How do you perceive capitalism?

cpwill said:

OK, I'll buy. What department is in charge of collecting the Sleep Tax?



Not really. Feel free to organize a co-op, and live there, in beautiful, beautiful, Socialism.



On the contrary, your birthright is taken from you by those who strip from you your rights, starting with your property rights.



Hm. Well, the government ideally users coercion to protect your rights.



Not all that effectively. You can effectively kill yourself (or ineffectively kill yourself).



The one who owns [by which I mean, controls for their benefit] "all the resources" in capitalism is the populace. In alternative forms of organization, it is politicians. Between myself and D.C., I know who I trust more with my life and my labor.

Click to expand...

I own an RV. Quite comfortable. Lived in it for a year, parking on the street at night. Completely illegal.

I.live in San Diego. Comfortable year round. Lots of canyons everywhere, public property. I could build a cozy yurt for leas than a hundred dollars. Rope, tarps, and willow poles harvested from the riverbed. Also totally illegal.

No department, just regular old cops.

Prior to "private property" at no point in history was it necessary to cough up 25% or more of one's gross output for shelter alone.

And property rights REQUIRE government. Without it you can only "own" what you can hold.

Like I said, capitalism has a lot of good points. But it is not perfect. It can be, has been, and will continue to be "abused".

Power concentrated is power abused. And money is power. There has never been nor ever will be a poor tyrant. Tyranny is expensive.

Thrilla said:

it bars the existence of private property....if you want ot own a factory, you will not be allowed.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't.

Socialism comes in all flavors, it's a very general term. But for some reason, the only flavor people on this board seem to recognize is Soviet Union flavor.

What if...? said:

I own an RV. Quite comfortable. Lived in it for a year, parking on the street at night. Completely illegal.

I.live in San Diego. Comfortable year round. Lots of canyons everywhere, public property. I could build a cozy yurt for leas than a hundred dollars. Rope, tarps, and willow poles harvested from the riverbed. Also totally illegal.

No department, just regular old cops.

Prior to "private property" at no point in history was it necessary to cough up 25% or more of one's gross output for shelter alone.

And property rights REQUIRE government. Without it you can only "own" what you can hold.

Like I said, capitalism has a lot of good points. But it is not perfect. It can be, has been, and will continue to be "abused".

Power concentrated is power abused. And money is power. There has never been nor ever will be a poor tyrant. Tyranny is expensive.

Click to expand...

No. Effectively protecting property rights requires government, just like our right to life.

If you chose to break the law, then that is your problem. No one forced you to make that decision. Nor is it required by law that you "cough up" any given percentage of your income towards shelter/land/etc. My in-laws pay zero percent of their income, for example. I look forward to doing so one day myself. If you want to spend less on it, do so. If you want to spend more, do so.

There have been poor tyrants, over small enclaves. But when your system is designed to take ownership from the citizenry, and put it instead in the hands of government, you are asking for it.

JohnfrmClevelan said:

No it doesn't.

Socialism comes in all flavors, it's a very general term. But for some reason, the only flavor people on this board seem to recognize is Soviet Union flavor.

Click to expand...

yes, it actually does.....every flavor of socialism has the public ownership of the means of production as it's primary tenant..... whether that's through the state, or co-ops, or whatever, it bars private ownership of the mean of production.....it's not any flavor of socialism if it doesn't.

I know it's popular to redefine socialism nowadays to somehow magically include liberalism and capitalism ... but that doesn't make it accurate.

cpwill said:

No. Effectively protecting property rights requires government, just like our right to life.

If you chose to break the law, then that is your problem. No one forced you to make that decision. Nor is it required by law that you "cough up" any given percentage of your income towards shelter/land/etc. My in-laws pay zero percent of their income, for example. I look forward to doing so one day myself. If you want to spend less on it, do so. If you want to spend more, do so.

There have been poor tyrants, over small enclaves. But when your system is designed to take ownership from the citizenry, and put it instead in the hands of government, you are asking for it.

Click to expand...

You're doing something that is kind of annoying.

You act like there are only two possibilities. Total free market capitalism or total communism.

Capitalism could be fixed. A 400 year service, as it were. The game changed in the mid-seventies. Sharply. Abruptly. Technology shifted the balance of power between capital and labor. The new iteration has little to offer the masses. A second world lifestyle at best. While those at the top continue to harvest profits at the rate to which they have grown accustomed. And they hoard, withhold, extort, and manipulate supply and demand with the piles of money those profits represent.

Its a made up thing. A construct. Why would we support a made up thing that only really serves some of us? Why not fix what isn't working anymore?

JohnfrmClevelan said:

Ans what is coercive about, for instance, socialism?

Click to expand...

Socialism requires everyone to buy into a plan whether they want to or not. The government decides to establish a farming cooperative, and everyone has to consume what it produces. Under capitalism, a grower decides that people will buy what he's growing, plants it, harvests it, and has to be correct most of the time or goes out of business. The government just puts it in a warehouse, and keeps producing it whether anyone wants it or not.

Of course, some things have to be collective. It's not practical to build a highway and then sell rights to drive on it. The highway is a benefit to all, and is paid for by all. A school is a benefit to all, and paid for by all as well. Houses, food, clothing, and a whole host of consumer goods are an individual benefit and so should be paid for by the consumer if and only if the consumer wants them.

Dittohead not! said:

Socialism requires everyone to buy into a plan whether they want to or not.

Click to expand...

To be fair, it's the democracy part of socialism that does that and the marginalized are the minority.

The only socialism that would work [to minimal coercive effect] is small government socialism (or small company socialism). But the same is true of democratic government.

Dittohead not! said:

Socialism requires everyone to buy into a plan whether they want to or not. The government decides to establish a farming cooperative, and everyone has to consume what it produces. Under capitalism, a grower decides that people will buy what he's growing, plants it, harvests it, and has to be correct most of the time or goes out of business. The government just puts it in a warehouse, and keeps producing it whether anyone wants it or not.

Of course, some things have to be collective. It's not practical to build a highway and then sell rights to drive on it. The highway is a benefit to all, and is paid for by all. A school is a benefit to all, and paid for by all as well. Houses, food, clothing, and a whole host of consumer goods are an individual benefit and so should be paid for by the consumer if and only if the consumer wants them.

Click to expand...

It should be borne in mind that we are required to sleep in paid for housing HERE.

We get to pick but we are required to choose.

We are not really allowed to be here and not play the assigned game.

gavinfielder said:

To be fair, it's the democracy part of socialism that does that and the marginalized are the minority.

The only socialism that would work [to minimal coercive effect] is small government socialism (or small company socialism). But the same is true of democratic government.

Click to expand...

Correct, which is why the larger successful nations tend to be capitalistic, and constitutional republics.

What if...? said:

It should be borne in mind that we are required to sleep in paid for housing HERE.

We get to pick but we are required to choose.

We are not really allowed to be here and not play the assigned game.

Click to expand...

Not sure what that means.
Yes, most people like to have a house to sleep in. There are lots of different choices, of course. Some actually choose to sleep on the street, moving into homeless shelters when the weather turns nasty. So, yes, you are allowed to be here and not play the "assigned game".

Dittohead not! said:

Correct, which is why the larger successful nations tend to be capitalistic, and constitutional republics.

Click to expand...

...in which the majority is marginalized instead.

Dittohead not! said:

Not sure what that means.
Yes, most people like to have a house to sleep in. There are lots of different choices, of course. Some actually choose to sleep on the street, moving into homeless shelters when the weather turns nasty. So, yes, you are allowed to be here and not play the "assigned game".

Click to expand...

Technically they aren't. Sleeping on the street is vagrancy just about anywhere.

Living in an RV is also illegal on city streets.

And unless you have rented enough money enough times to be granted an adequate credit score its hard to even rent a place.

Better than slavery, or feudalism. But really just a better form of both. Economic systems live & die. Capitalism will die also. Some say its in the process of eating itself now. With wealth inequality growing larger & larger, sooner or later the capitalist will run out of people to buy the stuff they are mass producing.

Eventually Capitalism could return to a Neo-feudalism, which is what the TPP will do. Or if the rich start to lose power over the system it could turn to fascism.

What if...? said:

Technically they aren't. Sleeping on the street is vagrancy just about anywhere.

Living in an RV is also illegal on city streets.

And unless you have rented enough money enough times to be granted an adequate credit score its hard to even rent a place.

Click to expand...

and yet, lots of people do choose life on the streets for whatever reason.

TELL ME

gavinfielder said:

FA: This is the disgusting part of "free enterprise" of "unfettered capitalism." Profit for capital becomes the over-riding concern.

Click to expand...

Of course, but that is natural.

What we must not forget is that capitalism is just a system of exchange that replaced barter, and thus accelerated economic development in the Agricultural Age. It is just an economic mechanism.

How it is employed, however, makes all the difference. If employed without restriction and planning by governments, capitalistic enterprise tends to focus only upon the accumulation of capital - known as Wealth. Money becomes the uni-focal criteria of investment, and all other outcomes (of societal fairness and equitability) are left by the wayside. Howzat?

Again, in any socio-economic context, it is a our elected representatives (Executive and Legislative) who decide the "rules of the economic game". When those rules are "bent", the game is biased and falsified. Which is what occurred - I never tire of explaining - when at first LBJ (1960) reduced upper-income taxation from 90% to 70% and then Reckless Ronnie (1980) slashed them to a fixed-rate of 30% (for all earning above $105K per year).

Studies have shown how, from the 1980s onward, because of the upper-income manipulation of tax-rates, half of all Net Income (after taxes) generated became the preserve of only 10% of the population, with the other 90% scrambling after the other half.

Unfettered capitalism means that taxation was released as a constraint on the accumulation of wealth. To wit, today only 11% of American families own 88% of total Net Worth in America (ie., Wealth minus Debt). (I've shown the results of studies of both Income and Wealth generation - by Profs Piketty and Domhoff - on this forum so if necessary just ask.)

What is the consequence of the resulting Income Disparity upon a nation?

They are serious, because the outcome is one that can seriously affect:
*One's personal health to the point where peoples' lifespan are significantly reduced,
*A significant portion of the population is incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold ($24K income, family of 4), which is tantamount to a life-time jail-sentence it is so very difficult to escape,
*A concentration of Wealth amongst a highly finite minority of the population, which creates dynasties that inherit the accumulated riches (along the line of European-monarchies that did the same for centuries),
*A large portion of the middle-class that cannot benefit from important services like a low-cost health-care and high-cost education; meaning they have lower standards-of-living, and
*Higher incidences of overall insecurity both personally and as regards the family (since crime-rates explode), and, finally,
*And, finally due to the above an overall degradation of a country's life-style.

MY POINT?

Capitalism is just an economic mechanism, one that replaced barter a great many centuries ago. Inherently, it is neither good nor bad. Like a hammer, its a tool to be employed.

What is good or bad is the manner in which a capital-based market-economy is run to optimize the overall benefit of the population. Or not, as is the case in the US, which has one of the highest levels of income-concentration of any developed country.

The Gini Coefficient (an economic measurement of national income concentration):

Dittohead not! said:

and yet, lots of people do choose life on the streets for whatever reason.

Click to expand...

Yes, but if they get "comfortable" the cops will come and put a stop to it.

What if...? said:

Yes, but if they get "comfortable" the cops will come and put a stop to it.

Click to expand...

That's only a small part of what they put up with when they choose to live on the street.

Dittohead not! said:

That's only a small part of what they put up with when they choose to live on the street.

Click to expand...

Granted. But I'm talking about situations where one is comfortable, RV, yurt in a canyon. My total housing was about $300 a month here in San Diego, most of which was fuel to move every morning/night so youdont piss off the locals. This is in an environment where the cheapest studios in crappy areas start at six hundred plus utilities.

As long as it sucks you're OK. Start making people question why they are paying so much when you pay nothing and the cops will be there ricky tick.

gavinfielder said:

I often think that the only reason people call themselves capitalist is that they conflate capitalism with free enterprise.

I see them as separate matters. Free enterprise (that is, to choose one's own productive role in society) is very nearly a natural right, but capitalism is not its determinant. I label myself anti-capitalist because I disagree with paying people 50 cents for a dollars worth of economic output. That is, of course, largely based on my perception of capitalism (D & C), just as its proponents undoubtedly support it based on theirs.

Click to expand...

capitalism teaches you to deeply respect, please, and serve, your fellow man. It is then about world peace. If you don't please your fellow man better than anyone in the entire world you go bankrupt. Make sense now??

What if...? said:

Granted. But I'm talking about situations where one is comfortable, RV, yurt in a canyon. My total housing was about $300 a month here in San Diego, most of which was fuel to move every morning/night so youdont piss off the locals. This is in an environment where the cheapest studios in crappy areas start at six hundred plus utilities.

As long as it sucks you're OK. Start making people question why they are paying so much when you pay nothing and the cops will be there ricky tick.

Click to expand...

Well, that can happen if you're camping out on someone else's property.

JohnfrmClevelan said:

No it doesn't.

Socialism comes in all flavors, it's a very general term. But for some reason, the only flavor people on this board seem to recognize is Soviet Union flavor.

Click to expand...

Then it's not Socialism. In Western Europe as you want to use as an example is actually Capitalist with heavy regulation. The market is not Socialist but Government is and that is the difference.

HOW SOME PERCEIVE CAPITALISM

From the Guardian: Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems

Excerpt:

Financial meltdown, environmental disaster and even the rise of Donald Trump – neoliberalism has played its part in them all. Why has the left failed to come up with an alternative?

So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin’s theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power.

Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

Click to expand...

As I never tire of saying, "Capitalism is just a tool, outcomes depend upon how it is employed".

Like a hammer, it can do a lot of good or a lot of harm ...

JohnfrmClevelan said:

Ans what is coercive about, for instance, socialism?

Click to expand...

Socialist systems cannot exist without state enforcement and coercion. They never have done and never will. The British discovered this after they elected a real Socialist government in 1945 and never elected an avowedly socialist government again. Later Labour victories were based on 'mixed economy' policies.

JohnfrmClevelan said:

No, it isn't. Again, see Wiki...





Like in Western Europe?

I don't know where you come up with your definitions (they don't need a state?????), but they are bordering on wacky.



In capitalism, it's the capitalists that control everything, because they own everything. And as we can all painfully see, the result is a concentration of capital, wealth, and income in very few hands.

Your view of socialism, or probably anything that isn't capitalist, is starting to smell very ideologically tainted.

Click to expand...

From where do you get the strange idea that 'Western Europe' is Socialist? That was Eastern Europe when it was ruled by the USSR.

gavinfielder said:

To be fair, it's the democracy part of socialism that does that and the marginalized are the minority.

The only socialism that would work [to minimal coercive effect] is small government socialism (or small company socialism). But the same is true of democratic government.

Click to expand...

'Small government Socialism' is a contradiction in terms. It has never existed because Socialism requires state control of all economic activity and a vast army of officials. As the Brits found out after 1945, when they needed a government permit to allow them to buy timber and chicken wire to build a hen-house in their back yard.