to "own" the definition of "real/true" capitalism and declaring any example which illustrates issues with capitalism, in general, as not being "real/true" capitalism... In reality what you are arguing is "Randian Objectivism" but do so using general terms that are applicable beyond that particular philosophy... Your arguments and defenses will continue to ring hollow until you "nail down" the perspective you are coming from rather than simply dismissing the problems with capitalism as "not true capitalism"...

Of course that makes your position harder to argue as there really are no examples of "Randian Objectivism" at work in large scale, real world economies... It is an ENTIRELY theoretical construct at this point...
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 237
Capitalism
Posted: 5/24/2011 3:45:38 PM
Mungo, why do the liberals use Crony capitalism as the main menu of capitalism?
Lets talk real world economies my friend , where do you want to start, we're both Canadians we can start there.

As much as im a advocate of capitalism, the system we have isnt Capitalism in its purest form, the closest thing we had to pure capitalism was between 1815 to probably near the outbreak of WW1.

Imported Labour, Is this the same ITT that had Nazi connections and was also a part of the Brazilian coup?

I know a little about what happened In Chile and the Friedman's involvement and him spending the rest of life defamed as an accomplice to evil, if you dont mind me asking were you living in Chile at that time?
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 238
Capitalism
Posted: 5/24/2011 4:47:57 PM
I'm not sure about the role of ITT in Brazil. My guess is that most likely it had a substantial role in all the events of the sixties and seventies in Latin America. ITT was International Telephone & Telegraph, Inc., which was the main owner of the national telephone subsidiaries throughout Latin America. My understanding was that ITT itself was either a branch or a subsidiary of AT&T. It played a big role in the coup in Chile. There is plenty of information available. Just Google ITT & Chile and you will have all the info necessary to make up your mind. Could ITT have had nazi connections? It is possible, but it wouldn't change much the picture of what they did, and the responsibility they have in the destruction of thousands of lives of people who just wanted a better life for themselves and their families.

I left Chile 4 days before the military coup. I lived and experienced almost everything before the coup. I didn't experience what happened after it, but I have lived it through what happened to my family, other relatives and friends, and by the information that I have gathered about other people that had to live through those years of suffering and destruction.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 239
Capitalism
Posted: 5/24/2011 7:47:48 PM

Mungo, why do the liberals use Crony capitalism as the main menu of capitalism?


The government knew Lead was a problem but didn't do anything about it, DuPont back was the major producer of war supplies.


The government knew what they were doing but chose to do nothing for years , but yet capitalism took the blame for that

Well... ya see...

First off... that's kind of why I used the "lead paint" example (I did say I liked that it worked so well on so many levels)... In the first ~50 yrs of the period covered in the article I mentioned, there was literally NO gov't regulation of that industry that would have impacted the use of lead in paint, either for or against... there were no legislative initiatives to be "bought off"... And there was no "grassroots groundswell" for the gov't to do anything (which is REALLY what the article is about, how the lead industry attempted to deliberately subvert the very market forces which might have killed lead-based paint decades sooner)... NONE of that began occurring until the 50's so the attempt to insinuate that to be the cause, or imply that they were catered to as a war supplier on this matter, simply doesn't hold water...

Second... I notice you make liberal use of the point that the gov't did nothing about it... I thought that was supposed to be the point of your argument, that the gov't SHOULDN'T be doing stuff like that (and mine, et.al., that they SHOULD)... So, unless you're disputing my "analysis" of "objective law" in that matter, I have to ask this question: "Huh?"...

Capitalism is based on a Objective theory of value ( which may answer Mungo Joe's question of Objective laws vs Regulations)

Again, I have to make two separate points...

The first being, no... capitalism is NOT based on an Objective theory of value, capitalism from a "Randian Objectivist" perspective is based on Objective theory of values... capitalism can be based on other theories of value as well... or is this another "no true scotsman"...?

The second being, no... it does not answer my question... you gave three conditions on which gov't's can pass law... fraud, force, property rights... those are the only bases (according to you) upon which an "objective" law can rest and be "objective"... you are side-stepping the point...

why I kept saying most of the fine folks out here dont understand Capitalism is because most of you think Market value is the same as Intrinsic value , ITS NOT THE SAME.

