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
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 76
CapitalismPage 4 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Interesting Dej, I dont quite agree, but appreciate the passion.

Look......Obama has declared that he believes every person has a "right" to health care. The Socialist Party USA believes every person has a "right" to health care.

Obama believes that labor unions should be allowed to organize without a secret ballot. The Socialist Party USA calls for unions to be recognized without a secret ballot.

The Socialist Party USA recognizes the "right" of adequate housing for everyone. Obama trained ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) workers to secure mortgages for unqualified people in sufficient numbers to no surprise collapse the housing and home-financing industries.

The list goes on and on


I hope you don't evade your taxes in the same manner you evaded that question.
why would you say something stupid like that? I pay my taxes and my fair share and to answer your question again, the kind of capitalism that allows my business to prosper and profit, I certainly cannot do that under a socialist system, you and I have different philosophy clearly, things are not black and white, while I love capitalism we dont truly live in a capitalist society, when I say Obama is a socialist its because he has socialist tendencies you seem to think black and white, the world isnt black and white it has colours in it.

You seem offended when I refer to your president as a" socialist" would you prefer I refer to him as a oppressed liberal with few new ideas, incapable of resurrecting the American economy?
We have that same problem north of the border with our Prime Minister with his minority government( but thats another topic)
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 77
Capitalism
Posted: 3/7/2011 2:08:32 PM

The list goes on and on

Oh, I'm sure it does:

Obama wants an unemployment rate below 3%. The Socialist Party USA wants unemployment below 3%.

Obama wanted to withdraw troops from Iraq. The Socialist Party USA wanted troop withdrawals from Iraq.

Obama thinks people should eat their vegetables. The Socialist Party USA thinks people should eat their vegetables.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 78
Capitalism
Posted: 3/7/2011 2:14:18 PM

Obama thinks people should eat their vegetables. The Socialist Party USA thinks people should eat their vegetables.
OMG, you made a funny, wow you actually might have a sense of humour, well im sure the Capitalist wants people to eat their vegetables so they can " profit" from it too lol
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 79
Capitalism
Posted: 3/7/2011 2:34:26 PM
Thank you-- I'll be here all week.

I didn't catch your last message in time, so here goes:

why would you say something stupid like that?

Yes, intentionally stupid because I was joking. I don't REALLY think you evade taxes.

the kind of capitalism that allows my business to prosper and profit

This occurs with the illicit drug trade and Wall Street, yet you claimed vehemently that they are NOT capitalist. Hence, my confusion about what you think capitalism is and where one can find it.

I see now that you aren't being intentionally evasive, but you are being UNintentionally inconsistent regarding the concept of capitalism.


You seem offended when I refer to your president as a" socialist" would you prefer I refer to him as a oppressed liberal with few new ideas, incapable of resurrecting the American economy?

I'm not personally offended really. It's just that we are not talking about pure opinion here. We are talking about ideologies with accepted definitions. When those definitions are ignored, especially in a way to cast aspersions upon someone, I am compelled to voice my disagreement and try to set things straight. You are certainly not alone. There is a very large "Obama is a socialist" bandwagon. It's just that bandwagons are not known for their keen insight and perspective.

<div class="quote">would you prefer I refer to him as a oppressed liberal with few new ideas, incapable of resurrecting the American economy?
I don't get the oppressed part, but, otherwise, yes. THAT is actual opinion stated within the confines of accepted definitions, not the slaying of accepted definitions.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 80
Capitalism
Posted: 3/7/2011 3:23:08 PM
Flyguy, true capitalism means a individual that creates a product or service for the market places which creates value or adds value to people lives, I mentioned earlier about Wall Street, that isn't true capitalism, they create nothing their single purpose is to make money, created paper wealth, not real wealth.Paper wealth is only of value if it can be used to purchase real wealth. Real wealth is something of value that helps you support your life, i.e., food, housing,which is why I dont consider Wall street ( Bay street if you're in Canada) true capitalist, they take a advantage of a so called capitalist system.

Eg: Gates, Jobs,Dell,Balsillie( R.I.M) Patterson (Canada) are example of true capitalist, obviously there are a ton more.

You mentioned earlier illicit trades and organized crime, you really cant call that capitalism can you? or are they taking advantage of a capitalist system, its like monopolies , do you think monopolies can exist without government intervention?
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 81
Capitalism
Posted: 3/7/2011 4:24:02 PM
I'm rather surprised to hear (read) you say all this. I understand your point, but I cannot agree with it. I agree that the stock market redistributes wealth rather than creates it, but it would not exist without capitalism and is a natural, perhaps even inevitable outgrowth of capitalism. It is also the vehicle for which the value of a given publically held company is determined. It is very much a part of the free market. Salesmen don't create wealth either, but the creators certainly need them to trade one wealth (the created product) for another (money).

