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.
Where in the real world do we see pure unbridled capitalism result in a livable wage, good/safe schools for children and health care? If that were in fact the progression, the U.S. wouldn't have had a labor movement at all 100 years ago.
What I see instead is that before the U.S. instituted labor laws and regulations the workers were exploited -- receiving long hours, child labor and barely subsistence pay. The same is true in China today, the capitalists who own the factories live like the robber barons in the U.S. did but the workers live in near poverty.
Why is it that whenever capitalism is the topic, liberals act as if we are talking about "unbridled" capitalism, or some type of anarchist system? The capitalist system consists of rules, laws and regulations, which form the framework of a fair and equitable system, from which our free market system resides. It's called free, because it's free to operate within that regulated framework of laws.
The invisible hand is at work within that system. Any product or company that does not serve the needs of the people with quality products and services, will perish, unless the providers or manufacturers make the proper changes to compete. On the same note, any employer who treats his employees like crap, pays them crap, and gives them crap, will go out of business, and be left with crap.
Why is it that whenever capitalism is the topic, liberals act as if we are talking about "unbridled" capitalism, or some for of anarchist system? The capitalist system consists of rules, laws and regulations, which form the framework of a fair and equitable system, from which our free market system resides. It's called free, because it's free to operate within that regulated framework of laws.
The invisible hand is at work within that system. Any product or company that does not serve the needs of the people with quality products and services, will perish, unless the providers or manufacturers make the proper changes to compete.
What we have today though is the government interfering.
Bailing out corporations, favoring certain areas of the economy and favoring donors over financial sense, regulating private consumption, mandating social benefits, etc.
We are so far removed from "unbridled capitalism" which many speak of.
Fascism is when government tightly controls production.
Communism is when government owns production.
We're headed down this path with one or the other taking over.
See, I read what he wrote differently. He didn't say that he inherently has a problem with the hedge fund manager making more than the dishwasher. What he was talking about(IMHO) was the circumstances that most likely could have contributed to that hedge fund manager being a hedge fund manager, and the dishwasher being a dishwasher....and how inequality in society can usually start with just your unfortunate(or fortunate) place on the starting line of life. I believe your injected you personal bias into what that person wrote. But, that's expected it seems on this site.
No, his personal bias was injected by claiming that the hedge fund manager only has to work hard - no talent, no intelligence. That is ridiculous.
The only way to give everyone the same starting line is to make everyone dirt poor. I hope you people realize that.
Why is it that whenever capitalism is the topic, liberals act as if we are talking about "unbridled" capitalism, or some type of anarchist system? The capitalist system consists of rules, laws and regulations, which form the framework of a fair and equitable system, from which our free market system resides. It's called free, because it's free to operate within that regulated framework of laws.
The invisible hand is at work within that system. Any product or company that does not serve the needs of the people with quality products and services, will perish, unless the providers or manufacturers make the proper changes to compete. On the same note, any employer who treats his employees like crap, pays them crap, and gives them crap, will go out of business, and be left with crap.
It's because capitalism in this country started out that way. Then, progressive policies were put in place, those regulations/laws/rules of which you spoke of. Liberals are definite advocates of this type of capitalism. The poster you replied to was speaking of its history, and then correlated it to what China is experiencing right now....in their beginning stages of implementing a more "free market" society.
01-22-2013, 09:21 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tb4000
I swear the title of this thread sounds like something Stephen Colbert would say.
Indeed it does.
It really comes down to two things. Equality under the law and equality of opportunity (note to RWNJs - opportunity is not the same thing as outcome).
The first of those should be pretty easy. We just get rid of discriminatory laws and pass laws to ensure that all people are treated equal, and then we make sure that the laws are enforced equally (e.g. the "war on drugs" that targets minorities overwhelmingly even though white people are almost as likely to be using illegal drugs). Even this can't get done because the right wing stands in lockstep opposition to equality under the law and routinely attempts to pass (and sometimes succeeds at passing) discriminatory legislation.
The second is much harder to fix. It's very tough to make sure that a poor kid in the inner city has the same opportunity as a middle class kid in the suburbs. It's very hard to make sure that a kid in rural America actually gets a proper education and doesn't have calculus omitted or biology replaced by creationist nonsense. Few would notice or care unless it becomes official policy and there's a rational person around to object to it.
No, his personal bias was injected by claiming that the hedge fund manager only has to work hard - no talent, no intelligence. That is ridiculous.
The only way to give everyone the same starting line is to make everyone dirt poor. I hope you people realize that.
No, you're definitely projecting a certain bias which i'm sure you do for most of your rants against those darn "liberals". He said the hedge fund manager and the dishwasher both work hard, but that the hedge fund manager probably had a bit of a head start with his birth circumstances, that much is true. For you to then think that he's talking about everyone starting out poor....well, that's you projecting your bias.
It's because capitalism in this country started out that way. Then, progressive policies were put in place, those regulations/laws/rules of which you spoke of. Liberals are definite advocates of this type of capitalism. The poster you replied to was speaking of its history, and then correlated it to what China is experiencing right now....in their beginning stages of implementing a more "free market" society.
Banning 32oz sodas ?
Banning Happy Meal toys ?
Banning trans fats for frying ?
Government has stepped over here and is now regulating social changes through mandates on companies.
That is not regulating capitalism.
Banning 32oz sodas ?
Banning Happy Meal toys ?
Banning trans fats for frying ?
Government has stepped over here and is now regulating social changes through mandates on companies.
That is not regulating capitalism.
So, you don't think that folks who over-imbibe in those items(and take a look around, there are legions of over-imbibers), later on become a burden on the backs of taxpayers? It's much more economical to place bans on those types of things. We've got to think outside of the box.
No, you're definitely projecting a certain bias which i'm sure you do for most of your rants against those darn "liberals".
Typical. Negative criticism MUST mean exactly that^
Quote:
Originally Posted by busterkeaton
He said the hedge fund manager and the dishwasher both work hard, but that the hedge fund manager probably had a bit of a head start with his birth circumstances, that much is true.
No, this is fallacious argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by busterkeaton
For you to then think that he's talking about everyone starting out poor....well, that's you projecting your bias.
Actually no, I was referencing your statement about starting lines. If everyone has the same economic opportunity, everyone must begin at the same economic starting line.
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.
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.
