The end of the Conservative movement?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Away from capitalism to what??

In my opinion all there has ever been is crony capitalism and I don't mean just in the US.

There are no guarantees for anyone, survival wise, I will be thrice damned before I buy into guaranteed incomes for non-producers when MY survival is hinged upon pay-check to pay-check.

That response seems to be a reflex reaction. In a system with universal guaranteed income your survival would not be hinged on the next paycheck.

Since it has come up and after seeing this thread, Foxconn Just Replaced 60,000 Workers With Robots what happens to the idea that someone has to put in x number of man hours to avoid the parasite label?

Improve the work to population ration. Jobs. Good ones. Then there's more revenue to address issues like those you refer to.

I think you are focusing too much on "jobs" and not on work. A group only needs so much work to be done to insure its survival.

You seem to be saying that improving the work to population ratio means keeping eveyone working. What if that isn't needed for the survival of the group. Why are people still being taught that it is?

a reply to: daskakik

That response seems to be a reflex reaction. In a system with universal guaranteed income your survival would not hinged on the next paycheck.

Exactly!!! See - this is what I don't get at all. I don't get how people think somehow they are going to be hurt by universal health care or a guaranteed income. People think that if everyone else has enough to eat, then somehow They Themselves will go hungry.

Listen, I know what it is to have bought some peanuts when I was hungry and then tucking them into a dark corner of the pantry for my exclusive use. I get that. Guilty as charged.

But this whole idea that a Hunger Games scenario is really going to occur has caused some people's brains to blow a couple of fuses.
They don't [want to] understand that they are included in whatever safety nets are offered. Loved the books, the movies, too --
wish I'd come up with the premise myself.
But it's fiction. Just because someone imagined it doesn't mean the human race would allow it. Not in real life.
Not going to happen in North America.

Central Africa? Well, that's another story. They actually don't have enough to eat. Too bad for them, I guess.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: olaru12


So if he's out, what's your motive?

He's not out! I vote on principal and character; not like some people I know!

a reply to: olaru12

Wait - who's "out"?
Bernie?


No. No he's not. This is only May, folks. Lots can change in five months.

a reply to: olaru12

Heard a radio interview with a woman who's written a book about how corrupt Wall Street is.
She says she is all for capitalism, but what we have now is utterly unsustainable.....
the conversation was a bit over my head (calculus and economics were never my strong suit)...but I'm sure those who know the jargon would be interested to hear what she has to say.


It's not online for grabs yet, but should be in a couple more hours.

The title of her book is "Wall Street [something and something the something]" or something like that.

a reply to: daskakik

You don't answer the question
s. I ask you away from capitalism to what? All your response is all there's ever been is crony capitalism...


So I will try yet again....away from capitalism to WHAT? 60,000 robots gives you carte blanche for a free deal? Not in my house. You get the boot.....


I'm not focusing on your philosophical issue of splitting hairs between jobs and work. Jobs produce revenue which in turn a pays for programs. Sure less jobs are necessary for base survival. I'm not interested in base survival. Neither will those receiving the freebies, they will demand more...after all we are all 'equal'.


Enough of this it is well off-topic and I end your 'promoting'-poorly- further freebies. Have a continued 'nice' day....

I think you are focusing too much on "jobs" and not on work. A group only needs so much work to be done to insure its survival

Well the powers that be have made that pretty much impossible by driving the cost of living through the roof and growing our population so massively that it would be impossible for 99% of people to survive without our corrupt economic system.

If we didn't have half million dollar houses and 330 million people here then people would be able to survive without working countless hours for the man.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
You don't answer the question
s. I ask you away from capitalism to what? All your response is all there's ever been is crony capitalism...

You're confusing me for Eilasvaleleyn again. I'm partially to blame since I keep jumping into your replies.

Of course I never said a move away from "capitalism" was needed. I think I was actually disagreeing with Eilasvaleleyn while also not fully agreeing with you.

My point was that all systems despite what you call them are really just crony capitalism under the socialism, communism, capitalism or whatever top coat.

So I will try yet again....away from capitalism to WHAT? 60,000 robots gives you carte blanche for a free deal? Not in my house. You get the boot.....

I don't even know what you mean by this. I don't think you understood what was being said.

I'm not focusing on your philosophical issue of splitting hairs between jobs and work. Jobs produce revenue which in turn a pays for programs. Sure less jobs are necessary for base survival. I'm not interested in base survival. Neither will those receiving the freebies, they will demand more...after all we are all 'equal'.

Not splitting hairs but being pragmatic.

Enough of this it is well off-topic and I end your 'promoting'-poorly- further freebies. Have a continued 'nice' day....

I wonder if this reaction is because you think I am someone else. I honestly don't care what gets implemented.

