• 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 .
Nickyjo said:
Forgive if this repeats, but which specific policies and how did they cause the depression?
Click to expand...

LIberal govt had total control of money supply and regulated a money decrease of 33% that caused the Great Depression
 
Nickyjo said:
FDR’s spending relieved the depression
Click to expand...

no, Depression never ended while FDR was alive; in fact it deepened into WW 2. Further, govt spending and private taxing or not taxing is what made Depression continue. Econ 101
 
Nickyjo said:
The depression ended with one of the biggest government spending and jobs program of all, WWII.
Click to expand...

if that was true we cold buy weapons and dump them into the sea and never worry about recession and depressions again. Thedepression was so great becuase FDR din't know govt spending hurts not helps
 
James972 said:
The policies that caused the Great Depression and the liberal policies that conditioned the Germans to think Hitler's big liberal govt was a good idea.
Click to expand...

It wasn't "liberal policies" that brought about the Great Depression.

And Hitler's "big liberal government"?

It was anything but "liberal".
 
Fledermaus said:
It wasn't "liberal policies" that brought about the Great Depression.

.
Click to expand...
of course it was; liberalism is about govt control. Well they controlled the money/banking and controlled/regulated the money supply down 33% and caused the Great liberal Depression. 1+1=2
 
Fledermaus said:
And Hitler's "big liberal government"?

It was anything but "liberal".
Click to expand...

Hitler and Stalin were both big govt liberals which is why our liberals spied for them !
 
Fledermaus said:
Hitler and Stalin were at opposite ends of the Totalitarian thing. Neither was liberal.
Click to expand...

both killed about 60 million so identical for all intents an purposes. One would have to be mad to find a significant different between them or let one off the hook as a well intentional liberal. Both were big govt liberals , the kind our Founders warned us against by making liberal govt illegal here. What is in the liberal mind that makes it impossible for them to learn?
 
James972 said:
both killed about 60 million so identical for all intents an purposes. One would have to be mad to find a significant different between them or let one off the hook as a well intentional liberal. Both were big govt liberals , the kind our Founders warned us against by making liberal govt illegal here. What is in the liberal mind that makes it impossible for them to learn?
Click to expand...

Share your stash.
 
James972 said:
both killed about 60 million so identical for all intents an purposes. One would have to be mad to find a significant different between them or let one off the hook as a well intentional liberal. Both were big govt liberals , the kind our Founders warned us against by making liberal govt illegal here. What is in the liberal mind that makes it impossible for them to learn?
Click to expand...

Ebola and the plague both killed millions...

Are they the same?

The Mongols and the Aztec conquered vast areas....

Are they the same?
 
James972 said:
of course it was; liberalism is about govt control. Well they controlled the money/banking and controlled/regulated the money supply down 33% and caused the Great liberal Depression. 1+1=2
Click to expand...

James972 said:
The policies that caused the Great Depression and the liberal policies that conditioned the Germans to think Hitler's big liberal govt was a good idea.
Click to expand...

Are the big liberal governments that have dominated European politics for decades bringing new Hitler’s to power?

You seem to have an obsession with making liberalism responsible for stuff from the Depression to Hitler. (Strangely, liberals got into trouble in the 1950s for being “pre-mature anti-fascists,” having opposed Hitler before Pearl Harbor.)

The republicans controlled Congress in the years leading up to the depression, losing the House in 1930, tho retaining a very slim edge in the Senate. The money supply decreased in the years before the depression (not the democrats fault) and increased under FDR. I checked both the Roosevelt Foundation and the Hoover Institution, and tho they obviously might have different orientations, they seem to more or less agree on the above. You may have the cause of the depression right, but those responsible somewhat wrong.

So my mind reels a bit to try to figure out how you connect these things. Certainly historians haven’t.
 
Nickyjo said:
Are the big liberal governments that have dominated European politics for decades bringing new Hitler’s to power?

.
Click to expand...

they really are not bigger than our govt. Often come out ahead on freedom indexes and besides they follow our lead. We recreated them in our image after ww2
 
Nickyjo said:
You seem to have an obsession with making liberalism responsible for stuff from the Depression to Hitler.
Click to expand...

out Founders saw liberalism as the source of evil in all of human history.
 
Nickyjo said:
The republicans controlled Congress in the years leading up to the depression,
Click to expand...

Already explained that Hoover was a big govt liberal. How many times before you catch up??
 
James972 said:
of course it was; liberalism is about govt control. Well they controlled the money/banking and controlled/regulated the money supply down 33% and caused the Great liberal Depression. 1+1=2
Click to expand...

James972 said:
they really are not bigger than our govt. Often come out ahead on freedom indexes and besides they follow our lead. We recreated them in our image after ww2
Click to expand...

Liberals weren’t in control in the late 1920s early 1930s. Nor did conservatives create Hitler. You still haven’t shown the faults with liberalism, how it’s loose money policies, FDR, etc., led Germany to elect old Adolf, why FDR didn’t do the same as he, or what should have been done instead. If Europeans are dong the same as liberals have in the past (check out their greater interference in the marketplace, better benefits for workers, higher domestic budgets, etc.) aren’t they in danger?

Somehow I am getting the feeling you are putting me on. You are showing no connection between liberals and Hitler. “Post hoc non est propter hoc.” “After which is not on account of which.” Old Latin logic principle. Or conservatives’ connection for that matter. It’s like saying Teddy R’s trust-busting or conservation efforts caused WWI. Though given that that war was so insane and people are still figuring out how it started, who knows?
 
Last edited:
James972 said:
Already explained that Hoover was a big govt liberal. How many times before you catch up??
Click to expand...

Ok, let’s accept that. What should have been done instead of what Hoover AND FDR did to prevent all this?
 
Nickyjo said:
Ok, let’s accept that. What should have been done instead of what Hoover AND FDR did to prevent all this?
Click to expand...

I told you 25 times already!!!!!!!!!! Not let the money supply shrink 33%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Financial capital is actually about maximizing profits in milliseconds. Here lies the death of the shroffs - they evolve into extremely effective predators, but with the memory of a goldfish. When the geniuses of the moment move upstairs, strategic thinking degrades
 
James972 said:
Already explained that Hoover was a big govt liberal. How many times before you catch up??
Click to expand...

Story teller. Just make stuff up is why nobody should take right wingers seriously about economics, the law, or politics.

On taking office, Hoover said that "given the chance to go forward with the policies of the last eight years, we shall soon with the help of God, be in sight of the day when poverty will be banished from this nation."[141] Having seen the fruits of prosperity brought by technological progress, many shared Hoover's optimism, and the already bullish stock market climbed even higher on Hoover's accession.[142] This optimism concealed several threats to sustained U.S. economic growth, including a persistent farm crisis, a saturation of consumer goods like automobiles, and growing income inequality.[143] Most dangerous of all to the economy was excessive speculation that had raised stock prices far beyond their value.[144] Some regulators and bankers had warned Coolidge and Hoover that a failure to curb speculation would lead to "one of the greatest financial catastrophes that this country has ever seen," but both presidents were reluctant to become involved with the workings of the Federal Reserve System, which regulated banks.[145]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover#Presidency
Click to expand...
 
Ringo Stalin said:
Financial capital is actually about maximizing profits in milliseconds. Here lies the death of the shroffs - they evolve into extremely effective predators, but with the memory of a goldfish. When the geniuses of the moment move upstairs, strategic thinking degrades
Click to expand...

do you have any idea what your point is????
 
TheEconomist said:
People often are under the impression that the United States in 1789 was replete with ideas of racial superiority. They usually hold those views on very tenuous grounds...
Click to expand...

OK, so I take it that what you want to convince a reader of this post to believe is that the United States in 1789 was not replete with ideas of racial superiority. If so, your argument certainly doesn't refute--or even address--that claim. An argument about the framers of the Constitution wouldn't say anything about the general state of racist ideas in America in 1789--any more than an argument about the beliefs of a President's cabinet tells us about the prevalence of beliefs in the general population.

TheEconomist said:
In this speech, Abraham Lincoln looks at every one of the 39 framers of the Constitution and asks: "When and if they had the chance to vote to restrict or abolish slavery, how did they vote?" If I am not mistaken, 22 had the chance to do it and 21 voted against slavery -- to paraphrase Lincoln, this is a clear majority. I'd argue that this near uninanimity would apply to the rest of the 39 founders -- which is also a point Lincoln try to make in that same speech.
Click to expand...

Lincoln was arguing that the framers of the Constitution intended for slavery to be limited and hence should not be extended into the western states. That doesn't form an argument about the prevalence of racist beliefs in the early United States--and indeed, it doesn't say anything about whether the framers themselves were racist or not. I may decide to become a murderer, for example, but limit myself to murdering only people in the American South. I am still no less a murderer.

TheEconomist said:
...you cannot erase the record of votes which taken together would have killed the institution had all those motions passed.
Click to expand...

This seems to be saying something impossible on its face, though perhaps I don't understand what you mean. If the framers voted, and various measures to kill slavery did not pass, then all their votes together weren't sufficient to kill the institution of slavery.

TheEconomist said:
So, in 1789, the people who crafted the Constitution actually believed slavery was an abhorrent institution.
Click to expand...

This is not in evidence. Perhaps they thought it was useless in the Northern states. Perhaps they thought the economic benefit long-term would become more of a liability.

TheEconomist said:
The history of slavery in the United States is not the history of why Southern States were backward... It's the history of a class of southern planters and of a political party that built its influence by defending the interest of that class of wealthy southern planters.
Click to expand...

You say this is relevant history, but I don't see it. Your thesis could be either true or false whether or not this is true or false.

TheEconomist said:
Tell me, young man, which group today is likelier to make that kind of argument? Conservatives and moderate liberals will speak like Lincoln: free labor is better than slavery.
Click to expand...

Far right conservatives of a particular persuasion will tend to argue that slavery ought to be restored, so that those they consider inferior can serve the master race. On the other hand, I think you'd be hard pressed to find even very extreme liberals who'd make a similar argument.

TheEconomist said:
They will disagree on how much should collectively be done to promote opportunities and on how to best do it, but they will agree that spoon feeding people is a very bad idea.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously trying to draw a comparison between using extremes of force to kidnap and enslave a human being on the one hand, and offering them public assistance on the other?

TheEconomist said:
Radicals on the other hand... they absolutely will make the Fitzhugh argument. I'm not sure Noam Chomsky knows that when he talked about wage slavery, he was in agreement with some of the despicable, disgusting people that have ever spoken about politics in the United States: 19th century Democrats.
Click to expand...

This just seems confused. Radicals don't argue that slavery is better than work. Fitzhugh's argument was obviously specious--it based on a clearly false premise (since plenty of slaveowners did all sorts of horrific things to their slaves that reduced or entirely negated their ability to work). Worse, Fitzhugh conceives of the value of human beings in the same terms as the value of property, whereas democratic socialists argue that human beings have intrinsic moral worth that is incommensurable with property.
 
Ringo Stalin said:
Your misunderstanding is understandable.
Click to expand...

can you put into words why it is a misunderstanding? This is debate site not trade link site. Do you understand??
 
ashurbanipal said:
Are you seriously trying to draw a comparison between using extremes of force to kidnap and enslave a human being on the one hand, and offering them public assistance on the other?
Click to expand...

of course, in some critical ways welfare has been more destructive to blacks than slavery ever was. What planet have you been on???
 
charliebrown said:
A capitalist, free society thrives with morals and ethics instilled in society and dies with the lack thereof. You can say the same exact thing about any society.
Click to expand...

A good comment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom