• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Wall Street is killing capitalism

DifferentDrummr said:
Which is also one of the many reasons that communism has always failed.
Click to expand...
Disagree. But then i have always argued that communism has never existed in the first place to fail.
But i would also add the qualifier that it is only the idea of a whole country being communist as some countries have falsely called themselves.
Communism does exist on a grass root level in the form of coops which exist not only as worker owned factories but also as independent businesses getting together to form coops.

The tobacco industry is probably not such a great example, but in general I agree. Advertising can manipulate people into making poor buying decision.
Click to expand...
Which makes questionable smith's proposition of natural forces guiding demand and supply.

Certainly not always. I'll grant that there are many situations where, logistically, it's more practical to use middlemen, but they aren't always necessary.
Click to expand...
True, some businesses can create their own middle man to deal with supply. Otherwise unfortunately business relies on them.

Another example of how the suppliers themselves are in fact the cause of many problems is in the now defunct( after far to many years in existence) of the bendy banana law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No._2257/94
This regulation requires that bananas of the highest quality classification not have "abnormal curvature"
Click to expand...
I put it as a challenge to anyone to come up with a good reason for such a law besides the fact that it will increase the profits of the supplier.

IMO, people give Smith's claim a much broader scope than he really intended it to have. What he was saying about natural forces is that free and fair competition is what powers the 'invisible hand.'
Click to expand...
There are no free and natural forces. Buying and selling is always manipulated by men.
Don't forget that most parts of the world where there's famine are also torn up by warfare. Using military force to stabilize those areas would cost quite a bit.
Click to expand...
No, that is just a cause for famine to be there. There is no reason at all not to have food for these people other than there is more profit to gained from stealing the donations of food and selling it on the black market which is what happens to much of the food donated tha there is profit in feeding them.
You still have to own some means of innovation, or your money will erode
Click to expand...
.
True. The benefit of capitalism is it encourages innovation. It should not be a case of throw the baby out. Just change it's diapers occasionally so that it does not stink so badly.

Capitalism could not even survive in a genuine laissez-faire market. That goes back to my point about the need for regulation.
Click to expand...
Agreed, those regulations are called socialism.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Capitalism could not even survive in a genuine laissez-faire market. That goes back to my point about the need for regulation.
Click to expand...

OMG!!capitalism and laissez faire are the same thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
DifferentDrummr said:
. Advertising can manipulate people into making poor buying decision.
.
Click to expand...

obviously not true since people spend most of their money on food clothing shelter etc rather than pet rocks, for example. Do you understand?
 
jet57 said:
Wall street is legalized gambling - full stop.
Click to expand...

wall street is mostly buying or investing in stocks and bonds that grow steadily as the economy grows. Its the opposite of gambling. Do you understand now??
 
James972 said:
wall street is mostly buying or investing in stocks and bonds that grow steadily as the economy grows. Its the opposite of gambling. Do you understand now??
Click to expand...

I'm cutting you off.

Do you understand now?
 
jet57 said:
I'm cutting you off.

Do you understand now?
Click to expand...

translation: I lost another debate to a conservative and I find it embarrassing but that won't stop me from being a liberal it will just stop me from debating! Who needs to debate when it is just based on logical thinking?

Ever see a conservative have to run from debate?
 
Winston said:
Supply side economics is a flawed economic policy. During eras of supply side economics, productivity has continued to rise but, wages have failed to keep up.

View attachment 67213734

If what they said about supply side was true, then the wealth would've "trickled down" to us. What actually happened was we created an economic policy that allowed very wealthy people to continue to grow far richer, while ordinary Americans were left to fight for the scraps. They're not done looting democracy yet. They're going to cut taxes again and then point to the budget crisis manufactured by the tax cuts, as an excuse to cut spending. That's conservative ideology 101.
Click to expand...

Not true. Automation can lead to increased productivity with less labor and the idea of automation was never really calculated in supply side theory. Just as it isn't in Keynesianism or any other ism in the economic world.
 
austrianecon said:
the idea of automation was never really calculated in supply side theory. Just as it isn't in Keynesianism or any other ism in the economic world.
Click to expand...

what????? supply side is all about the supply of new inventions (how we got from stone age to here) so any new tools to increase productivity are calculated in supply side economics. Do you understand?
 
James972 said:
what????? supply side is all about the supply of new inventions (how we got from stone age to here) so any new tools to increase productivity are calculated in supply side economics. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

No, it's all about investing in capital and by lowering barriers on the production of goods and services. At no point does supply side address increased productivity translating to increased wages or lower wages with fewer labors and more automation.
 
austrianecon said:
No, it's all about investing in capital and by lowering barriers on the production of goods and services.
Click to expand...

actually you want to invest capital and lower barriers to enable the supply of goods and services. That's why its called supply side economics
 
austrianecon said:
. At no point does supply side address increased productivity translating to increased wages
Click to expand...

wrong of course. The entire point of increasing the supply of new inventions is to achieve a better standard of living with great new products and the wages to buy them!!
 
James972 said:
translation: I lost another debate to a conservative and I find it embarrassing but that won't stop me from being a liberal it will just stop me from debating! Who needs to debate when it is just based on logical thinking?

Ever see a conservative have to run from debate?
Click to expand...

All the time. But they always declare victory first.
 
You asked what happened? Basically what Adam Smith said, “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.”
 
soylentgreen said:
Disagree. But then i have always argued that communism has never existed in the first place to fail.
But i would also add the qualifier that it is only the idea of a whole country being communist as some countries have falsely called themselves.
Communism does exist on a grass root level in the form of coops which exist not only as worker owned factories but also as independent businesses getting together to form coops.
Click to expand...
My mistake: I mean that communism doesn't work on a national scale; with actual communes, it can work very well. And yes, many nations that call themselves communist are not. China is a perfect example.

Which makes questionable smith's proposition of natural forces guiding demand and supply.
Click to expand...
I'll address that in a moment.

Another example of how the suppliers themselves are in fact the cause of many problems is in the now defunct( after far to many years in existence) of the bendy banana law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No._2257/94

I put it as a challenge to anyone to come up with a good reason for such a law besides the fact that it will increase the profits of the supplier.
Click to expand...
Anyone in the supply chain can try to manipulate the market. Regulation can either put a stop to it or encourage it.

There are no free and natural forces. Buying and selling is always manipulated by men.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but human psychology is fairly well understood, and doesn't change much over time. So you can certainly make a case that human decision making itself acts like a natural force.[/QUOTE]

No, that is just a cause for famine to be there. There is no reason at all not to have food for these people other than there is more profit to gained from stealing the donations of food and selling it on the black market which is what happens to much of the food donated tha there is profit in feeding them.
Click to expand...
Usually that's incidental. Most civil wars are fought for reasons other than to make a buck in food trafficking.

True. The benefit of capitalism is it encourages innovation. It should not be a case of throw the baby out. Just change it's diapers occasionally so that it does not stink so badly.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

Agreed, those regulations are called socialism.
Click to expand...
Socialism has many other motives besides regulating trade. And (although I'm pretty sure you weren't implying this) socialism is not an either/or proposition.
 
DifferentDrummr---- fight against the ignorant, irresponsible, and/or closed-minded.
This group is the worst enemy of America and its freedoms. It includes, but is not limited to, all Trump supporters
 
Master PO said:
your postings are very stupid, you insult people from the start and then try to make arguments to persuade people you are correct.

"you can catch more flies with honey then you can with vinegar"
Click to expand...

Your conclusion is very stupid; you believe that Trump supporters have any hope of being persuaded to turn away from him.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Your conclusion is very stupid; you believe that Trump supporters have any hope of being persuaded to turn away from him.
Click to expand...

this is something you need to know and understand.

when you start from a position of insulting people, you automatically build a wall between you and other people, how do you expect to convey your message getting it through to them if you have build a wall between you and those other people?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Being conservative isn't bad. Being a narcissistic con man is.
Click to expand...

building a wall, cutting corporate tax, repealing Obamacommiecare, and bringing back jobs is being a saint which is why we love Donald despite his minor faults.

liberals are limited to personal attacks on Donald becuase they lack the IQ for substance
 
Master PO said:
this is something you need to know and understand.

when you start from a position of insulting people, you automatically build a wall between you and other people, how do you expect to convey your message getting it through to them if you have build a wall between you and those other people?
Click to expand...

I rarely insult people, grasshopper. Instead, most of the time I insult their behavior, which is what I do in my signature.

People are capable of making changes to their own behavior. Perhaps you should consider such a course.
 
James972 said:
building a wall, cutting corporate tax, repealing Obamacommiecare, and bringing back jobs is being a saint which is why we love Donald despite his minor faults.

liberals are limited to personal attacks on Donald becuase they lack the IQ for substance
Click to expand...

Of course he hasn't actually done any of those four things. And he's not likely to.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Of course he hasn't actually done any of those four things. And he's not likely to.
Click to expand...

all in the works and he'll certainly come closer than Hillary who opposed them all!! Next.

Notice how as a typical liberal you've got nothing but violent personal attack and no substance??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom