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.
Capitalism is creative destruction. The government is only good at keeping corpses alive.
Thank gawd there is some competition and and shifting markets, so that we don't have the same companies doing exactly the the same thing as 50 years ago... That doesn't support your thesis, though. The mega corp still rules, they just have a new name and new product.
The purpose of the government is (or should be) to regulate and control the playing field for optimal "performance"... which is the well being of the country's citizens. Of which a large part, but certainly not all is prosperity. This does not happen "naturally", unfortunately. It would be a lot simpler if it did.
Thank gawd there is some competition and and shifting markets, so that we don't have the same companies doing exactly the the same thing as 50 years ago... That doesn't support your thesis, though. The mega corp still rules, they just have a new name and new product.
The purpose of the government is (or should be) to regulate and control the playing field for optimal "performance"... which is the well being of the country's citizens. Of which a large part, but certainly not all is prosperity. This does not happen "naturally", unfortunately. It would be a lot simpler if it did.
Can I have a list of companies that you think aren’t faced with ruthless competition?
I just love how the failing country of the week is where we'll end up if we do anything the poster happens to dislike. Doesn't matter if it makes the slightest bit of political or economic sense... If we raise vehicle fuel economy standards, we'll up just like Venezuela! If we let people choose non-binary gender assignment on driver's licenses, will end up just like Venezuela! But the catch-all, of course, is if we do anything to limit capitalism... we'll end up just like Venezuela!
Venezuela is a complex situation. Arguing against socialism on the basis of Venezuela is akin to arguing against Christianity because that was professed and practiced by the Posse Comitatis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_..._(organization)
FYI: decades ago, the leaders of the Wisconsin chapter were interviewed on the Phil Donahue show, and they used Christianity to justify their white supremacist views. That's another story . . .
Venezuela definitely has socialism as a predominant influence in its governmental policies, but the picture is tainted by government corruption as well. Any economic system can be corrupted by "bad players" -- individuals; capitalism is rife with corrupt individuals, both in and outside of government.
Why are the government and people of Venezuela struggling? The country's main source of income was oil, and the price of oil plummeted in 2014. Compounding this problem is the severe economic embargo that the U.S. has placed on Venezuela. It has one sole intention -- regime change.
The U.S. wants to topple Maduro and replace him with a friendly "puppet leader", so that U.S. oil companies can have access to Venezuela's oil.
Venezuela is a complex situation. Arguing against socialism on the basis of Venezuela is akin to arguing against Christianity...
Yep. Venezuela is in deep weeds for several reasons, as you note... not because it's "sociaist." Or even Socialist. And its problems in no way mirror or foreshadow the US's.
But, gosh it makes a lovely, lilting code-word. VeneZWAY-LA! Boo! As in boo-gey man. And it fits so nicely in those bottom-screen crawls, too.
As an individual, I could save up some money, start my own hardware business and compete with Franks hardware across town. With hardware chains like Lowes and Home Depot, you will not be able to compete. Most of the one owner hardware stores are all gone in this nation.
This is a good thing.
Lowe's, Home Depot, Menard's, True Value, Tractor Supply, Harbor Freight, Ace Hardware, Northern Tool, and other large chain hardware stores have much more efficient logistics. They have professional management with everything that entails. End customers benefit by having a wide range of products available at lower price points.
If Frank of your hypothetical Frank's Hardware still wants to be in the hardware business, he can purchase shares in Home Depot and Lowe's. He no longer has the headache of actually running a store, yet he profits from owning a hardware business.
Moreover, sometimes I can buy that stud finder or reciprocating saw even less expensively than Home or Lowe's if I choose an online merchant with no physical storefront.
Home Depot's strategy on some items has been to stock a (relatively) more profitable (somewhat) higher end model in the store, but offer a (somewhat) less expensive (relatively) less profitable competitive item only available online at www.homedepot.com including free shipping to the store. This way, Home Depot captures the customer who wants to take possession of the item today and is willing to pay a slightly higher price for that convenience while still capturing the customer who is willing to wait a day or two for a slightly lower price point tool. I've noticed this on things such as digital multimeters, infrared thermometers, dust separators and the like, for example. Early on, Home Depot used to have one price for LED lightbulbs if I bought them online for instore pickup vs. buy them in the store - and this is the same exact SKU I'm talking about. I'd find the item in the store, and it would be, say, $14.99 whereas if I used my smartphone to go to home depot's website, I could purchase the exact same thing for $12.99. The. Exact. Same. Thing. They've retreated from that differential pricing strategy because savvy shoppers figured it out. So now they offer, say, Cree LED bulbs for $14.99 in the store and FEIT LED bulbs online only (for pickup in the store tomorrow) for $12.99.
There is no way Frank of Frank's Hardware can compete on price or availability. Some of Frank's peers do compete - but on service and location. A knowledgeable Hardware Man is worth his weight in gold. I used to work for one when I was 16. It was absolutely amazing & astonishing - customers would come in with some barely recognizable, rusted piece of metal asking for a part to replace or repair it - it might have last been manufactured before WWII. He'd take out his reading glasses and look at it, and comment, "Wow. I haven't seen one of these since 1964. This is a XXX, and that company went out of business a long time ago. But few people know it can be fixed using a repair part from a YYYY together with a ZZZZ and cutting a notch at the back... I have what you need, let me go find it in the back..."
Sadly, that approach has gone away for the most part. But we are better off nonetheless. All of this is good. It helps by allocating capital to its best use, where best is selected by end customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J746NEW
Unless your a billionaire to begin with, todays capitalism is a rich mans game.
Just the opposite.
Because of today's capitalism, anyone one of us can participate in the economic gains of our economy (and many countries around the world) by simply purchasing stock - either directly in specific companies (e.g., Home Depot, Boeing, etc) or by purchasing into a diversified market basket of stocks (e.g., VTI, ITOT, SPY and the like). We can purchase individual corporate bonds or a market basket of diversified bonds.
Because of today's capitalism, public sector employees across the country have access to generous (even gold-plated) pensions and Cadillac health care - because employee and taxpayer contributions have been invested in the capitalistic economy at large.
Because of the invention of capitalism, more human beings have been raised out of bone-crushing abject poverty around the globe than because of any other force yet invented by mankind. Indeed, Capitalism is arguably the greatest invention of modern mankind - with the possible exception of antibiotics, which in turn have been commercialized and are widely available because of capitalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J746NEW
And because these big corporations have such deep pockets, they are able to own the politicians and write policies that make the problem even worse. People cry about regulations and government intervention in the markets, it is the corporations writing the bills and want the govt to intervene on their behalf.
I have a very good friend with a heart of gold. She, too, thinks "corporation" is a 4 letter word. Whenever she uses the word "corporation," she always precedes it with either "big" or "evil" -- or both. She's a sweetheart, and the world is a better place because she's on the planet - but her brain just isn't wired for analytical if-then rational, logical thought. Trying to have a rational discussion with her -regardless of the topic - just goes nowhere. I might as well be trying to explain Christoffel symbols or Tensor Calculus or Network Queuing Theory or the nuances of Argentine Tango to her.
You are correct on your observation that corporations participate in writing the bills and want the government to intervene on their behalf. The same is true of non-corporate special interests - for example, the Sierra Club, the public sector unions, private sector unions, municipal governments, The NRA, The Manufacturer's Alliance, the American Tomato Grower's Association, etc etc etc -- across essentially all sectors of the economy. Even foreign governments are in the mix - both surreptitiously and in plain sight. Russia is not alone; China funnels money to individual people in the USA (typically Chinese nationals) who in turn funnel it to donation aggregators who in turn funnel it to PACs and SuperPACs and ultimately into the campaign coffers of individual candidates who are likely to be more sympathetic to Chinese interests. Both US Senators Barbara Boxer, D-CA and Diane Feinstein, D-CA have been substantial beneficiaries of their largess.
But it goes both directions.
I needed to call Barbara Boxer on a specific piece of legislation that would sometime be voted upon. Her staff, as usual, made it clear that if I wanted my company's views heard, I must first donate $1,000 to her re-election campaign. Without a donation, I was free to send an email to a general email box that was ignored and never read. If I wanted to register my views with a live human being, that was a minimum $1,000 voluntary donation (and it would likely still be ignored). If I wanted to register my views with a more senior member of her staff, that might cost me $5,000 or $10,000. I wouldn't be able to talk to her directly, of course. But there was a $25,000 per plate fundraiser in a couple months where I might be able to sit in the back of the banquet hall and listen to the good senator speak. No, I couldn't sit at her table. But there is a more exclusive $100,000 per plate fundraiser in 6 months...
The reality is legislation, regulations that implement legislation, and a variety of actions by government mandarins, bureaucrats and administrators is an "economic good" just like milk and eggs and reciprocating saws in that it responds to the laws of supply and demand.
Moreover, politicians such as the good Senator Boxer, when they see their re-election campaign coffers dwindle, know what to do. They announce publicly they plan to "hold hearings" on something-or-other. This is a signal to everyone who has an opinion that it is time to open their checkbooks. It really doesn't matter what that something-or-other is: it could be gasoline prices, air pollution, toxic waste, homelessness, childhood nutrition, manufacturing competitiveness, family leave, etc etc etc -- The idea of holding hearings is to extort money, er, give representative from interested parties on all sides of an issue, an opportunity to register their views on the matter. At a mere price starting at an affordable $1,000. Of course, if a more senior representative is desired to listen to the views, that's a bit extra...
It depends on their level of education. If they are 18, they should head for any European country that offers a free university education. Once they have that out of the way, they can look around for their best options. Obviously, there is no "one size fits all" for everyone. In science, the US no longer supports basic research, so Europe and Asia are the best options. For farming, South America offers the best combo of low land prices and high productivity, though Australia and New Zealand are options depending on what you want to farm. For business, a bilingual or trilingual American can make a bundle as a trade factor. Once they get out of the US, their options for a good life expand greatly.
It depends on their level of education. If they are 18, they should head for any European country that offers a free university education. Once they have that out of the way, they can look around for their best options. Obviously, there is no "one size fits all" for everyone.