By way of analogy, it is as if you are saying that the windshield and windshield wipers are not truly part of an automobile because they have no part in the propulsion or control of the vehicle. Yet they would not exist without the automobile being there, and they would serve virtually no purpose away from the automobile. Drivers wouldn't be very happy without them, either!

It's a very minor point, though, when you are discussing if someone possesses a driver's license or not. But thanks for your explanation in any case.

And having seen your definition of capitalism, which is pretty much the standard, accepted definition as I know it, I would still say that the drug trade (including drug production, if that wasn't clear) meets that definition quite well.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 82
Capitalism
Posted: 3/7/2011 6:21:23 PM


And having seen your definition of capitalism, which is pretty much the standard, accepted definition as I know it, I would still say that the drug trade (including drug production, if that wasn't clear) meets that definition quite well.


Well I suppose it's capitalistic in the sense that there's an exchange of one good (drugs) for another (money). However, there are at least two reasons why it is not free market capitalism. First, the fact that drugs are illegal artificially raises their price. This represents a government intrusion into the drug market. Second, the use of Federal Reserve Notes taints the interaction. While it's true that the FED is a private company, it gets its monopoly power to print money and manipulate interest rates from the government, and its chairman is a government appointee.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 83
Capitalism
Posted: 3/8/2011 7:57:31 AM
I am a bit confused by some of the points and explanations presented by the posters of the right wing persuasion here. I hope that they can help me to get a clearer idea of what is it that they are saying.


Look at today's Young people ,they are never taught that the only way to create wealth is for an individual to combine his/her energy and intellect with resources to produce a product that improves his/her life, or for which someone else is willing to pay.


So, let's say that a young man discovers that he is very good at sharpening a knife that becomes just like a scalpel, and learns and practices with it until he can cut just about anything with a few strokes in a matter of moments. Then he goes and offer his services to those that are willing to pay for his services, rewarding him with five silver or three gold coins per black-haird scalp that he brings in. Does that make him a capitalist?

Given the small scale of his business perhaps he is only an entrepreneurial butcher. But then, with the gold and silver that he received, and knowing that there is a large demand for black-haired scalps, he starts producing his sharp as scalpels knives and also starts training some other people willing to do that type of work. He pays them by the piece, two silver or one gold coin, and keeps the difference for the tools and training provided to them. Does that makes him a capitalist now?

Then, he figures that he can make a lot more money if he leases his trained specialists to the military, which will provide them with uniforms and all the necessary logistics in order to maximize the production of black-haired scalps and the profits. Do you think that he is a capitalist now? He discovered a way to create wealth for himself by combining his energy and intellect, and by tapping on the market's willingness to pay for his product. If I understand you correctly, he must be a capitalist.



And having seen your definition of capitalism, which is pretty much the standard, accepted definition as I know it, I would still say that the drug trade (including drug production, if that wasn't clear) meets that definition quite well.

Well I suppose it's capitalistic in the sense that there's an exchange of one good (drugs) for another (money). However, there are at least two reasons why it is not free market capitalism. First, the fact that drugs are illegal artificially raises their price. This represents a government intrusion into the drug market. Second, the use of Federal Reserve Notes taints the interaction. While it's true that the FED is a private company, it gets its monopoly power to print money and manipulate interest rates from the government, and its chairman is a government appointee.


I am not too sure that the objections that you raise are that clear. In my opinion, the government intrusion into the drug market by declaring it illegal is a mechanism intended to control who is in charge of the distribution and who profits from it. The "artificially' raised price only becomes an issue when one group, in this case the one favored by the government, is in control and it becomes a monopoly. Otherwise, the price is very much determined by the free market based on supply and demand. Again, in my opinion, declaring drugs illegal, and by declaring a "war on drugs" the government is not eradicating the existence of drugs, it is only trying to determine who will be in charge of the distribution.

But here is the question for you: Do you think that your two objections would apply to the example that I presented above? I would really like to have your input about the issues of legality and the form of payment received for the product offerred. I kind of think that it should be considered a capitalistic enterprise.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 84
Capitalism
Posted: 3/8/2011 8:08:53 AM

So, let's say that a young man discovers that he is very good at sharpening a knife that becomes just like a scalpel, and learns and practices with it until he can cut just about anything with a few strokes in a matter of moments. Then he goes and offer his services to those that are willing to pay for his services, rewarding him with five silver or three gold coins per black-haird scalp that he brings in. Does that make him a capitalist?