Perhaps you might want to specify here 'cause I'm not seeing much of that confusion around here... From what I can see no-one has confused what something ideally should trade for at a given time on the market (market value) with its inherent (as in, in and of itself) worth (intrinsic value)... Or do you mean to say they are confusing "market value" with "fair value"...?

Human beings are companies, companies are human beings, or groups of human beings.

Ummm... no... Human beings are human beings... Companies are legal constructs...

There aren't human beings...and then companies.

Ummm... Yes there is... given that "companies" are a legal construct borne of the minds of human beings the two must be separate and the "human being" part MUST come first... This isn't the 'chicken and the egg'...

It was more to argue against the idea that people behave due to altruistic and holy inspired reasons.
That you didn't give money to charity for pious reasons, but selfish ones; to make yourself feel good, to get something you valued greater than what you gave up.


two brutal doctrines ... 2) altruism

You guys might want to rethink that... your 1950's "theory holding bucket" is a bit leaky...
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 240
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 5/25/2011 12:58:28 PM
Stonemcmanly confusions:
"We as a nation ARE willing to wait for such things to be resolved naturally.
The government isn't." --apparently, you don't realize that we have a democratically elected government, such as it is. Perhaps it's true that YOU are willing to accept other peoples's deaths, but the reason we HAVE regulation of business is because enough (a majority) people voted to have it, that it was made law.

You wrote several paragraphs describing instances where natural market forces worked to fix things. I never said natural market forces ALWAYS failed to work, in fact, I said the opposite. The reason I DO NOT support the idea of a government regulation of ALL business, or even MOST business, is that I DO believe that market forces work A LOT of the time. I only say that they don't work ALL of the time, and that they sometimes require outside intervention (government intrusion) to ALLOW them to work, and on some occasions, to provide for the fact that they can't work effectively no matter what.
So, no matter how many examples of market forces doing things right you submit, you wont be refuting anything I have said.

I THINK you were listing some general "mechanisms" common to capitalist markets, such as "caveat emptor" and so forth. Those are NOT the kind of mechanisms I was talking about. Those are principles and concepts. Principles do NOT make things happen. The principle of "personal responsibility" does not make someone behave responsibly, but the REGULATION of behavior does. I know there are a number of people here who refuse to recognize that the word "regulation" means more than one thing, and that it also applies to laws that act to PREVENT bad things from being done. That's one of my concerns, why I keep arguing for more clarity: when someone advocates "NO REGULATION," and fails to realize what that actually would mean in a real sense, they would, if successful, cause many things they ACTUALLY DO SUPPORT to be thrown out along with the things that annoy them.

You said a bunch of other stuff that is too confusing to me. I really have no idea why, for example, you said

"For centuries people knew lead and lead based paint was toxic. Yet still used it.
The U.S. government outlawed it 50 years after every other country did. " That suggests the need for MORE government action, not less, so I don't understand why you brought it up. It points out how the natural market forces failed. By the way, on that Lead Paint Labeling thing, I COULD be wrong (but I doubt it), as far as I recall, having bought LOTS of paint, there was NEVER a lead paint company that put a warning label on their products saying " Use of this paint can cause death, and mental retardation in children." Again, hardly a commendation for free market forces.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 241
Capitalism
Posted: 5/26/2011 8:02:52 AM
For those here who aren't just trying to push a dogma, there's a really interesting video:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/jamessurowiecki/2009/11/video-elizabeth-warren.html

About 6 minutes in she starts talking about her "Clean Card" initiative. Really fascinating, real world example of how capitalism really works and why even the capitalists recognize the need for government intervention.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 242
Capitalism
Posted: 5/26/2011 9:34:42 AM
Sorry been away for a few days missed all the excitement and bantering here, sorry my capitalist duties called for me.



You guys might want to rethink that... your 1950's "theory holding bucket" is a bit leaky...mungojoe
No, my 1950's theory works fine for me for my business thanks, and thank the Lord I wasn't living in America when I started my first business then sold it, I might of been indicted under the " anti trust laws" when we bought the other companies then sold the other factoring companies back in the 90's



For those here who aren't just trying to push a dogma, there's a really interesting video:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/jamessurowiecki/2009/11/video-elizabeth-warren.html

About 6 minutes in she starts talking about her "Clean Card" initiative. Really fascinating, real world example of how capitalism really works and why even the capitalists recognize the need for government intervention Halftimedad.
ummmmm , not trying to be a ass hole here but did you really watch her video and understand it? Lets break it down 6.06 into the video she does talk about her Green Card project and what her vision was " full of transparency,private funding and NO government assistance" her words in the video.