You are promoting the idea that US 18yos are so exceptional that any country would be glad to have them aboard and give them a student visa. This is simply not true.
My oldest was only put on the list for Irish citizenship long after his degree and several years working for an international firm. They rejected his third-year request to finish university there (from Cal Poly).
My youngest was granted a Canadian student visa without work privileges only after a lengthy process; she returned to the US and is now returning to a different Canadian school, so a renewal - with limited work privileges this time - was easy... but we also have some slightly distinguished Canadian family as points.
The idea that your average 18yo can just jump on over and go to school in France or Canada or Japan is... naive, I think.
I took the time to read this thread from beginning to end. Some of the discussion has been irrelevant, like the foray into climate change. One person even seems to believe that capitalism is only 150 years old. Another seems to think that capital is accumulated by working for it.
On a personal level, capitalism has been very good to me. I own a home that is nicer than most. I have a retirement income that meets my needs with some left over. I worked for some of it, inherited some of it, and took advantage of idiots for some of it. I doubled my retirement account between 2007 and 2009 because I saw the crash coming and raked in a bunch of other people's money. I ended up (barely) in about the top 20%. As long as that lovely socialist Medicare survives, I'll do fine. If I end up having to foot the bill for my own medical services, I'll die a pauper.
On a higher level, wealth tempts people to megalomania. Historically, the aristocracy controlled vast wealth to the detriment of the people. They believed they were naturally superior to the peons, and were not subject to the rule of law. You see the same creeping insanity among wealthy people today. Nothing has changed. In the 18th and 19th centuries we killed, deposed or ruined the aristocracies. It remains to be seen if they have learned their lesson.
One interesting example in history is Andrew Carnegie. He determined that nobody should be that rich, so he spent his money to the benefit of society. I grew up reading books from a Carnegie library, and have performed on stage at Carnegie Hall. His example is being followed by vastly wealthy people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, who are working to disperse their fortunes where they will benefit society. Even Jeff Bezos is spending a couple billion a year in an effort to give us access to outer space. I very much doubt he expects to ever recoup that money. He is investing in the future of us all.
It's interesting to me that those notable capitalists all started from very little. They remember what being broke means. Buffett has explained how pernicious inherited wealth is, and plans to leave his kids a modest grubstake. This is in contrast to the malignancy of inherited wealth. Children raised in privilege grow to expect that it is the natural order of things, due to their own innate superiority. It takes exceptional discipline and rectitude to resist that descent into arrogance and moral decay. Many do not have that discipline, so it remains for society to impose that discipline from without.
The third branch of capitalism is corporate capitalism. A corporation is a fictitious individual who is immune from imprisonment and shields its owners from tort liability. Almost all wealthy individuals take advantage of multiple corporate shields, so if one of their corporations declares bankruptcy, the majority of their assets will be unaffected. Sometimes wealthy owners use the corporate shield to defraud workers, like when Peabody Coal spun off the pension fund to a separate corporation, using inflated asset values and a little bribery to get the sale past regulators. The pension went broke, so Congress was faced with funding the Peabody retirement fund. The corporation dumped the liability on congress and walked away with the money. The 20th century was full of this kind of corporate chicanery.
The verdict on capitalism is a mixed bag, depending on what kind of capitalism you are talking about.
Without capitalism, millions of elderly would be living in poverty.
Without capitalism, transformative businesses would never have gotten off the ground.
Without capitalism, the aristocracy would have a much more difficult time re-establishing itself.
Without capitalism, corporations would not be able to dump millions of people on the government safety net.
You are promoting the idea that US 18yos are so exceptional that any country would be glad to have them aboard and give them a student visa. This is simply not true.
My oldest was only put on the list for Irish citizenship long after his degree and several years working for an international firm. They rejected his third-year request to finish university there (from Cal Poly).
My youngest was granted a Canadian student visa without work privileges only after a lengthy process; she returned to the US and is now returning to a different Canadian school, so a renewal - with limited work privileges this time - was easy... but we also have some slightly distinguished Canadian family as points.
The idea that your average 18yo can just jump on over and go to school in France or Canada or Japan is... naive, I think.
Your average 18 year old anybody is screwed. Mediocrity is its own reward. However, the daughter of a friend graduated from Le Sorbonne for the total cost of high school French and a plane ticket, plus about $200/year in tuition.
...Because of the invention of capitalism, more human beings have been raised out of bone-crushing abject poverty around the globe than because of any other force yet invented by mankind. Indeed, Capitalism is arguably the greatest invention of modern mankind - with the possible exception of antibiotics, which in turn have been commercialized and are widely available because of capitalism.
You made some good points, but then went off the rails with that one.
It was science, invention, and industrialization that lifted people out of poverty. Capitalism is the default economic system, and has been around for millennia.
As Marx warned in the 1800s, industrialization would have caused capitalism to self destructed if it hadn't been heavily regulated and laws/policies put in place to control it.
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.
That doesn't support your thesis, though. The mega corp still rules, they just have a new name and new product. 