Along with the idea that everything from royalty, theocracies, communist states, even the founding of the US has been crony capitalism, there is my idea that enough freebies (in whatever form they might come) will always be handed out in order to keep the masses from revolting.

Yes, it is the end of the conservative movement, mostly because they sought to bring back something that never was.

a reply to: Aazadan


"The main disadvantage is that capitalism is very inefficient with resource distribution and quality of goods. The most competitive product is what does well, not the product that's actually the best purchase for the customer".


I'm curious to see who you name that has better quality and resource distribution than capitalism....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
"The main disadvantage is that capitalism is very inefficient with resource distribution and quality of goods. The most competitive product is what does well, not the product that's actually the best purchase for the customer".


I'm curious to see who you name that has better quality and resource distribution than capitalism....

Communists were known for making very high quality, the limited supply lines made it a necessity. The Germans in particular were very good at this, making products with 50 year lifespans while the west was making them with 5 years because the increased access to raw materials meant there was no reason to "over engineer" products. The Amish are another group known for quality, as I type this I'm doing so from an Amish built house made back in 1782. Because of their lifestyle they can't match the rest of society in labor output (part of the supply line) so they make it up in quality.

Resource distribution was handled better in the middle ages and renaissance. Back in those days there were typically price controls and rationing in place which ensured that everyone could get goods. Market forces still existed, because if demand went up, you could produce more to meet demand rather than increase price to lower demand. What we have now is basically a system that ensures the wealthy are always first in line to any product and that system tends to hinder the growth of new products because price is used as a tool to keep demand down.

Here's a link to the radio program I mentioned earlier:
Why 'Financialization' Is The Real Threat To American Businesses
By STEVE KRASKE & DANIE ALEXANDER • 16 HOURS AGO

Most of us get that the U.S. government failed to fix the banking system after the Great Recession. The irony is that the world of high finance and wealth creation is still ruling the country, while the financial system is as vulnerable as ever.

Guest:

Rana Foroohar is an assistant managing editor at TIME and the magazine's economics columnist. She is the author of Makers and Takers: The Rise of Finance and the Fall of American Business.

And her book (linked above) is about:

Eight years on from the biggest market meltdown since the Great Depression, the key lessons of the crisis of 2008 still remain unlearned—and our financial system is just as vulnerable as ever.

Many of us know that our government failed to fix the banking system after the subprime mortgage crisis.

But what few of us realize is how the misguided financial practices and philosophies that nearly toppled the global financial system have come to infiltrate ALL American businesses, putting us on a collision course for another cataclysmic meltdown.

Drawing on in-depth reporting and exclusive interviews at the highest rungs of Wall Street and Washington, Time assistant managing editor and economic columnist Rana Foroohar shows how the “financialization of America” – the trend by which finance and its way of thinking have come to reign supreme – is perpetuating Wall Street’s reign over Main Street, widening the gap between rich and poor, and threatening the future of the American Dream.

Policy makers get caught up in the details of regulating “Too Big To Fail” banks, but the problems in our market system go much broader and deeper than that. Consider that:

· Thanks to 40 years of policy changes and bad decisions, only about 15 % of all the money in our market system actually ends up in the real economy – the rest stays within the closed loop of finance itself.

· The financial sector takes a quarter of all corporate profits in this country while creating only 4 % of American jobs.

· The tax code continues to favor debt over equity, making it easier for companies to hoard cash overseas rather than reinvest it on our shores.

· Our biggest and most profitable corporations are investing more money in stock buybacks than in research and innovation.

· And, still, the majority of the financial regulations promised after the 2008 meltdown have yet come to pass, thanks to cozy relationship between our lawmakers and the country’s wealthiest financiers.

Exploring these forces, which have have led American businesses to favor balancing-sheet engineering over the actual kind and the pursuit of short-term corporate profits over job creation, Foroohar shows how financialization has so gravely harmed our society, and why reversing this trend is of grave importance to us all. Through colorful stories of both “Takers” and “Makers,” she’ll reveal how we change the system for a better and more sustainable shared economic future.

So, there you go, nwtrucker - I know you won't 'take it from me', so there's a verifiable expert who has written a book. I suggest you read it. It should answer your questions about what to do now.

a reply to: Aazadan


OK, I like the Amish e.g.. Of course, that would be hard to translate into a world economic scenario. More the exception that proves the rule. ( an argument for a theocratic system?.......)

Germany is and always has been a capitalist system.


The Soviets??? That makes me laugh.....

a reply to: BuzzyWigs


I generally don't buy into links other that technical clarification. they tend to be, no ARE as vested, at least in opinion, as the person citing it. (Myself included...)

Having said that, I don't disagree with many of your points!!

What I attempt is a bit of balance in this. Your laugh response to the fact that this system, as flawed as it is, feeds this planet. If anything the sheer number of abuses piled onto it and it still produces?? Amazing it itself..