Given the small scale of his business perhaps he is only an entrepreneurial butcher. But then, with the gold and silver that he received, and knowing that there is a large demand for black-haired scalps, he starts producing his sharp as scalpels knives and also starts training some other people willing to do that type of work. He pays them by the piece, two silver or one gold coin, and keeps the difference for the tools and training provided to them. Does that makes him a capitalist now?

Then, he figures that he can make a lot more money if he leases his trained specialists to the military, which will provide them with uniforms and all the necessary logistics in order to maximize the production of black-haired scalps and the profits. Do you think that he is a capitalist now? He discovered a way to create wealth for himself by combining his energy and intellect, and by tapping on the market's willingness to pay for his product. If I understand you correctly, he must be a capitalist.
black hair scalps? care to esplain Lucy?
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 85
Capitalism
Posted: 3/8/2011 9:03:09 AM
black hair scalps? care to esplain Lucy?


Black means black, and hair means hair. When you add scalps, then it means the black hair comes from the head of a human being by cutting the skin and dettaching it from the craneum.

By the way, my name here is Imported_labor.

Now that I answered your question, do you care to answer mine?
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 86
Capitalism
Posted: 3/8/2011 9:26:58 AM
Good Lord ,Imported, lighten up FFS, So you want me to answer your question? if I understand your question correctly , someone who is a mercenary that kills people for a living do they fall under category of a capitalist?

Why does Inflammable and flammable mean the same thing? and im not going answer your question and you know why.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 87
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 3/8/2011 12:30:26 PM

Obama wants an unemployment rate below 3%. The Socialist Party USA wants unemployment below 3%.

Actually an unemployment rate below 3% would not really be considered a good thing in a lot of circles. It harms the labor market (and the market in general) if businesses are unable to find employees that can be tailored to work specific skills.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 88
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 3/9/2011 6:37:58 PM
As is common in such discussions, there is a HUGE amount of over-simplification being bandied about in this thread, masquerading as facts.

First of all, there is no SINGLE form of Capitalism. There is no SINGLE form of Socialism. so any statement that claims that one is all about "wealth creation" while the other is all about "redistribution of wealth" is, at best extremely misleading.

Capitalism: it's just a form of economic interaction that substitutes money for actual goods and services. It isn't a philosophy, it isn't a religion (for sane humans), it doesn't have any INNATE structure. In it's MOST unfettered form, it includes theft, abuse, slavery, and the rule of the most physically powerful over the less powerful. Thus it MUST be "tamed."
There are VERY few advocates of free market capitalism, who ACTUALLY believe in a real free market; they almost always have limits in mind. Anyone here believe that selling children should be okay? That all drugs should be legalized, no matter what? That no one who sells ANYTHING, should have ANY responsibility for the content of their products, or the harm they cause? Tainted meat anyone?

One thing in particular that I'm seeing often these days, is pro capitalist types saying essentially that once someone has succeeded in using the system to gather MORE of the capital from a situation than they put into it by GAMING it, instead of actually creating real wealth, that it is an act of SOCIALISM to step in and take those ill-gotten gains away.
That's what has been going on around here. The artificial Real Estate bubble, that led to the current bad times, was NOT a "wealth creating" act of capitalist creativity. If it HAD been, there would have been no collapse. There is no validity to pointing out that some of the imaginary money that it gathered, was passed on to situations where real wealth DID result, and that it was therefore made capitalistically "okay." By that reasoning, thievery and drug dealing should ALSO be declared to be acceptable capitalist ventures, because the thief DOES spend his ill-gotten gains on groceries, clothes, and other such "wealth creating" things.
It is NOT an act of socialist "wealth redistribution" to take the money "gamed" from the system BACK from those who took it out, and put it back in.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 89
Capitalism
Posted: 3/9/2011 7:41:22 PM


I am not too sure that the objections that you raise are that clear. In my opinion, the government intrusion into the drug market by declaring it illegal is a mechanism intended to control who is in charge of the distribution and who profits from it. The "artificially' raised price only becomes an issue when one group, in this case the one favored by the government, is in control and it becomes a monopoly. Otherwise, the price is very much determined by the free market based on supply and demand. Again, in my opinion, declaring drugs illegal, and by declaring a "war on drugs" the government is not eradicating the existence of drugs, it is only trying to determine who will be in charge of the distribution.


