Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have known for decades that capitalism is not a stable system. It leads to panics, depressions, and social conditions that lead to political instability.
Capitalism is an organic system which cannot be tricked, fooled or legislated. Every time it has been mucked with by governments, that government goes to hell and then they blame capitalism.
Capitalism started when the 1st person trades a pelt for food. It is a system of supply and demand. It is the fair trading of two parties which agree on the value of the goods that they are trading.
That's it in a nutshell.
We are living in a period where "crony capitalism" is prevalent.....obama and his regime are neck deep in it. Whether it is using tax payer dollars to buy the votes of the poor, or to buy "donations" from billionaires, "crony capitalism" is a problem.
Who do you think were at obama's Thursday evening fund raiser at $32,000 per person in NY?
No, your example is not capitalism, it is trade. Capitalism required capital. Before money (gold, silver, paper money), capitalism is not possible. Then you have to concentrate that capital so that it can be either loaned or spent to concentrate wealth. There is good reason that, for the first 1400 years, Christianity forbade loaning money at interest. Money loaned at interest produces nothing but more money.
Capitalism can certainly be tricked and fooled. It's called fraud, snake oil, default, theft, collusion, and numerous other failures. The more obvious frauds have been legislated against by governments, which patched the system together well enough for a long time. Capitalists always object to such restrictions, so they continually agitate for deregulation. As practiced in the USA, there is no individual responsibility for any crimes committed by a corporation. This has historically been handled by just putting the corporation out of business, either by breaking it up forcibly or driving it into bankruptcy. How terribly broken that system is was exposed during the banking crisis, as banks committed derivatives fraud to pyramid their profits. Not only did no one go to jail, but as soon as they organized their lobby, only one major bank was driven out of business, rather than all of them.
You are correct that the current system runs on cronyism. It acts to preserve and promote the status of the vast concentrations of wealth, to the detriment of the nation as a whole. Capital has become so vast that nations no longer have control of their own wealth. This is the root cause of the decline and failure of capitalism.
Let me guess. You think that the mortgage bubble resulted from Barney Frank holding guns to the heads of all those CEOs, forcing them to make bad loans and then forcing them to create all those fraudulent CMO's, DMO's, credit default swaps, and so on down the line ... LMAO!!!!!!!
Funny, I dont remember hearing anything about Barney Frank's involvement in forcing Moody's, Standard & Poor's, or Fitch's to fraudulently rate those derivatives as AAA, perfectly safe for all.
When there was an attempt made on regulating derivatives by Brooksley Born, about 15 top bankers stormed the Whitehouse demanding they put a stop to it plus a smear campaign was instituted against Born.
You will find absolutely nothing where the bankers are demanding these cheap loans come to an end because they are the ones that lobbied for. They were making money hand over fist from it. In the end they made everyone else pay for it while they got bailed out or left with golden parachutes.
Dog Gone wrote: This is the dumbest thing I have heard this am. Yes, let the business people decide what is the best for everyone. That should put us in a good spot.
I don't think the poster got the gist of my comment. In capitalism, the consumer gets to decide what he or she will purchase, where they live, and what they do with their property. They get to decide if they want health insurance, how much, how extensive a policy they want and what doctors to go to. BUt if govt. decides, then I have no choice. They make all the choices for me whether I like them or not. So, if they give me a lousy doctor, or the only alternative I have is insurance I don't need or can't afford, I have no choice. Pay up and suffer. I prefer to make my own choices thank you, not a stupid govt. bureaucrat.
"Pure" capitalism exists only in theory; the United States probably came closest in the years 1815-1835, and then only in the West and, to a slightly lesser degree, the North. Heavier industry and infrastructure (canals fist, then railroads) began to evolve in the 1820's and the most concentrated portion of the South's economy revolved around slavery. So the complete divorce of large-scale industry from the state's legal monopoly on coercion (via corporate charters, eminent domain, etc.) simply isn't possible,
But on the other hand, there has always been a gap between theory/ideology and realpolitik The critics of capitalism, as with the zealous rants of the John Birch Society and other groups at the height of the Red Scare, paint an absolutist picture that describes the features of a free economy to which they most object as part of some monolithic conspiracy, Yet they are the first to protest loud and long if some reform that curbs their desire for further growth in their power, such as limits on the power of pubic-employee unions, or local control over the societal "safety net", is proposed.
Neither side of the polarization can have it both ways, but they keep trying.
In capitalism, those with power and money get to decide what they will purchase, where they will live, and what they will do with their property
Power has little to do with money in the "pure" sense -- that is, honestly-earned money as the ability to say "no" to the raw use, or abuse of power via escapes, bribes to corrupted authority, etc.
And money, in and of itself, has potential for either good or evil. It was observed over a century ago, that "Power (as embodied in the state meaning government in any form, at any level) tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
So now would one of the Enlightened Few on the opposite side of this argument please explain to us their desire for absolute, unchecked power, "justified" only by the "pretzel logic" of Political Correctness??
When there was an attempt made on regulating derivatives by Brooksley Born, about 15 top bankers stormed the Whitehouse demanding they put a stop to it plus a smear campaign was instituted against Born.
You will find absolutely nothing where the bankers are demanding these cheap loans come to an end because they are the ones that lobbied for. They were making money hand over fist from it. In the end they made everyone else pay for it while they got bailed out or left with golden parachutes.
At last ... someone who get's it.
Tell me, my friend, ever feel like a voice in the wilderness?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.