As far as sustainability goes, capitalism doesn't require constant growth to work. merely the system that is wrapped around it. It needs major adjustments. No doubt. Of which we are more than capable of.

I hold the simple view that if one doesn't have an alternate, then one is best served addressing fixing it. The flaws and sources of those flaws are already well known.

a reply to: nwtrucker

So, you're implying that you know better than the author of the book who has decades of personal experience interviewing Wall Streeters?

Dude. It's NPR - National Public Radio. Intelligent stuff. Equivalent to TEDtalks. Refusing to read it or check on links is rather, erm, stubborn and reeks of self-righteous superiority. I didn't write the book. The woman is a managing editor at TIME magazine. How you know better than her is the question, therefore....

it's beneath you to read a book or listen to a brief intellectual treatment of the topic?

Shame.

As far as sustainability goes, capitalism doesn't require constant growth to work

That's true, but since every capitalist and business person in the country believes it does it doesn't matter. Caplitalism is unsustainable and destructive.

Though really it's the corporate system that's the root of the problem. Corporations are evil, inhuman, destructive, unsustainable and corrupt. Small business is good, the small business person has to please every customer, so they can't do terrible things like dumping toxic chemicals in your water supply or contributing millions to anti-worker causes, or they'd go out of business.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: nwtrucker

So, you're implying that you know better than the author of the book who has decades of personal experience interviewing Wall Streeters?

Dude. It's NPR - National Public Radio. Intelligent stuff. Equivalent to TEDtalks. Refusing to read it or check on links is rather, erm, stubborn and reeks of self-righteous superiority. I didn't write the book. The woman is a managing editor at TIME magazine. How you know better than her is the question, therefore....

it's beneath you to read a book or listen to a brief intellectual treatment of the topic?

Shame.

First of all, I have zero trust for the Time-Warner Corporation whatsoever. They are as much a part of your Wall St. crowd as anyone you could name. PERIOD.(Of which I'm sure your fully aware.)

Second of all, I said I largely agree with many of your points! Including Wall St.!

Wall St. is NOT capitalism. It is the perversion of it. I will not buy into the premise that due to Wall St., all capitalism is bad. I believe it can be improved, repaired.

Lastly, (hint, hint) I believe the very premise you promote is, in fact, the agenda of those same to morph the U.S. and this world's economy into a completely Corporate controlled environment.

Nice mindless consumers of their products as well kept peons, serfs....content with their lot and totally dependent on their 'largess'.

If it come to Liberty or security, I choose liberty. I would 'prefer' a balance between the two. Certainly not your version which you well promote. I don't buy it and hopefully more and more Americans don't buy it....have a nice day.

a reply to: nwtrucker

First of all, I have zero trust for the Time-Warner Corporation whatsoever. They are as much a part of your Wall St. crowd as anyone you could name. PERIOD.(Of which I'm sure your fully aware.)

Okay, cool. We agree on that! Still, her experience as an insider in the MSM isn't to be shrugged off, though - right?

See, I thought it was notable that the book's author has lots of experience dealing with those very people - and is calling them out and exposing them for what they are. Or maybe not. I don't know.

Today I heard someone say (while comparing Trump to her) that Clinton thinks Edward Snowden is a traitor and needs to be extradited and put in prison post haste......and she's all about universal surveillance on everyone.....
while Trump just wants to eject all Muslims and Mexicans.....

it's all so surreal!



Whatever "capitalism" is or was or appeared to be, it's molting.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Germany is and always has been a capitalist system.


The Soviets??? That makes me laugh.....

East Germany was not capitalist, and they had a wall to prove it. That area of the world (predating Germany being formed) was also the birthplace of what would later be known as Communism. During the reformation it was quite popular as an economic system.

Capitalisms problem is that it relies on the concept of human perfection, it assumes people aren't going to be jerks, and that every customer makes a knowledgeable purchase given full information in a market of perfect competition. It's about as mythical as Communisms concept that people will work hard without an individual benefit for extra effort.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
If it come to Liberty or security, I choose liberty. I would 'prefer' a balance between the two. Certainly not your version which you well promote. I don't buy it and hopefully more and more Americans don't buy it....have a nice day.

You were proposing protectionism just a few pages ago.

Whatever you choose to buy or not buy dosn't really amount to much.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: daskakik

That response seems to be a reflex reaction. In a system with universal guaranteed income your survival would not hinged on the next paycheck.

Exactly!!! See - this is what I don't get at all. I don't get how people think somehow they are going to be hurt by universal health care or a guaranteed income. People think that if everyone else has enough to eat, then somehow They Themselves will go hungry.

No, we understand basic economics and know that such a system is not sustainable. And by the time such a system inevitably self-destructs, the populace would be too weak-minded and low-skilled to do anything about it.