7.45 part of the video she goes on to say she LOVES capitalism
now she does say in 14.30 part of the video she admits the old regulations doesn't work and they need regulatory reform ( that I dont agree with ) but where I Agree with her FULL Heartily is we need " Transparency" even I will admit if there are laws that will make the banks/credit card or other institutions more transparent with their products im all for that.

Where I draw the line is government coming up with regulations that restrict companies on the way to do business or basically treating people like idiots, the answer isn't more regulations but better education regarding financial matters, that's the problem.

Millions of people have credit cards and doesn't pay interest no matter what the interest rate is they have the financial knowledge and doesnt live off of credit, people with balances and lives off of credit cares what the interest is, blaming the credit card companies for your debt is really stupid.

All the foreclosures, well who told you or forced you to sign the contract in the first place? you took a chance , you were greedy and market fell and some ended up with the holding their d icks and what not, you cant blame the bankers for that . ( when I say you I dont mean you Halftimedad I mean others in that mess)

16.03 of the video she explains what she would of done if she was in charge, and her response was typical capitalist response, if it cost tax payers money , and the management is responsible, shareholders and debt holders doesn't get wipe out she's not for it, that's the cost of bad/idiot management.

17.18 she admits if the market does it thing properly there wouldn't be a need for regulations, well she says rely on regulations was her words

Whats she fighting for is "Transparency" but through legislation , I dont have a issue with what's she fighting for but I dont think legislation is the answer because they will figure a way around the legislation, A law may have more bite than breaking legislation and being issued a fine.

The banks have figured out a way around Basel I and II, and now their is Basel III, I dont see where more regulations is going to stop them from doing what they are doing? they have the lawyers to figure out ways to get around regulations, which is what got some of them in trouble in the first place.

She's a bright woman Professor Warren, but she doesn't put down capitalism, she just wants more transparency
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 243
Capitalism
Posted: 5/26/2011 11:05:18 AM
I have seen Warren a few times now and must say that I've been impressed so far. She makes a lot of sense and has good ideas.

blaming the credit card companies for your debt is really stupid.

That's not really the issue. People making financial decisions without all the pertinent information up front (i.e. transparency) is the issue. As a businessman, you should realize how effective manipulation through slick and tricky marketing and advertising can be. People can be very easily manipulated when money is on the line. By the same token, there is much incentive to manipulate people when money is on the line.

A law may have more bite than breaking legislation and being issued a fine.

Not sure what you're saying here, but legislation is the process by which laws are made.

she doesn't put down capitalism

No one is saying she does. What I would say is that her ideas make sense, while yours sound simplistic, not well thought out, and dangerous. Come to think of it, you are the one who claims that the financial markets do not qualify as capitalism.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 244
Capitalism
Posted: 5/26/2011 12:03:54 PM

That's not really the issue. People making financial decisions without all the pertinent information up front (i.e. transparency) is the issue. As a businessman, you should realize how effective manipulation through slick and tricky marketing and advertising can be. People can be very easily manipulated when money is on the line. By the same token, there is much incentive to manipulate people when money is on the line<
Oh I see, so the people who were duped because they didnt have financial knowledge is the fault of the companies that has slick and tricky manipulation? okay then....
Greedy people getting duped by even greedier people and we need regulation to help the greedy people so they dont get burned? gotcha.



Not sure what you're saying here, but legislation is the process by which laws are made.
In contrast with proper laws, regulations (which are also called ‘laws' to package-deal them with proper laws) do not protect individual rights.

Rather, they order a business to follow certain procedures when conducting their affairs. For example, some regulations may tell businesses how to value their assets when doing their accounting. Other regulations may tell businesses how to design mechanical devices or what fuel mileage the cars they produce must get. Still others may tell businesses how securities are to be bought and sold. Today there are a myriad of regulations controlling almost all aspects of commerce.

