• 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!

The problem of Capitalism

Do you agree that the main problem of Capitalism is of moral nature?

  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .
James972 said:
oh no can you you show as some basic math? You are the one dismissed!

(this is a liberal's idea of debating)
Click to expand...

Good day sir.....I said good day!!!!

Dismissed
 
James972 said:
I'm embarrassed for this typical liberal who is shamelessly without substance and proud of it.
Click to expand...

I will post more like you.

Capitalists are dumb. 1 +1=2.

Do you understand? Lol
 
James972 said:
Dear, they are dumb; they make the case for socialism, not unfettered capitalism. If you can say something smart about socialism why not go ahead??
Click to expand...

Krugman and Stiglitz make the case for regulated markets and some amount of welfare programs. It would be patently idiotic if what they proposed was socialism as understood by some of the all too numerous student groups I see every day of the year tagging posters calling for fall of capitalism and inciting others to unite and take violence on their side to make this fall as quick and prompt as possible. But that is not what they are saying.

One argument Krugman made, for example, was in favor of a single-payer health care system. It is not obvious from international comparison what would be the exact consequences of that in terms of costs and it is a special kind of market because of the asymmetries of information involved between insurers and consumers. You can also make a moral argument that even if some waste is generated from the system as it centralizes the decision process to a greater extent, it might still nonetheless be preferable to extend the service to more people. You could reply that it might have morally salient consequences such as imposing a top-down decision protocol means the preference of a select few are effectively used to override the preferences of everyone who disagrees -- i.e., there is a loss of freedom, obviously. Depending on your point of view on what is desirable, the positions of Krugman on this issue and others might make more or less sense to you. However, if you're trying to evaluate the intelligence of Krugman, what matters is not whether he convinced you or is consistent with your moral assumptions. Smart people can be smart, even if it's impossible to square their conclusions with your preferred set of assumptions. The important part is that if he is consistent and can expand on his reasons for holding his views more than an average person, it's hard to argue he is dumb.
 
James972 said:
1)they are idiots for their socialist plan
Click to expand...

I am trying to get through to you a very important point which you seem to miss. Stupidity is neither the only nor always the best explanation of why people disagree with you.

James972 said:
2) they are disreputable for lying that capitalism caused the crisis when the regulation they love so much did.
Click to expand...

I'll humor you for a minute: let's assume they are mistaken and wholly mistaken on this issue and many others. However, they can't be charged to be both dumb and deceitful. Either they cannot figure out the truth because they're stupid, in which case they sincerely believe they're communicating the truth to the public when they say the crisis should be laid at the feet of capitalism. Or, they know it has nothing to do with markets and lie about it to further their agenda. Make up your mind. You cannot look at their mistake to induce that they're both stupid and deceitful since one excludes the other.
 
James972 said:
if its free it is capitalist; if it is not free it is libcommie socialist. Before you become assertive again please remember you're a liberal.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
 
Aristaeus said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...

yes but as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to say why its wrong- right? You have a feeling and to a liberal a feeling is enough-right?
 
TheEconomist said:
Krugman and Stiglitz make the case for regulated markets and some amount of welfare programs. .
Click to expand...

wrong of course both are far left and socialist. Socialism killed 120 million so they cant be open about it, obviously! Single payer communism is communism by another name. As Sowell says, liberalism is the soft face of totalitarianism. Is it sinking in now?
 
James972 said:
total illiteracy of course since there are dozens of books on this that were a response to the last financial crisis!! 1+1=2
Click to expand...

Interesting, name me a few of these dozen books that you read?
 
Beowulf said:
Do these writers and intellectuals ever define capitalism, so that we know what they're actually talking about?
Click to expand...

We could start with you, define capitalism for me?
 
Beowulf said:
Capitalism? In order to answer your question we need to define terms. How do you define capitalism?
Click to expand...

We could start with you, define capitalism for me?
 
James972 said:
sure it does because the smaller govt is the more non monopolies will do things govt once did and the more effectiveness you will see. Now that you understand are you a conservative?
Click to expand...

I am still holding on my point that a small government doesn't guarantee the effectiveness. The same view that not always large government mean waste.
 
James972 said:
This is true!!! This is why intelligent people are conservatives who want to limit their power to be wasteful and corrupt.


Thomas Jefferson:
"Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence."

Please let us know if now you are a conservative too?
Click to expand...

You aren't so smart. It is like you have a guest in the house and then you asked him: "would you like your Coffee with sugar or not?." Your tricks don't work with me. Your definition of conservative isn't very appealing for me. Re-write your comment, so i can give you an answer.
 
stan1990 said:
We could start with you, define capitalism for me?
Click to expand...

I didn't start the thread. You did. You ask about capitalism, yet refuse to define what it is that you're asking about. Thus, it's impossible for me to answer you, because I don't know what you're asking about.
 
stan1990 said:
Interesting, name me a few of these dozen books that you read?
Click to expand...


dear, I didn't say I had read any books just that there were dozens available after you said there was no information available. Do you understand now??
 
stan1990 said:
I am still holding on my point that a small government doesn't guarantee the effectiveness. The same view that not always large government mean waste.
Click to expand...

small govt means small monopoly while large govt means large monopoly. Now do you understand why our founders were conservative? Are you conservative now that you understand?
 
Last edited:
stan1990 said:
Your definition of conservative isn't very appealing for me.
Click to expand...

can you say why its not appealing or is it just a liberal feeling?? A liberal will not even know that a reason is necessary.
 
stan1990 said:
We could start with you, define capitalism for me?
Click to expand...

The term capitalism was coined and is mostly used by its critiques. Still, if you insist on a definition, we need to begin with the understanding of what constitutes a property right: it is the right to options with regards to some good, or service. The distinguishing feature of a capitalist system is that most of such rights can be transferred voluntarily in part or whole.

The core question is always who decides -- with what information and under which incentives. In a capitalist system, the answer is that most choices are diffused across very many people.
 
TheEconomist said:
The term capitalism was coined and is mostly used by its critiques. Still, if you insist on a definition, we need to begin with the understanding of what constitutes a property right: it is the right to options with regards to some good, or service. The distinguishing feature of a capitalist system is that most of such rights can be transferred voluntarily in part or whole.

The core question is always who decides -- with what information and under which incentives. In a capitalist system, the answer is that most choices are diffused across very many people.
Click to expand...

let's see if I can do 4 times better with 4 times fewer words:

Capitalism is when most property is privately owned and people are free to buy and sell it.
Socialism is when most property is public and govt monopoly dictates its use.
 
James972 said:
can you say why its not appealing or is it just a liberal feeling?? A liberal will not even know that a reason is necessary.
Click to expand...

You are such a bully. Who told I am Liberal or Conservative or whatever?
 
James972 said:
dear, I didn't say I had read any books just that there were dozens available after you said there was no information available. Do you understand now??
Click to expand...

No i don't
 
TheEconomist said:
The term capitalism was coined and is mostly used by its critiques. Still, if you insist on a definition, we need to begin with the understanding of what constitutes a property right: it is the right to options with regards to some good, or service. The distinguishing feature of a capitalist system is that most of such rights can be transferred voluntarily in part or whole.

The core question is always who decides -- with what information and under which incentives. In a capitalist system, the answer is that most choices are diffused across very many people.
Click to expand...

very poor definition of capitalism. Capitalism is when people are free from govt interference to own property and free from govt interference to exchange property. Now do you understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom