Capitalism Isnt The Problem

[Traktion]

Wonderpup, there are two points which are very important:

1) The state doesn't have "extra" memory either or they would know that bailing out failing businesses is still a bad idea. They are just a bunch of people making (often poor) decisions.

2) People do have memories, but they need to learn from their mistakes. If you keep clearing up after people's foolish behaviour, they will keep being foolish. Offspring may not take the advice from their elders, but then they only have themselves to blame.

There is no utopian state which will always make the right decisions. No matter how hard they try to grip, try to control, they will still inevitably fail, often taking our liberties away in the process. Accepting this is the first step towards enlightenment - all individuals need to take responsibility for their actions and the consequences of them.

There is no perfect state or government; the world is imperfect so why keep fighting it?

IMO, a government which aims to be as small as possible (and always finding areas to reduce influence), well distributed (evenly around the country to deal with issues important to that region) would be the best compromise. A centralised, ever expanding, ever more controlling state is surely not the direction we want to head in?

[blue skies]

don't give me that one. capitalism is based on free markets and property rights.

the simple existence of trade does not capitalism make. The romans had trade but not capitalism.

give me one example of free markets existing without the presence of a state in the last 1000 years.

Prostitution

[winkie]

Wonderpup, there are two points which are very important:

1) The state doesn't have "extra" memory either or they would know that bailing out failing businesses is still a bad idea. They are just a bunch of people making (often poor) decisions.

2) People do have memories, but they need to learn from their mistakes. If you keep clearing up after people's foolish behaviour, they will keep being foolish. Offspring may not take the advice from their elders, but then they only have themselves to blame.

There is no utopian state which will always make the right decisions. No matter how hard they try to grip, try to control, they will still inevitably fail, often taking our liberties away in the process. Accepting this is the first step towards enlightenment - all individuals need to take responsibility for their actions and the consequences of them.

There is no perfect state or government; the world is imperfect so why keep fighting it?

IMO, a government which aims to be as small as possible (and always finding areas to reduce influence), well distributed (evenly around the country to deal with issues important to that region) would be the best compromise. A centralised, ever expanding, ever more controlling state is surely not the direction we want to head in?

I have a affinity with your post.

[bendy]

I don't claim it to be any such thing.

Yes, it did.

Failure.

Desitution.

Misery.

And hence, learning and progress. But really, all irrelevent, as my position on this is moral. If you take a risk and lose, you lose. If I take a risk and lose, I lose. If you are stuck ask me for help. If I am stuck, I might ask you for help. I owe you nothing, you owe me nothing unl;ess we agree - and this goes for everyone on earth. nothing else makes sense morally.

bang on.

[1929crash]

bang on.

Capitalism is the problem!

[stormymonday_2011]

Steve, there is no way to have the thing called the state without the ability to limit population movement etc etc

As those abilities are modern, so is the state modern.

Maurading bastards are eternal, states are not. There wer ecity states in the distant past, but the idea of the vastly expanded geographical dominance and tribute is brand spanking new.

The Roman Empire was way more than just a city state. Indeed, from the time of Hadrian emperors spent very liitle time in Rome itself. It had a complex bureacracy, a state run monetary system, an empire wide system of taxation, a common language for administration, a universal legal system and a professional army.

As for not controlling population movements why do you think Hadrian built so many walls or Diocletian legislated that men should be tied to their trades?

You seem to be arguing that only nation states can be states (ie built around single national or ethnic identities) which seems a bit of a dubious distinction particularly as some modern nation states (eg Yugoslavia) are even more transitory than the barbarian and feudal kingdoms which they have supposedly replaced.

Edited January 1, 2010 by whatamisery

[Authoritarian]

Wonderpup, there are two points which are very important:

1) The state doesn't have "extra" memory either or they would know that bailing out failing businesses is still a bad idea. They are just a bunch of people making (often poor) decisions.

2) People do have memories, but they need to learn from their mistakes. If you keep clearing up after people's foolish behaviour, they will keep being foolish. Offspring may not take the advice from their elders, but then they only have themselves to blame.

There is no utopian state which will always make the right decisions. No matter how hard they try to grip, try to control, they will still inevitably fail, often taking our liberties away in the process. Accepting this is the first step towards enlightenment - all individuals need to take responsibility for their actions and the consequences of them.

There is no perfect state or government; the world is imperfect so why keep fighting it?

IMO, a government which aims to be as small as possible (and always finding areas to reduce influence), well distributed (evenly around the country to deal with issues important to that region) would be the best compromise. A centralised, ever expanding, ever more controlling state is surely not the direction we want to head in?

The state is insulated from the bad decisions that it makes so it never needs a learning curve. In the free market if a company messes up then they either learn v.quickly from their mistakes or they go bust. A state carries no such risk, if a spending programme doesn't go to plan they don't notice because they can over ride the financial consequences and just tax some more.

The state activities need to be integrated into the free market so that there's an underlying mechanism that punishes it when it makes bad spendind decisions. Without this all the conjecture in the world is meanless because the state is all powerful and answers to nobody. The state is lost at a sea of bad fiscal policy and constant infringement of personal liberty, it could be reformed so that it wasn't so consistently corrupt and badly managed.

Edited January 1, 2010 by chefdave

[wonderpup]

Wonderpup, there are two points which are very important:

1) The state doesn't have "extra" memory either or they would know that bailing out failing businesses is still a bad idea. They are just a bunch of people making (often poor) decisions.

2) People do have memories, but they need to learn from their mistakes. If you keep clearing up after people's foolish behaviour, they will keep being foolish. Offspring may not take the advice from their elders, but then they only have themselves to blame.

There is no utopian state which will always make the right decisions. No matter how hard they try to grip, try to control, they will still inevitably fail, often taking our liberties away in the process. Accepting this is the first step towards enlightenment - all individuals need to take responsibility for their actions and the consequences of them.

There is no perfect state or government; the world is imperfect so why keep fighting it?

IMO, a government which aims to be as small as possible (and always finding areas to reduce influence), well distributed (evenly around the country to deal with issues important to that region) would be the best compromise. A centralised, ever expanding, ever more controlling state is surely not the direction we want to head in?

My problem is that feedback is presented as the holy grail of stability- the notion being that if the state would just stop interfering with the 'natural' feedback mechanisms of the free market an equilibrium would occur. This is the core argument for an unregualted capitalism-that it is self stabalising.

But we all know that- in reality, the place we are obliged to live- human beings exhibit a remarkable tendency to forget the lessons of the past and convice themselves that 'It's different this time.

So the claim that an unregulated free market leads to stability is simply wrong, since such a system does not address the human tendency toward irrational exuberance that lies at the root of all bubbles. Two generations after the great depression- within living memory- most of the rules put in place to prevent another had been repealed.

What neither you nor Injun seem able to address is the problem that your feedback mechanism has no way to propagate it's impact to succeeding generations- which means it will not lead to stability, but to an endless cycle of booms and busts- the opposite of what it is supposed to do.

So if your unregulated free market will not prevent an endless cycle of booms and busts, will not lead to stability- why do you recommend it?

[stormymonday_2011]

The state is insulated from the bad decisions that it makes so it never needs a learning curve. In the free market if a company messes up then they either learn v.quickly from their mistakes or they go bust. A state carries no such risk, if a spending programme doesn't go to plan they don't notice because they can over ride the financial consequences and just tax some more.

The state activities need to be integrated into the free market so that there's an underlying mechanism that punishes it when it makes bad spendind decisions. Without this all the conjecture in the world is meanless because the state is all powerful and answers to nobody. The state is lost at a sea of bad fiscal policy and constant infringement of personal liberty, it could be reformed so that it wasn't so consistently corrupt and badly managed.

Can you have true liberty all the time that you allow corporate personhood ?

Companies may be more responsive to certain market stimuli than nations states but over the years the distinctions between the two have become increasingly blurred. The recent round of bailouts of financial institutions has shown how corporate business has come to dominate the institutions of government and are now using the tax system to support themselves. I find it significant that people who work for the CIA describe their employer as the 'Company'. This tells you exactly how they think the world is run.

This is why all these utopian libertarian pipe dreams of small government are never going to come to pass. What the point of breaking up the bureacracy of the nation state when you leave other equally unresponsive, undemocratic, impersonal corporate entities in existence. Do people really think institutions such as the multi national oil companies have any more interest in personal liberty than HMG . When war was planned against Iraq who do you think whose interests were uppermost in the politicians minds ? It certainly was not the British voter or taxpayer. In fact the war was run by and for western free market capitalism. The 'national interest' of the British state was just the means by which it was justified, organised and paid.

In fact if you examine the history of the rise of supposedly free market , modern banking and the joint stock company it almost exactly coincides with the creation of the modern nation state. Modern capitalism and the nation state have been inextricably linked since their creation not mortal enemies as some suppose.

.

Edited January 1, 2010 by whatamisery

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

Capitalism is the problem!

no its government and the cronies

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

In fact if you examine the history of the rise of supposedly free market , modern banking and the joint stock company it almost exactly coincides with the creation of the modern nation state. Modern capitalism and the nation state have been inextricably linked since their creation not mortal enemies as some suppose.

America once they got rid of the brits

and before the bankers regained control

[SMAC67]

Recommended reading, The Bully State by Brian Monteith. In essence the nanny state has been replaced. The bully state is not content to allow people to enjoy their hard fought liberties while pointing out the choices it would prefer us to make. Today the state makes increasing lenghts to enter our private domain. Our homes are no longer our castles as the state seeks to dictate our behaviour with intimidation and threats, backed up by severe penalties, the threat of a criminal record, or the loss of one's livelihood.

One for Injin me thinks!

[Authoritarian]

Can you have true liberty all the time that you allow corporate personhood ?

Companies may be more responsive to certain market stimuli than nations states but over the years the distinctions between the two have become increasingly blurred. The recent round of bailouts of financial institutions has shown how corporate business has come to dominate the institutions of government and are now using the tax system to support themselves. I find it significant that people who work for the CIA describe their employer as the 'Company'. This tells you exactly how they think the world is run.

This is why all these utopian libertarian pipe dreams of small government are never going to come to pass. What the point of breaking up the bureacracy of the nation state when you leave other equally unresponsive, undemocratic, impersonal corporate entities in existence. Do people really think institutions such as the multi national oil companies have any more interest in personal liberty than HMG . When war was planned against Iraq who do you think whose interests were uppermost in the politicians minds ? It certainly was not the British voter or taxpayer. In fact the war was run by and for western free market capitalism. The 'national interest' of the British state was just the means by which it was justified, organised and paid.

In fact if you examine the history of the rise of supposedly free market , modern banking and the joint stock company it almost exactly coincides with the creation of the modern nation state. Modern capitalism and the nation state have been inextricably linked since their creation not mortal enemies as some suppose.

Over the years the distinctions between gov'ts and companies has been blurred but thats not the fault of the market, its because governments have too much power so they're able to legitmately usurp the efforts of the working population and then hand over the proceeds to their corporate chums. So now your not only left with a vast bureacracy to support but all the hangers on that supposedly exist in the 'private' sector too.

The state has worked its way so inexorably into peoples' lives that we're beginning to think that any alternative is impossible. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING is being regulated and subject to state scrutiny, from helping out at the local school a couple of hours a week, to deciding whether we're allowed to dance or smoke in pubs to the purchase of beer or cigarettes which is increasingly being clamped down upon.

I don't see how anything that now currently passes for government has any beneficial impact upon the lives of the population, but a way of sorting out the rotting core is to give government a limited budget that only increases when they spend public money correctly. Do something stupid that ruins peoples' live and the impact will be to lower the tax take as productivity dips, gov't needs to learn that they have boundaries and their actions will have negative consequences for them too.

I put most of the blame on the fiscal policies of the state but there's a mental aspect to all this too, particularly with the rise of green politics. We need to shift our focus towards wealth creation and even redistribution (but not in a socialist way) but we're stuck in a trap of ever increasing wealth gained through the housing market and limiting our ambitions by worrying about polar bears and making sure the sky doesn't get ill. Its all f*cked up.

Edited January 1, 2010 by chefdave

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

Over the years the distinctions between gov'ts and companies has been blurred but thats not the fault of the market, its because governments have too much power so they're able to legitmately usurp the efforts of the working population and then hand over the proceeds to their corporate chums. So now your not only left with a vast bureacracy to support but all the hangers on that supposedly exist in the 'private' sector too.

The state has worked its way so inexorably into peoples' lives that we're beginning to think that any alternative is impossible. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING is being regulated and subject to state scrutiny, from helping out at the local school a couple of hours a week, to deciding whether we're allowed to dance or smoke in pubs to the purchase of beer or cigarettes which is increasingly being clamped down upon.

yep

and some of those voters scepticus was so concerned about

link

“Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism.” - Ron Paul

We haven’t had true capitalism since 1913. We live in a corporate fascist state dominated by the military industrial complex, the financial banking complex, and now the healthcare industry complex. It is fascinating that the health industry has spent $396 billion in 2009 on lobbying and the financial industry $334 billion while Congressmen debate the future of both industries. These industries surprisingly have received a windfall in the legislation that has been put forth by Congress. The system is so corrupt and rotting from within that elections will never result in necessary reform. Corporations are spending $3 billion per year to bribe (lobby) your elected officials. Whose interest do you think Congress is looking out for?

[scepticus]

America once they got rid of the brits

and before the bankers regained control

the history of the USA post independance is one of increasing federalism and an increase in the trappings of statehood. They quickly realised that their young nation would be gobbled up by the british, spanish and french unless they stood together. Their trade in europe was threatened by the Barbary pirates.

for sure there was a conflict in america over this path but the 'statist' camp won out over the opposition by the mid 19th century.

[SMAC67]

I put most of the blame on the fiscal policies of the state but there's a mental aspect to all this too, particularly with the rise of green politics. We need to shift our focus towards wealth creation and even redistribution (but not in a socialist way) but we're stuck in a trap of ever increasing wealth gained through the housing market and limiting our ambitions by worrying about polar bears and making sure the sky doesn't get ill. Its all f*cked up.

I know it's not your fault that you are not particularly well educated or capable of deductive reasoning, or even simple linear thought but you are actually serious when you blame "polar bears" for our problems. I mean to say, "WTF", the problem is that the planet is overpopulated by people like you, YOU are the problem.................now have a think about it before making anymore fallacious comments.

p.s. I'll give you a clue, the planet IS the economy!!! Wow, hello there, you live on planet earth, no planet, no life!!!!!!

[Authoritarian]

I know it's not your fault that you are not particularly well educated or capable of deductive reasoning, or even simple linear thought but you are actually serious when you blame "polar bears" for our problems. I mean to say, "WTF", the problem is that the planet is overpopulated by people like you, YOU are the problem.................now have a think about it before making anymore fallacious comments.

p.s. I'll give you a clue, the planet IS the economy!!! Wow, hello there, you live on planet earth, no planet, no life!!!!!!

I think you need to have a nice long lie down with a wet flanel over your brow.

If you're calling me stupid for not believing everything the environmentalists tell is going to happen if we don't mend our evil consumer driven ways then I'm quite happy with that label. If thats not what you're saying then I apologise, but I can't make much sense from your indecipherable ranting.

[Cogs]

These people are sounding increasingly like the Politburo, "the solution to the problems we have created with our ludicrous economic philosophy is more of the same only moreso". Given the manifest failure of the markets across the globe in the last few years it seems bizarre to claim they should have further free reign to mismanage something else. But this isn't about evidence is it, its about a religion. God is dead and nobody wants to admit it. I'm sure "Mish" will be keeping a beady eye on the tractor production statistics to support whatever silly five year plan the invisible hand of the market commands him to support and declaring that communism was never really proper communism but rather a degenerate form doubtless hampered by the imperialists. That is, er, capitalism hampered by democratically elected governments, sorry its so easy to get confused when people use the same damn arguments.

[bogbrush]

These people are sounding increasingly like the Politburo, "the solution to the problems we have created with our ludicrous economic philosophy is more of the same only moreso". Given the manifest failure of the markets across the globe in the last few years it seems bizarre to claim they should have further free reign to mismanage something else. But this isn't about evidence is it, its about a religion. God is dead and nobody wants to admit it. I'm sure "Mish" will be keeping a beady eye on the tractor production statistics to support whatever silly five year plan the invisible hand of the market commands him to support and declaring that communism was never really proper communism but rather a degenerate form doubtless hampered by the imperialists. That is, er, capitalism hampered by democratically elected governments, sorry its so easy to get confused when people use the same damn arguments.

Bottom line, if you don't let a failed model fall you perpetuate failure.

Capitalism works great - it's what clothes and feeds you, so don't knock it - and what's crap is getting in the way of failure of anything that isn't good enough. Car manufacturers, banks, whatever, should collapse if they fail. It serves as space for new growth and a salutory lesson for others in how not to do it.

A truly free market isn't kind or gentle, it's just like evolution.

As I said on another thread a long time ago, if God was a statist the Earth would now be dominated by Trilobites. Really big fat ones that don't move a lot.

[scepticus]

what does cogs stand for?

Cost of goods sold?

[SMAC67]

I think you need to have a nice long lie down with a wet flanel over your brow.

If you're calling me stupid for not believing everything the environmentalists tell is going to happen if we don't mend our evil consumer driven ways then I'm quite happy with that label. If thats not what you're saying then I apologise, but I can't make much sense from your indecipherable ranting.

Unfortunately you are your ilk are in the majority on this planet. I can't help this fact, but you will certainly doing your bit to remove yourself and fellow flat earthers from the planet. Sorry if that is a bit blunt, language is wasted on 99% of the population.

As for environmentalism, I don't really care, but it takes a certain level of delusion to believe you aren't living on planet earth and therefore are not subject to it's physical laws. You are gonna love the future, it's gonna be such an unpleasant surprise.

As Sean Connery so eloquently put it in an early interview..............."you quickly realise that you are sharing the planet with a whole load of idiots." You can say that again, when you master space travel let me know.

I have nothing against you personally, you simply represent the cognitive dissonance that represents current thinking. Or at least within the so-called "civilised" West.

I will say it simply, "no planet, no economy, and no the Polar Bears aren't responsible for the current situation, you are!" But then again, so am I, but at least I recognise my complicity.

[Authoritarian]

These people are sounding increasingly like the Politburo, "the solution to the problems we have created with our ludicrous economic philosophy is more of the same only moreso". Given the manifest failure of the markets across the globe in the last few years it seems bizarre to claim they should have further free reign to mismanage something else. But this isn't about evidence is it, its about a religion. God is dead and nobody wants to admit it. I'm sure "Mish" will be keeping a beady eye on the tractor production statistics to support whatever silly five year plan the invisible hand of the market commands him to support and declaring that communism was never really proper communism but rather a degenerate form doubtless hampered by the imperialists. That is, er, capitalism hampered by democratically elected governments, sorry its so easy to get confused when people use the same damn arguments.

The only parts of our system that are any good are the ones where capitalism is truly allowed to flourish. Because that part of the economy is consistently getting smaller with all the laws and regulations now in place we're bound to see problems with concentrations of wealth and state protected monoplies. Then, when it all goes pear shaped people come out and blame those evil capitalists.

I know its a difficult thing to do in this day and age, but we can't burden those that want to create and trade their wealth with all the problems of mankind. And Bogbrush is right, we should let those businesses that can't make it fail, our current society is awash with moral hazard and sooner or later its going to come crashing down on top us.

[scepticus]

I know its a difficult thing to do in this day and age, but we can't burden those that want to create and trade their wealth with all the problems of mankind.

who exactly then shopuld be burdened by the problems of mankind?

If mankind wishes to create and trade, and this is the defining feature of mankind, and this same mankind has problems, then it follows that those who create and trade must be the bearers of makinds problems.

[Authoritarian]

Unfortunately you are your ilk are in the majority on this planet. I can't help this fact, but you will certainly doing your bit to remove yourself and fellow flat earthers from the planet. Sorry if that is a bit blunt, language is wasted on 99% of the population.

As for environmentalism, I don't really care, but it takes a certain level of delusion to believe you aren't living on planet earth and therefore are not subject to it's physical laws. You are gonna love the future, it's gonna be such an unpleasant surprise.

As Sean Connery so eloquently put it in an early interview..............."you quickly realise that you are sharing the planet with a whole load of idiots." You can say that again, when you master space travel let me know.

I have nothing against you personally, you simply represent the cognitive dissonance that represents current thinking. Or at least within the so-called "civilised" West.

I will say it simply, "no planet, no economy, and no the Polar Bears aren't responsible for the current situation, you are!" But then again, so am I, but at least I recognise my complicity.

But you're a peak oiler too so these problems will fix themselves, won't they?

I can see no consistency in your thinking. One minute you're recommending books by writers that condemn the bully state, next you're lambasting the arrogance of individuals that dare to act in their own interest and not give a damn about the statist aspirations of environmentalists.

You're claims to have 'physics' on your side is hogwash. Its the argument all greenists resort to when all other attempts to put their point across has failed. You don't have a monopoly on science, and the quicker you and your chums stop deluding yourself with superstitious beliefs that only work on the gullible you sooner you might be taken a bit more seriously.

Edited January 1, 2010 by chefdave

[weebag]

Unfortunately you are your ilk are in the majority on this planet. I can't help this fact, but you will certainly doing your bit to remove yourself and fellow flat earthers from the planet. Sorry if that is a bit blunt, language is wasted on 99% of the population.

As for environmentalism, I don't really care, but it takes a certain level of delusion to believe you aren't living on planet earth and therefore are not subject to it's physical laws. You are gonna love the future, it's gonna be such an unpleasant surprise.

As Sean Connery so eloquently put it in an early interview..............."you quickly realise that you are sharing the planet with a whole load of idiots." You can say that again, when you master space travel let me know.

I have nothing against you personally, you simply represent the cognitive dissonance that represents current thinking. Or at least within the so-called "civilised" West.

I will say it simply, "no planet, no economy, and no the Polar Bears aren't responsible for the current situation, you are!" But then again, so am I, but at least I recognise my complicity.

You are a very angry man.

Chill out. Have a beer. Have some sex.