Governments justify the passage of regulations on the grounds that they are necessary to protect the "general welfare" or the "public interest" by specifying procedures that ban dangerous products and deceptive trade practices. And to many people, this sounds credible and regulations seem like a good idea. However, the truth is that regulations are not made by anyone who knows how to keep people safe other than by banning the initiation of physical force. There is no special governmental "know-how" that justifies bureaucrats coercively micromanaging others' lives, regulating businesses or making products safer or better or whatever with "governmental oversight".

Governments, for example, do not know how to build cars or trade securities or make food or clothing or anything else better than the private sector companies who make these things know how to do them. For this reason, regulations do not make businesses more efficient or their products safer or of better quality. All regulations do is cause businesses to adopt inferior procedures, destroying their profitability and success at producing quality values thereby.




No one is saying she does. What I would say is that her ideas make sense, while yours sound simplistic, not well thought out, and dangerous. Come to think of it, you are the one who claims that the financial markets do not qualify as capitalism.
I said Crony capitalism or anyone that needs government assistance isnt capitalist, I would say a good number of Wall street bankers are not capitalist, most dont know the difference between paper wealth and real wealth, they rely on special privilege and bail outs to help them by " poor babies" wahhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhh, I dont have a love or respect for business people that holds tax payers hostage , I dont care if you think my idea is simplistic or doesn't make sense to you its makes sense to me, and it works for me and the business im in , and Im definitely not looking for government assistance or tax payers money to keep me afloat, while you continue to work and get a pay cheque from some private sector company you better pray that the management or owners of your company wont jump on the crony bandwagon and move over seas because they cannot profit from all the new regulations the bureaucrats are attempting to pass.

I am curious Flyguy, Mungo Joe, Halftime dad and people like you, have you ever owned a business? Im not talking about a franchise but started a business, had employees etc, or do you folks receive paycheques? there is a reason why im asking.

 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 245
Capitalism
Posted: 5/26/2011 1:01:08 PM

Oh I see

No, I don't think you do. What you did do is "manipulate" what I said to sound less reasonable and fair. I was basically echoing what Warren said (and what you claimed to agree with earlier). Are you sure YOU understood the interview?

regulations do not make businesses more efficient or their products safer or of better quality.

Again, in the interview, Warren made the point about establishing consumer confidence.

Who would:
-dine at a new, uninspected restaurant
-buy experimental, uninspected drugs
-buy an uninspected car from a new manufacturer
-fly in an uninspected plane, maintained by uninspected mechanics, with uninspected pilots flying it?

Show of hands, please.

I said Crony capitalism or anyone that needs government assistance isnt capitalist,

You should reread some of your earlier posts on this thread, then.

it works for me and the business im in

By your own admission, you don't run a business in a purely free market, so your claim here has little basis.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 246
Capitalism
Posted: 5/26/2011 1:20:29 PM
I see you avoided my question, nicely done

Who would:
-dine at a new, uninspected restaurant
-buy experimental, uninspected drugs
-buy an uninspected car from a new manufacturer
-fly in an uninspected plane, maintained by uninspected mechanics, with uninspected pilots flying it?
do you see many businesses that needs regulations to tell them that?
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 247
Capitalism
Posted: 5/26/2011 1:38:57 PM

I see you avoided my question, nicely done

Um, no-- if you reread our earlier exchange (about page 4), you'll find you already asked me, and you got your answer.

do you see many businesses that needs regulations to tell them that?

Ah, so... who requires the inspections, and who does the inspecting?
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 248
Capitalism
Posted: 5/26/2011 2:37:30 PM
Actually Fly guy you didn't answer it back then either, you replied with " Non sequitor" that was a cop out sport.




 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 249
Capitalism
Posted: 5/26/2011 3:08:40 PM
Actually Fly guy you didn't answer it back then either, you replied with " Non sequitor" that was a cop out sport.

Oh-- I thought you got the message when you responded "just as I thought." I'll answer clearly, so there's no potential for misunderstanding: NO.

What sort of business(es) are you in?

Actually, you haven't answered at least one of my questions, the latest of which is:

"Ah, so... who requires the inspections, and who does the inspecting?"

Edit: And I assure you, I deal with government regulations ALL THE TIME.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 250
Capitalism
Posted: 5/26/2011 4:09:32 PM
I own a financial company dealing with joint ventures and financing

I was a partner in a mortgage company, and owned a factoring company.

I too deal with government regulations and most of it is a waste of time and energy.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Capitalism