The government intrusion is what makes it not a free market.



But here is the question for you: Do you think that your two objections would apply to the example that I presented above? I would really like to have your input about the issues of legality and the form of payment received for the product offerred. I kind of think that it should be considered a capitalistic enterprise.


I should preface my comments by pointing out that there are different kinds of capitalism. The US basically has a State Capitalism economy, sometimes called Crony Capitalism. Generally when I discuss capitalism I mean Free Market Capitalism. I think your second example better gets to the point about the free market. It's not a free market because in order to obtain the scalps the person had to initiate force. The initiation of force, threats of force, and fraud take away from the freeness of the market. That's why government intrusion into the market also makes it unfree. Governments by their very nature enforce rules by violence and threats of violence.

I should also point out that free market capitalism doesn't guarantee that the world will be filled with rainbows and candy-canes. It's entirely possible for cocaine to be bought and sold in a free market even though cocaine is really bad for you.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 90
Capitalism
Posted: 3/9/2011 8:10:47 PM

Capitalism: it's just a form of economic interaction that substitutes money for actual goods and services. It isn't a philosophy, it isn't a religion (for sane humans), it doesn't have any INNATE structure. In it's MOST unfettered form, it includes theft, abuse, slavery, and the rule of the most physically powerful over the less powerful. Thus it MUST be "tamed."
I usually like what you have to say Igor, but in this instance you're dead wrong, Its government intervention that causes these abuses



There are VERY few advocates of free market capitalism, who ACTUALLY believe in a real free market; they almost always have limits in mind. Anyone here believe that selling children should be okay? That all drugs should be legalized, no matter what? That no one who sells ANYTHING, should have ANY responsibility for the content of their products, or the harm they cause? Tainted meat anyone?
Again, I dont know where you're getting this? The people best qualified to judge products and their prices are none other than its producers and consumers.

It is a huge mistake to think that Washington bureaucrats are wise enough or better equipped than other people to make such judgments. In a free market, prices are agreed to by both parts of any deal. There is no sale without a consenting buyer, and no merger without a consenting partner. In a free market, market share has to be earned. Even if a producer were to temporarily hold a whole market, he would not be able to set his prices at will.
If he set prices too high, people would replace his product for other ones. If his product were too essential and could not be replaced, other producers would readily jump into his market to take advantage of the high profit margins, and of the high product demand. Of course, in many situations, companies that hold significant market shares have great advantages over start-ups




The artificial Real Estate bubble, that led to the current bad times, was NOT a "wealth creating" act of capitalist creativity. If it HAD been, there would have been no collapse. There is no validity to pointing out that some of the imaginary money that it gathered, was passed on to situations where real wealth DID result, and that it was therefore made capitalistically "okay."

Massive government interventions in the market in the form of myriad regulations and financial irresponsibility on the part of the government are really to blame. How did the government cause the current crisis?

Consider these examples. The Fed injected massive amounts of money and credit into our financial system from 2001 to 2004 that led to skyrocketing housing prices and fostered irresponsible borrowing and lending by market participants. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is used to intimidate banks and other mortgage lenders into making loans--such as subprime loans--in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Many of these loans would not have been made in a free market because they were made to borrowers who were not credit worthy. Making loans to people who cannot afford them is a policy that is destined to lead to a financial catastrophe.




The government intrusion is what makes it not a free market.
no argument there.



I should preface my comments by pointing out that there are different kinds of capitalism. The US basically has a State Capitalism economy, sometimes called Crony Capitalism. Generally when I discuss capitalism I mean Free Market Capitalism. I think your second example better gets to the point about the free market. It's not a free market because in order to obtain the scalps the person had to initiate force. The initiation of force, threats of force, and fraud take away from the freeness of the market. That's why government intrusion into the market also makes it unfree. Governments by their very nature enforce rules by violence and threats of violence.
again Dead on again bud.


I should also point out that free market capitalism doesn't guarantee that the world will be filled with rainbows and candy-canes. It's entirely possible for cocaine to be bought and sold in a free market even though cocaine is really bad for you.<
except for the cocaine part Im not sure about, again its dead on, funny thing Winston Churchill said" capitalism may not be the best system but its the one that works right now" or something like that.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 91
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 3/9/2011 9:46:33 PM
Look......Obama has declared that he believes every person has a "right" to health care. The Socialist Party USA believes every person has a "right" to health care.

