Oops - Capitalism works! (interstate, Congress, gasoline, weapons)

[The Homogenizer]

Originally Posted by Minarchist

I don't think so. Although there are much more capitalist economies (like Hong Kong and Singapore), US is still one of the most capitalist economy in the world.

Perhaps, but "capitalist" isn't a relative term, and contrary to the tenets of capitalism, the U.S. regulates much of its citizens' lives and industries. Further, the country's publicly traded corporations are cooperatives, which are just slightly removed from being fully socialized.

I don't think anyone would call Hitler a capitalist, but the American economy is very similar to the pre-WWII German economy. By your standards, one would have called 1940 Germany capitalistic relative to 1940 Russia.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by Robeaux

So a trash collector should make the same as a brain surgeon or an engineer as long as they both do their job well?

Then who would want to be doctor or an engineer?

Why should a someone who buys stock, and holds it for five minutes before selling it, earn 100 times more than a brain surgeon?

[Grim Reader]

Originally Posted by Minarchist

The average standart of living in US is much higher than in Europe, except the natural gas kingdom (Norway) and the tax havens (Luxembourg and Liechtenstein)

Not really. Americans have bigger houses, more cars and more gadgets. Europeans have longer vacations, more personal freedom, and guaranteed health care.

Although frankly, this discussion is not new. What it boils down to is that the differences between the top countries in the world is pretty small. What a person finds important personally is going to count for much more as to to which country is "best" for her than which country socres 0.00015 above another country on a ranking.

Originally Posted by Minarchist

It proves nothing. Life expectancy in the United States is held down by homicides, accidents, poor diet, and lack of exercise.

Not really. If diet and lack of excerzise was important, we'd see the countries with obesity rates close to the US have similar life expectancies. They don't. We'd also see the rising levels of obesity in other countries cause life expectancy to develop in the direction of the US. They don't.

If homicides and accidents were the cause, America would need to lose a number of 18-year olds each year roughly equal to the total american losses through WW2.

Its health care.

[The Homogenizer]

Originally Posted by ahigherway

I get the impression that you think a trash collector is unimportant.. Try keeping your trash at home for a few weeks and see how that goes.

Secondly,
a doctor or engineer should do their job because they like it, and believe in it. Not because they can get rich off it.
The thought of going to a doctor who's there because he wants your money, is pretty scary, if you think about it..


Peace,
brian

Try getting a trash collector to remove your appendix.

[Minarchist]

Originally Posted by hamellr

And you don't think that has anything to do with the decrease in public transportation options for those under/near the poverty line as budget cuts gut bus services across the nation?

In my locale, the center of poverty has totally switched quadrants of the city in the past 10-15 years, yet the bus company continues to cut lines in that same quadrant. How is anyone supposed to get to work to get off of Welfare? Sure... they can ride their bikes...

But then we have an entire segment of the population who thinks that bike riders are a mooch on society and are complaining about the amount of money being spent on bike infrastructure vs. filling in pot holes.

Wait.. What?! The average American used to go to job by bike and bus and you complain that today's poor can afford a car (and therefore not use a bus)? I'm confused.

Originally Posted by J746NEW

We don't have capitalism in this country.
Well, at least at the top anyhow.
What we have is Fascism at the top.

If me and a lot of other people decide to shun a local business, the owner will go bankrupt. That is capitalism and the markets at work.

Where is the scenario of capitalism at work and how can companies like JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Citi Bank, GE, EXON etc etc fail if they are being propped up by my tax dollars, or worse yet, are imbedded in my government writing rules and regulations that benefit themselves at the expense of the small business in this country?

What we have is Fascism.

I agree.

[Minarchist]

Originally Posted by Grim Reader

Not really. Americans have bigger houses, more cars and more gadgets. Europeans have longer vacations, more personal freedom, and guaranteed health care.


Not really. If diet and lack of excerzise was important, we'd see the countries with obesity rates close to the US have similar life expectancies. They don't. We'd also see the rising levels of obesity in other countries cause life expectancy to develop in the direction of the US. They don't.

If homicides and accidents were the cause, America would need to lose a number of 18-year olds each year roughly equal to the total american losses through WW2.

Its health care.

Source?


Read these:

Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study:
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study

Top Ten Myths of American Health Care:
http://www.pacificresearch.org/docLi..._Ten_Myths.pdf

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by ahigherway

The statistics you cite do not support capitalism. They only indicate the trend of consumption, which is what the US is based on. In fact, everytime you go to the store to make a purchase, a politician should be there to thank you in person, because if you don't spend, the system doesn't function.

But that is true of all economic systems.

Originally Posted by ahigherway

A state, if led by good morals, would do much more for its people than a free capitalist market whose god is the almighty dollar. Greed is as bad a king as any dictator.

What about a free socialist market? There are lots of those you know.

I don't think you (or the majority on this thread) have a clue what Capitalism is.

Originally Posted by ahigherway

Capitalism is an economic structure based on the goal of making capital.

Well, thanks for proving you don't have a clue.

Capitalism is not an "economic structure" (whatever that is).

Capitalism is only a Property Theory that states that Capital is best left in the hands of private individuals, because private individuals are more sensitive to the changing needs of consumers (the Market -- all consumers -- families, persons, businesses, industries, governments) and they respond faster than Socialism where government bureaucracy creates delays in making adjustments to the Market or Communism, where the people (being dumber than used toilet paper) possess great uncertainty and are slow to respond and adapt to the changing needs of the Market (Consumers -- all of them).

And contrary to what you might believe, all Capital is not "made." Labor, land (when used in production), machinery, equipment, tools, cash, credit, buildings, animals (when used in the means of production) etc etc etc are Capital.

Are you going to wear the same shirt from your day of birth to the time you die?

No?

Oh, please do tell why not?

You're going to need more shirts, and if you want more shirts, then it requires....

....(drum-roll please)....

....um, Capital -- someone has to grow the linen, cotton or flaxen, or herd sheep for wool, and then someone has to harvest it and they need tools, and it has to be shipped somewhere to be processed, and then spun into thread and ultimately into cloth and that requires labor and tools and it has to be distributed etc etc etc. As you can see, it takes lots of Capital to produce a shirt for you to wear (and I just barely scratched the surface).

Capitalism requires Capital; Socialism requires Capital; and Communism requires Capital.

I hope we are now clear on the concept.

Originally Posted by ahigherway

People say that under communism people aren't stimulated to produce, or to improve their products, or to do a good job. But this is obviously not true. If you like what you do, you will do it good whether you are paid a million dollars or one hundred.

Spoken like someone who dreams a lot, but has never visited, lived in or worked in a "Communist" (snicker) country.

I have. I lived in "communist" Romania and worked as military attache at US Embassy Mission Bucharesti; I observed Soviet nuclear weapons field operations in "communist" Hungary, "communist" Cheha, and "communist" Slovakia (formerly Czechoslovakia); lived in West Berlin and worked in "communist" East Berlin at the US Consulate Berlin (with frequent trips to Potsdam and Magdeburg).

None of those countries were communist; they were socialist (thus "communist" in quotes). The reason you "know" them to be "communist" is because your government said so, and the reason your government said so, is because FDR was a socialist. That is to say, it would be daft for a socialist to criticize a socialist.

Originally Posted by ahigherway

Why should one person who does his job well, be paid 100 times more than another who also does his job well?? Obviously, he shouldn't.

Says who, you?

You are a Capitalist. You own your own labor do you not? Do you not possess the means of production? Of course you do.

Originally Posted by ahigherway

I see you support the rich.

I didn't know it was a crime.

When you come down off of your pedestal, come round to 12th and Race. There's about a dozen "homeless" people (snicker) standing around. You can take them in an provide them with shelter, instead of taking my money and throwing it at them.

Handing out failing grades...

Mircea

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

Is there someone arguing that Capitalism doesn't work.

The very same people who claim Capitalism doesn't work also claim that Global Capitalism works.

Fascinating....

Mircea

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

Other than North Korea (Cuba is starting to alow some entrepreneurship) there aren't any countries that don't allow at least some private ownership to take place.

The reason Cuba does not permit private ownership, is due to the fact that when Cuba permitted private ownership, in short order, everything was owned by US Corporations (or the MAFIA).

Cuba did not benefit from the presence of US Corporations, because as is par for the course in Latin America, US Corporations do not pay any taxes.

The reason US Corporations do not pay taxes is either because they simply refuse to pay taxes, and they can do that, since they have the power of the US Military behind them, and also the US Government who will not hesitate to murder an head-of-State in cold-blood or overthrow the government (like Obama did two years ago) for attempting to tax US Corporations, and because they devalue their assets to avoid paying taxes.

An excellent example of that would be US Oil Companies in Mexico. They refused to pay taxes, and also devalued their assets, reporting a total net worth (for all US Oil Companies) of $8 Million.

In spite of the fact that the Mexican Supreme Court ordered the US Oil Companies to pay current and back taxes owed, and in spite of the fact that President Cardenas gave them nearly a year to pay their taxes, the US Oil Companies refused.

As a result, under international law, US law and Mexican law, President Cardenas legally and justly seized all US Oil Company assets for non-payment of taxes and contempt of court. That took place 1938-1939.

FDR considered invading Mexico, overthrowing the government and restoring the assets of the US Oil Companies, but with WW II just around the corner, he sided with military chiefs who were wary about tying up 3 army divisions, a marine division and a naval task force (in support of the marines and army) in order to that.

President Cardenas offered the US $24 Million in compensation, which was 3x the stated value of the assets as stated by US Oil Companies.

The US considered that to be an insult.

You had the same sad story in Cuba.

How is Castro (or any other Cuban leader) supposed to develop Cuba, if the US government refused to provide any development aid, and if US Corporations refuse to pay taxes?

Well, the US expects them to borrow money from US banks, the IMF etc etc etc, like the Dominican Republic did. And what happened when the Dominican Republic defaulted on his loan obligations to the US?

The US invaded the Dominican Republic, overthrew the government and extracted payment.

Castro, under international law, US law and Cuban law, legally and justly seized US corporate assets for non-payment of taxes, in the exact same way the IRS would seize your assets or the assets of a corporation who refused to pay taxes.

And for his efforts, Castro was labelled a "commie" and the US spent $Billions harassing Cuba and Castro and trying to overthrew Castro.

If you study countries, you will note that nearly all take a reactionary stance to US occupation, looting, raping, pillaging, torturing and murdering.

You can look at more than 3 dozen countries, where US Corporations went in, gained control of all major industry and natural resources, then refused to pay any taxes, and the US Government provides ZERO development aid (and no, the USAID is an intelligence gathering / money laundering / terrorist funding organization). The US overthrows the government, sets up a puppet-dictator, the people lose their freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly and nearly all other rights, and then are economically oppressed.

During the entire time, the US steals all of the resources, wealth and profits, and then sets up a secret police apparatus to arrest people for "dissenting" and then wrongfully imprisons them, tortures them and then murders them.

Once you get rid of the satanic US from your country, the only way to keep the US out is for the government to own all industry -- to become Socialist.

And you also have to get red-neck. Why? Because the US is constantly funneling money into your country in an attempt to overthrow the government and take over the country's wealth and resources again.

The US dumps money into opposition groups, arms them, provides them with intelligence etc etc etc. So you have to clamp down on rights to prevent that from happening.

You walk a very fine tight-rope and the goal is to balance everything so that you can eventually develop a stable Middle Class.

That is the greatest fear of the US regarding Iran's nuclear energy program. Once that is up and running, it will stabilize Iran's economy, expand the Middle Class and then stabilize the Middle Class, which will then shift to more democracy.

Once that happens, it would be almost impossible to overthrow the government and gain control of the country again.

Anyway, those countries that do not have private ownership are more often than not, trying to prevent being taken over by the US.

Dictatorially...

Mircea

Originally Posted by Minarchist

What about traffic fatalities and crime rate? Capitalism made cars safer, reduced traffic fatalities. Capitalism made goods so cheap, crime is not economical anymore.

Those are really bizarre comments, that are baseless and without merit.

Capitalism had nothing to do with it.

In the first place, safety features on cars are mandated by the government. That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Capitalism, Communism or Socialism.

It has everything to do with Command Economics, and in this instance, the Command Group happened to be the Government, who commanded that cars have certain safety features.

Had the Government not done so, it is possible that the [Free] Market may have demanded safety features on cars, and since the US auto industry is Capitalist, it could have responded rapidly to the demands of consumers wanting safety features.

Also, crime has nothing to do with economics or the economy, and rarely anything to do with money. Crime is motivated almost entirely by personal individual emotions, like envy, jealousy and occasionally greed.

Originally Posted by Minarchist

Well, of course the US is not a capitalist country.

Name the number of corporations, businesses or industries owned by the US government.

Capitalistically...

Mircea

Originally Posted by GregW

[font=Verdana]Capitalism is based on a free market....

No it is not.

Capitalism is merely a Property Theory, like Socialism and Communism suggesting who should control Capital (cash, credit, natural resources, labor, equipment, tools, machinery, raw/semi-finished and finished products and of course land -- when land is used as a means of production).

Capitalism, Socialism and Communism cannot function without Capital.

Capital has an inherent need to expand. Are you going to wear the same shoes from the time you are born to the time you die?

I think not.

If you want more than one pair of shoes in your life-time, then you need Capital, and it doesn't matter if you are Capitalist, Socialist, or Communist.

Capitalism need not operate in conjunction with the [Free] Market Economic System. Capitalism can also operate with the Command Economic System.

Those of you who do not understand that and insist upon remaining blissfully ignorant will ultimately end up being enslaved, at which time, I will laugh my ass off.

Here is a common fallacious argument based on a non-sequitur:

S/He is a Capitalist; therefore s/he desires Free Markets.

History proves exactly the opposite, and no you don't have to go back to the days of the Greco-Roman Empires or earlier, you can just look on the FTC's web-site right now, right this minute at their legal actions.

What is price-fixing?

That is Command Economics, not [Free] Market Economics.

The pinnacle of wealth would be Capitalism and Command Economics, where you own all of the Capital, and then you also set the prices of goods and services (just like the Soviet Union did).

Socialism is also based on the Free Market. Socialist Property Theory is compatible with [Free] Market Economic System, just as Communist Property Theory is also compatible with the [Free] Market Economic System (although it has never been attempted).

Yes, Capitalism is also compatible with Command Economics.

You people might want to read "Two Cheers for Capitalism" by Irving Kristol and "The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism" by Daniel Bell, both gurus of Neo-conservatism.

Question:

What do neo-cons, Capitalists, and Soviet-style Command Economics have in common?

Answer:

Continue to be willfully ignorant and you will find out soon enough...the hard way.

Economically...

Mircea

Originally Posted by mwruckman

I don't think private funding paid for a singlge mile of of such roads!

That's probably because you have never paid a single dime in taxes in your entire life.

Originally Posted by mwruckman

This is a SOCIALIST achievement.

No, it is a cooperative achievement.

You and four others are sitting around blowing a bowl and get the munchies. You want pizza. Now, all 5 of you can get in your cars and drive to the Pizza Palace and get pizza, or you can pool your money together and have one person go pick-up the pizza, so you don't waste gasoline and time, plus wear and tear on your car, risk getting pulled over by the cops, etc etc etc.

So, that's "SOCIALIST" right?

Originally Posted by mwruckman

So if we were really consistent with our belief in capitalsm we should rip up all these miles and miles of socialism that blot our landscape. Lets go back to the muddy dirt tracts that were good enough for the original J.P. Morgan.

That's a little extreme. I guess it never donned on you that a group of people could get together, pool their money and then appoint one person to act on their behalf in order to get a contract with an highway construction company to build the road.

They could also select a committee, instead of appointing one person.

How is that different than pooling your money with governmetn to act as the intermediary between your group and the private company that builds the roads?

Originally Posted by mwruckman

Just think how much money men like him would save in taxs if they didn't have to pay for all those darn roads!

They would pay no taxes, because they would have no income to tax, because there are no roads for people to get to their business.

Not seeing red....

Mircea

[MTAtech]

Jared Bernstein has a heartfelt lament about the priorities of the American right, and in particular the way it’s determined to slash taxes for the wealthy while slashing student aid.

Think of Pell grants as a ladder to climb over those steeper barriers. So the last thing you’d want to do is to cut rungs from that ladder. Yet that’s exactly what the House Republican budget, authored by Rep Paul Ryan, does. According to the White House, the budget changes “eligibility and funding under the Pell Grant formula so as to eliminate grants for 400,000 students and cut grants for more than 9 million others in 2013 alone.”
...
According to this OECD analysis, the US has essentially ceased making progress in terms of college attainment. The figure is a touch gnarly, but the blue (?—I’m color blind!) boxes show the tertiary, or college-level, attainment of 55-64 year olds in 2009, so people born between the mid-40s and the 50s. The light blue (??) triangles show the college attainment of the current generation of 25-34 year olds, so people born in the mid-70s through the mid-80s. This enables you to evaluate the progress made over a generation in college attainment across countries (let’s pause for some props to the OECD—they kill on this stuff).

And he gives us this chart:



Evident in the graph, and a key pull from the article:

Not only are the US attain levels now behind those of 12 other countries, but we’ve made no progress in a generation.

[Grim Reader]

Originally Posted by Minarchist

Source?

Common knowledge. Although I admit to generalizing significatly. European countries still have individual legislation on vacation time, maternity leave, etc. Whereas the size of houses tend to be influenced by the population density of a country, and how old its downtowns are. Apartments from the 18th century are normally much smaller than those from the 1990s.

Originally Posted by Minarchist

Read these:

Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study:
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study

Link does not work. From the title, it seems to have a problem explaining away all the other studies America ranks low on. Its not like the WHO one is particularily distincive.

Originally Posted by Minarchist

Top Ten Myths of American Health Care:
http://www.pacificresearch.org/docLi..._Ten_Myths.pdf

Its long, and I skimmed the two first chapters. Deliberate fraud, written to decieve people with poor critical reading skills.

The first red flag is when it deliberatly misrepresents the Lancet study. (You should read it, at least the conclusion).

It becomes clear that it it deliberatly deceptive when it starts focussing on cancer stats, rather than actual public health measurements. It tries to present the argument that "Americas health care spending is not over the top because there is value for money". Without adressing the rather basic issue of value for money, that everyone else pays far less and most get much better results.

Real health care economists have written real work about the American health care system. It makes for much better reading that something deliberatly written to con the stupid.

[Grim Reader]

Originally Posted by Minarchist

Read these:

Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study:
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study

Hey, now the link does work?

Anyway, much shorter than the other one, and it comes across as ignorant, but with some glints of knowledge, rather than deliberatly deceptive.

It starts out by stating that the problems of the US system stem from departures from free-market principles. Actually a legitimate line of reasoning although one with the weight of evidence against it. Economists from Adam Smith to Kenneth Arrow has pointed out how health care is unsuited to free market delivery, and all attempts to make it work have come out less successful than UHCs. However, it does point out the problem of externalities inherent in the system, which is a legitimate point. And has been since Adam Smith first pointed it out.

It goes on to state that sick people come to the USA for treatment and they have never heard of the opposite happening. This is rather an astonishing claim. It is as if they'd never heard that 15 people leave the US for treatment for everyone who arrive. Its one of the biggest rejections of a system by citizens voting with their feet ever seen.

Not actually knowing this in a discussion about US healthcare is pretty exceptional.

It states that life expectancy is a "lousy" measure of a health care system. I'll just note that they are here at odds with pretty much every health care economist and public health specialist ever. Its actually one of the gold standard measurements.

What is the authors health care credentials again? He is missing some "water is wet" fundamentals here.

Arguing that the US has 10 times the murder rate of places like the UK, the author clearly has not bothered to do the maths. To explain the difference in life span, a number of 18-year olds equal to the number of Americans killed over the entrie WW2 must be murdered every year. Or ten times the Viet nam losses. the difference in life span between the UK and the US is just over a year. There are 300 million people in the US, so that is a deficit of 300 million year. Everytime an 18-year old dies, that loses about 60 years of life, so the US would need half a million deaths per year for this explanation to make any sense.

I don't think thats realistic.

It also states that when you adjust for "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.

This is obviously wrong, but they may have come by it honestly. The claim dates back to a fradulent report by Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider, published by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. The authors simplified the study by using a regression that gave a very wrong result, and later admitted that they'd never intended for it to give a right one.

At the time this article was written though, the study may well not have been seen by any of the WSJ stats people that ripped it apart originally.

Basically, it lacks fundamental knowledge about health care.