Capitalism is a system of economics; it's a tool. And as any tool, it can be used for good or evil.

(June 6, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Sorry to snip so much, but I just didn't disagree much with what you're saying, so I skipped to what I found more contraversial. I appreciate your courtesy, by the way.

Perfectly fine, and I think we should try to find ways of keeping this as short as possible anyway.

Quote:I would think India would be an example of a democracy that didn't lead to wealth at first because so many Indians opposed open markets. Many African countries had similar resistance due to a similar experience with colonialism. It's understandable, but was one factor in holding them back. I'm glad the wind has shifted in that regard.

I wouldnt say that, I would say that class society and the social structures in which it is generaly accepted that the poor have to be poor also played a role. On that base, capitalism couldnt spread wealth as liberterians would have predicted. What capitalism does to a country depends more on the structures within the country than on capitalism itself.

Quote:I said 'shut down the factories'. Their economies would merely have gone on as before, just like in other countries that didn't industrialize. The availability of cheap labor combined with new technology and enough wealth to invest to implement it is what made building those factories so attractive in the first place, investment happens when the gain is perceived to be greater than the risk. Once factories in an agrarian economy are established and become the norm, the perceived risk of investing in something so new goes down, which means the gains can be lower and still attract investment. Of course today, most of the technological development has already occurred and it's easy for investors in more developed countries to invest in projects in less developed countries; so if we're smart, getting someone from subsistence farmer to fairly compensated employee could be much less traumatic than it was for us.

Still didnt explain why you think the early workers movements would have shut down the factories.

Quote:Perhaps you're misunderstanding me. That the powerful won't give away power unless they feel they have to was my point. Although I suppose military takeovers of Turkey are also an exception; they have always returned the country to civilian rule once they were satisfied it was abiding by the country's constitutional provisions again.

agree.

Quote:Nothing would please me more than Africa being able to avoid the 'cheap labor step'. Its people have certainly paid their dues in other ways.

and it is the way africa is going, since most african countries fear nothing more than becoming a sweatshop base, which many considere (maybe wrongly) a step back into the colonial past.

Quote:Nothing, but in my defense, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to argue with that point. The only type of government necessary for capitalism is one in which people are allowed to own businesses and conduct commerce, so a certain degree of economic freedom is vital; but that doesn't necessarily translate into civil rights.

agree.

Quote:When they get around to deciding they want them. It isn't automatic. African democracies resisted global trade for many decades, fearful for their autonomy. 'Free' is always relative when it comes to markets, but clearly countries that aren't truly democracies (although they usually have 'democratic' in the full name of the country) have also effectively implemented (or maybe more accurately, 'allowed') market economies.

African countries also resisted democracy for ages, in fact most African countries still are authoritarian. Countries which enjoy the benefits such as South Africa and Nambia have only recently turned to democracy, and one should not forget that some african countries werealso exploited by that economic system. Not all african countries resisted the free market.

Quote:Good points. Perhaps it was a coincidence that the end of his regime came after he instituted significant market reforms. 'After' doesn't mean 'because' and all that.

I dont think so. What difference does it make of you work for a factory owned by local buisnessmen or the goverment in a brutal regime - or a factory owned by a foreign company in a brutal regime?

Quote:Yes, on land provided by the government, on the backs of extremely poor immigrants. I think it's a sign of the brutality of the exploitation of and hatred toward Chinese that despite millions of them immigrating in the 1800s; they make up a small fraction of our population in comparison to the descendants of people that were literally bought and traded as slaves. Without researching it, my guess is that a major factor was that Chinese men were so disproportionately represented that they couldn't grow their population significantly.

agree.

Quote:They were pretty non-interventionist when it came to spending money on keeping poor people they subjugated alive, but very interventionist in imposing the systems they preferred on them.

All of Europes poor depended on potatoes back then. And Scotland also suffered from the famine (which is often forgoten) and they werent catholic.

To me these examples simply show that if you give the free market an absolute free hand - it will create havok.

Remember - the Indian famine aswell as the Irish famine were mainly man made - with the deaths being preventable if the goverments of british India and Ireland wouldnt havechosen a policie which regarded the free market to be the solution of all social problems.

Quote:They had the same root: A ruling class dictating how millions of people without true representation should live. Perhaps the supreme virtue of democracy, given how little other rights matter when you're starving, is that suffering people can make their rulers pay without a bloody revolution. That we routinely change our leadership without bloodshed is something feudal societies could scarce believe.

The famines of India and Ireland were not made so horrible by goverments dictating them to starve. Or goverments interducing policies which caused a shortage of food.

They were made so horrible by policies which made the goverment powerless, whilest relying on the dream that private institutions would solve the problem.
That it absolutly the opposite of a powerfull class instituting a way of life.
It is what a liberterian would want - the goverment not getting involved.

Quote:Which is why the central theme of societal evolution is arguably method of governance rather than economic system.

agree.

Quote:It doesn't need interest groups to have power out of proportion to the interests they serve. A corporation with good lobbyists can cripple a less-connected competitor with discriminatory regulation. A lobby like the NRA can control debate on its single issue. Lobbies owning senators is not a virtue of democracy, it is a disease afflicting it.

agree.

But would you agrre that interest groups should exist in an make their case in a transparent manner which informs the public of their actions?

Quote:I'm not against interest groups. I'm against them having improper influence, which a system in which election campaigns cost millions of dollars and are financed with donations is prone to.

agree. and my previous reply made irrelevant.

Quote:That was an oversight, not a claim that oppressive regimes and capitalism cannot coexist.

cleared.

Quote:You are correct about that. Capitalism on its own can only solve problems of inefficient resource allocation.

agree.

Quote:Fair enough, and although I'm more of a 'pragmatic liberaltarian' than an ideologically pure Libertarian, I'm close enough to understand why you might think I follow the usual dogmas.

good to find a common ground.

Quote:I don't think it does either. All incentive produces is effort toward a particular goal. That's a valuable thing to know how to harness, whether you're a hero or a villain.

agree.

Quote:It will be abused, just like any other tool. But China is still getting wealthier.

but as meantioned by both you and me: wealth=/=moral right.



I guess we have found a common ground on almoust everything.

(June 6, 2013 at 5:24 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Corporatism is the baby of capitalism. The love of money and all that.

Fuck. I hate it when I have to agree with Frods.

Well, Min, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Capitalism is a fairly efficient system but the problem is is that wealth disparity was bound to happen. Cornering the market tends to result in very few having very much. Hence why we have so many problems with high-speed internet companies here in the US. there's no competition. You either choose to get DSL, or you choose to get cable...and the problem is, if you choose cable, there's exactly one (1) company to choose from. There's no incentive for competition because everyone's got their little established areas and it's an unsafe investment to go trying to encroach on the other guys because you'll have to offer more for less and if you can instead focus on just charging more for the same shit for the people who have no other choice, why bother? I hear people say things like "THEY'LL DO IT FOR THE PROFIT-MOTIVE!" I hate to say it but established corporations, like anyone who is wildly successful, become complacent and fucking lazy as shit. And because our federal laws haven't kept pace with the rise of corporations (and thanks to Citizens United they've actually gone BACKWARDS), they can buy out politicians to help ensure their domination. And ensured success, again, breeds laziness and complacency. Thus it is that established services in the US are old and out of date and inferior to the rest of the developed [and even large parts of the developing] world. Ever go to Japan? You'll notice that they are constantly in a furious techno-lock, always needing things to be modernized and of highest convenience, whereas you look around the US and everything's pretty much "just good enough," or "passable." I keep hearing about how the US is the "richest" nation in the world but I sure don't see it. I see our country having more rich people, sure, but what do I give a fuck about that? I look at Europe and see them with highly-advanced public transportation networks, highly-financed roads, efficient schooling systems, flourishing museums and scientific institutes, then I look at the US and I see bus systems that barely work, roads that are crumbling, bridges that are below safety grades, communications networks that are 30 years obsolete [unless of course you pay the ultra-super-duper premium, then you can get the same quality as what people in Europe get...for 50x the price]...

Our government has gotten lazy and complacent, a bunch of whores selling themselves to the highest bidders, who eagerly buy them up for the sake of ensuring their dominion rather than actually doing anything in the marketplace itself to secure such power and success.

So, yes, when the libertarians start talking about completely and totally cutting off the government from the private sector, I start nodding vigorously in agreement. Start with completely banning any kind of lobbyists and campaign contributions and make these corporate whores work for their fucking paycheck.

Quote:So, yes, when the libertarians start talking about completely and totally cutting off the government from the private sector,

Oh, you were doing so well right until then...........

(June 6, 2013 at 7:58 pm)Sal Wrote: Capitalism is a system of economics; it's a tool. And as any tool, it can be used for good or evil.

And one of the major problem is for many who need to portray it as either good (the Right) or as evil ( the Left) for political advantage. Let us hope we can get out of this childish dichotomy. Capitalism is here to stay, and we should focus how to fine-tune it so that we can solve real problems. That means regulations and oversight, with the occasional government participation as an active player.

(June 6, 2013 at 1:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Isn't it important to note here..that saying "on land provided by the government" attenuates the situation and may not really describe the full brunt of it?

If we continued to say -On land provided by the government - who had a glut of land and nothing to do with it, who hoped to glean the benefits that the railroads offered as infrastucture (but frequently found themselves in the position of not having been as clever as the railroads operators) -and land acquired from private citizens - on the backs of exploitative labor -and with the assistance of the media in forming public opinion - the private ownership of -all- means of production.

Land in general was cheap, but land along ideal railroad routes was very valuable. But yes, it's an oversimplification to focus on that alone.

(June 6, 2013 at 1:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I also don't think that capitalism on it's own actually solves problems of inefficient resource allocation...as we should all be fully aware that there's a profit to be made in allocating resources inefficiently...... At best it might offer a heuristic - but without understanding why it works (or doesn't) I could hardly call this a solution.

Private ownership of the means of production with the aim to produce a profit. Isn't this all that capitalism is? What sense does it make then to call it a problem solver? If your problem is that the means of production are not privately owned...and no one is looking to make a profit..and you wish that they were - then capitalism can solve this problem, sure..but going too much farther is a stretch. I suppose this cuts to the question in the OP. Is capitalism working? Are the means of production privately owned, are people looking to make a profit? If so then yes, but the rest of this stuff....something else is required, because "efficient allocation of resources" is not required for capitalism to "work"..nor does it seem to be offering that service by the sheer weight of it's own simple principle.

It's a result of decentralized competition. Each enterprise has to struggle to remain competitive in a shifting economic landscape of varying demand and supply and price. Those that fail to find some edge or niche fail, and the resources that went into them go elsewhere. But you're right, that's a consequence of allowing capitalism, not capitalism itself.

But it does 'seem to be offering that service by sheer weight of its own simple principle'; unless you know of an economic system that allocates resources more efficiently on the same scale?

Caveat: market efficiency is not the be-all and end-all goal of society. Of course we introduce market inefficiencies in order to secure other goods we value more highly. As long as we're willing to pay the cost of those other goods (reduced market efficiency), I don't see anything wrong with it.

(June 6, 2013 at 5:24 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Corporatism is the baby of capitalism. The love of money and all that.

I disagree. I'd say it's the corruption of capitalism. A capitalist doesn't need to love money to succeed in a capitalist economy; they just need to make enough to keep their business competitive. A corporatist will actively try to make as much money as possible by paying off the government to pass legislation that affects the market (which isn't capitalistic at all).

(June 6, 2013 at 11:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

So...I'm rich now?

See, in my idea of a free market, law is a product of government....so why not allow the private ownership of the means of production? Won't they allocate that resource more efficiently..or some such?

Isn't the insistence that the government serve in some capacity to "level the playing field" (and be immune to the influence of the actors in that market) just welfare for poor business models? If they have a valid model or product, why can't they buy their own congressman- compete in the market of government on their own merits?

Actually, that bit I had misworded. I don't mean "cut the government off from the business sector," I meant "cut the business sector off from the government." To clarify: The government SHOULD have regulatory powers, but businesses should not be allowed to lobby the government for anything. Businesses, no matter what some people might say, are not people. They are COMPRISED of people, but they are not actually people themselves. They are entities. An individual should have equal say, and ONLY equal say, in the affairs of the government. Unfortunately what we are seeing is people receiving attention disproportionate to their numbers. 10 individuals can over-ride the desired policy changes of 100,000 just because the 10 have more money than the 100,000. This is just another form of autocratic rule, with a different vindication. Used to be this sort of thing was justified by divine mandate. Now it's the same thing being justified as monetary mandate. If one really wishes to place a value upon a human being based on their monetary assets then one can feel free to do so but one will ALSO have to face the fact that this essentially establishes a caste system wherein there is one almighty individual and everyone else is subservient, no matter how productive they may actually be. Such a mindset states that Paris Hilton is truly worth more than a doctor, and is this REALLY the kind of society we want? No, it isn't, and anyone who wants it is a fucking moron.

So, hence, we have the government which establishes that all citizens are considered equal in terms of their opinions. It needs to reflect that. We in the US have overcome the idea that gender determines equality. We've overcome the idea that skin color determines equality. We're overcoming the idea that sexuality determines equality. Now, we need to overcome the idea that money determines equality.