I believe you have a "right" to health care, too. I believe it would be an infringement for the government to restrict you from purchasing health care. Just like I believe you have a right to own arms like handguns and rifles.

I do believe you have to pay for it, though. You don't get to demand the government give you free weapons. So when Obama says people have a "right" to health care, he's just illustrating his poor understanding of what a "right" is, or he's just politicking in the hopes his audience won't know (or consider) the difference (likely the latter).

You have a right to free speech, but you don't have the right to demand the government provide you with a computer and an internet connection at no cost to you so you can argue on the internet.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 92
Capitalism
Posted: 3/10/2011 6:26:57 AM


I should preface my comments by pointing out that there are different kinds of capitalism. The US basically has a State Capitalism economy, sometimes called Crony Capitalism. Generally when I discuss capitalism I mean Free Market Capitalism. I think your second example better gets to the point about the free market. It's not a free market because in order to obtain the scalps the person had to initiate force. The initiation of force, threats of force, and fraud take away from the freeness of the market. That's why government intrusion into the market also makes it unfree. Governments by their very nature enforce rules by violence and threats of violence.


again Dead on again bud


So now that are agreeing with the poster that there are different kinds of Capitalism, can you tell which kind of Capitalism do you have in mind when you say "Long live Capitalism'?
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 93
Capitalism
Posted: 3/10/2011 6:34:46 AM

So now that are agreeing with the poster that there are different kinds of Capitalism, can you tell which kind of Capitalism do you have in mind when you say "Long live Capitalism'?
you know some people have the annoying ability to play games, you've asked that question before and Ive answered that before, you're just doing that to be annoying, when you're serious I will be serious until then im going to read another episode of " bubbas going to the bar" as he's deciding to date Earlene or Peggy Sue .
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 94
Capitalism
Posted: 3/10/2011 6:50:50 AM

I should preface my comments by pointing out that there are different kinds of capitalism. The US basically has a State Capitalism economy, sometimes called Crony Capitalism. Generally when I discuss capitalism I mean Free Market Capitalism. I think your second example better gets to the point about the free market. It's not a free market because in order to obtain the scalps the person had to initiate force. The initiation of force, threats of force, and fraud take away from the freeness of the market. That's why government intrusion into the market also makes it unfree. Governments by their very nature enforce rules by violence and threats of violence.


I will accept your distinction on the different types of Capitalism, because I know that there are different types of Socialism. And after reading Igor's post I think that posters here should heed his call for people to be a bit more precise when labelling the president a socialist. It seems to me that they are attacking the president because their far-right gurus tell them to do so.

The one question I have is: where in the world has the Free Market Capitalism that you advocate developed and become the dominant economic system without the intervention of the government, and without the introduction of force which you propose as not being part of the Free Market Capitalism?
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 95
Capitalism
Posted: 3/10/2011 7:24:48 AM

you know some people have the annoying ability to play games, you've asked that question before and Ive answered that before, you're just doing that to be annoying, when you're serious I will be serious until then im going to read another episode of " bubbas going to the bar" as he's deciding to date Earlene or Peggy Sue


It doesn't surprise me that you take the easy way out again.

First, you are wrong about me trying to annoy anyone. I am just trying to understand where you stand in relation to the stuff that you post in here.

Second, it wan't me who asked you that question before. You had a hard time with Flyguy51 because he was questioning you about your loose usage of words in this thread. Finally you offerred a definition of a very aseptic nature, a system that, by your own recognition, doesn't exist. Is that the one that should live long? The only capitalistic system that I konw of is the one that has been contaminated by the use of violence and crimes against other human beings. Is that the one that should live long?

I just picked on your cleaned-up definition of Capitalism and show you that it is very susceptible of being perverted, just as it was when people with money paid others to terrorize the native population in order to occupy their lands. That's the capitalism that I know of, but you just didn't want to address the issue because it was "flammable."

Same thing happened now, don't want to address the question because "I" am trying to annoy you by asking you the same question! I didn't ask that question before, and I am rather serious. I think that you are just trying to take the easy way out.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 96
Capitalism
Posted: 3/10/2011 7:51:10 AM

It doesn't surprise me that you take the easy way out again.
dont bring Flyguy into the mix, I have a healthy respect for him, he debates unlike people like you who attempts to annoy so nice try.

The question was asked then answered, you want clarification you ask, nice and simple unless that's too simple for you.

Second, I dont have a problem with Flyguy, I enjoy reading his opinions and debating with him he obviously has the " intelligence" and " passion" to express his opinion, if you think I have a problem with him well that's your problem, and I suggest try Decaf in the mornings.

Third, I dont take people like you seriously, especially after the " black hair scalp" comments, you're just being a ass hole, like I said earlier when you're serious I will be serious, until then continue what you're doing , I am left only to assume that this is attempted humor on your part, perhaps to take a opportunity to draw attention to yourself and your uncharacteristic quality as such.

 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 97
Capitalism
Posted: 3/10/2011 10:53:30 AM

" One of the significant landmarks in this violent history was February 20, 1725 when a posse of New Hampshire volunteers attacked a Native American encampment and took 10 scalps, receiving a bounty of 100 pounds per scalp from colonial authorities in Boston. Bringing it closer to home, in 1755, Lieutenant Governor Spencer Phips of Massachusetts Bay colony issued a proclamation calling upon his Majesty's subjects to "embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians." Phips promised a payout from the "Publick Treasury" of 40 pounds for the scalp of every male Penobscot Indian; the scalps of women and children earned 20 pounds. The Phips Proclamation endorsed this colonial violence and widened the cultural divide between settlers and Native residents."

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jcgUBwtbX7A/SqART6I3N2I/AAAAAAAAAJw/0tEOqIxqyTU/s1600-h/SpencerPhipsProclamation1755.jpg
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 98
Capitalism
Posted: 3/10/2011 11:07:32 AM


The one question I have is: where in the world has the Free Market Capitalism that you advocate developed and become the dominant economic system without the intervention of the government, and without the introduction of force which you propose as not being part of the Free Market Capitalism?


It's more of an ideal than anything else. In reality there will be degrees of free market capitalism. Unfortunately we'll always have people with guns (or swords) who decide that they know how to spend other people's money best. It doesn't matter if it's Obama who points the gun at us and says we need to buy health insurance or George Bush who points a gun at us and says we need to pay for wars in the Middle East. Perhaps Somalia comes closest:

http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

Without a central authority the economy is largely unregulated. Two different monies are primarily used, the US dollar and the Somali schilling, which restores a degree of freedom in the monetary system. That looks like it might be changing in the near future though. Interestingly several US states are considering legislation that would allow gold and silver to be used as currency.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 99
Capitalism
Posted: 3/10/2011 8:45:24 PM


Somalia, a libertarians paradise.

And I always thought this video was a joke. I never really believed people would hope to emulate them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0


I have to admit that was pretty funny. But read the article. It does not claim that Somalia is a libertarian paradise. It does however demonstrate that the Somalis are better off now than they were under the previous government.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 100
Capitalism
Posted: 3/17/2011 11:30:44 AM

But read the article. It does not claim that Somalia is a libertarian paradise. It does however demonstrate that the Somalis are better off now than they were under the previous government.


Read the article, and I must say that some of the claims sound interesting. Still, I hesitate to believe some of the more positive sounding claims in the article, as some of those statistics are not in line with the statistics taken into account by international agencies that deal with the issues of progress in a civil society.

When I was young I entertained the idea of living in an anarchic society, without a repressive state, and where the working people would collectively join forces to make living in a free society a reality. I never envisioned that ideal society as one that would abandon the responsibility of educating the people, nor I believed that the security of the people would be in the hands of hired gangs or warlords.

It is hard to accept Somalia as some kind of good example for what Capitalism can bring to a society. I can accept that destroying the repressive state was a good thing, but proposing that the current state of Somalia is much better thanks to Capitalism, by ignoring some of the most important factors that account for the semblance of progress, is a big stretch. When the factors impacting the economy, such as de-population, the remittances of the diaspora, and the external aid from multiple international agencies, are taken into account, perhaps the economic growth is not as big as some people would like to believe.

What is the incentive to invest in an unstable country?

In the meantime, some activities are on the rise:


SOMALIA: Human trafficking on the increase
HARGEISA, 2 April 2010 (IRIN) - Officials in Somalia's self-declared independent state of Somaliland are concerned over a rise in human trafficking in the region. Children are mainly trafficked from south-central Somalia, because of the lack of government there, says a senior government official.

“Human trafficking is increasing in Somaliland. Before, no one believed that human/child trafficking existed in Somaliland but such kinds of crimes occur here…” Fadumo Sudi, the Minister for Family and Social Affairs, said during a recent ceremony to reunite a girl with her family. She had been trafficked to Hargeisa in February from Qardho, in the autonomous northeast region of Puntland


http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportID=88668
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Capitalism