A Message to OWS Protestors: The Case for Capitalism

reply to post by CaptainIraq

IMO should be taking the lead (even though the movement 'has no leaders', which is a recipe for failure to begin wit

Again you are failing my friend.. Its not that the movement has no leaders.. THESE PEOPLE ARE THE LEADERS. - All of them....
They are up there putting their butts on the line trail blazing for what they belief in...

Okay I have one oint and I will make it short, and I hope to get a moderatly educated response.

If a free market regulates itself, and no government medeling is needed, then how do you explain the derivitives market.

It has been a main point of the federal reserve and of special interest groups to keep regulations out of the derivitive market, and they have succeded.

Because of a lack of regulations they have leveraged huge amounts of money on these derivitives.
Because of the lack of regulations, we are in the current economic situation.

And you think that by taking away the rules form the other areas that will help?

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


I dont know if it man that is destroying the system or the system going self destruct. I dont just want to see the system destroyed. This system helps to give the things I have learned to need in my life. The system as you said has an error and that error needs to be addresses.
This planet is our home and it is sad that we are causing so much destruction to it.. I do not agree with your point that

A planet's resource is finate, but for Earth, it will take several millon years to run dry. We mankind had literally scratch the surface of our mineral wealth. 70% of earth is covered under water and uninhabitated, with very much laying resources there, and along with improve tech, to better manage and reproduce food/water resources for 10 times the amount of current earthlings for millions of years to come.

I was not referring to the mineral wealth. I was talking about the biosphere - the living whole. Do you think the planets ecosystem will last that long. The damage we are causing to our oceans and atmosphere may well be irreversible. The primary rain forests that are taken away cannot ever be replaced.
We are living right now through a mass extinction caused by the very system we have chosen to sustain us. The system is not sustainable.
Its like using a credit card. We are borrowing against are future of our children and our planet.. That is not something we want to crash.
The imbalances in the system and the disparity in wealth are responsible for many of the social aliments of our time. Do people not understand the riots in London were a direct result of the disparity of wealth.
Is it right we live in a world were we could feed the starving on the budget of a few days of military spending. No its not and its well :-# up!
I dont have the answers but I know something is really wrong and if we keep doing the things the way we have done we will keep having the same results.A system bases of competition is doomed to fail maybe its time we moved to one based on mutual cooperation...

reply to post by CaptainIraq


Basically, these amount to "government is bad because it restricts otherwise unrestrained corporate power." You're not going to attract many flies to this argument.

But, when you add some jingo and buzzwords and make it "Big government is bad because it restricts the freedoms of the private sector" then you've got yourself something people might want to listen to.

It also colludes "capitalism" with "free markets." These two are not synonyms. In fact unfettered capitalism is harmful to free markets, because of the realities of competition in the market. No industry wants competition. After all, competition means there are people who aren't buying your stuff, competition means that you have to keep your prices lower, competition even means you have to pay your workers and suppliers more. This is bad for profits, and profits are the be-all end-all of capitalist theory. So it is in the industry's interest to either buy out or otherwise destroy all competition, or if the competition is too strong for that, then to collude with htem and create a trust (thus preventing a free market.)

Government spending on services is also important for a number of reasons. Primarily there is (ideally) no profit motive constantly driving prices up and service down. It is usually entry-level and cheap, good for those people who are most in need of it. Further it is the duty and responsibility of a government to provide for the security and welfare o its citizens when needed - unlike a private organization which does so as a matter of choice and option.

Lastly, "wealth redistribution" is necessary for the continued functioning of a capitalist society. While Marx may have been wrong on his theories of socialist utopias, he was spot-on about the means by which a capitalist system collapses. When the majority of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very few, it is not going anywhere or doing anything. Even if these people wanted to spend it all, they probably couldn't accomplish it, just because of how much wealth there is vs. how few spenders there are. This ends up becoming a system of wealth extraction where capital is constantly increasing at the top - but not anywhere else. It's like one of those trees on the Serengeti, which have tall bare trunks and then a very thin but wide canopy. This system eventually becomes unsustainable - as ours is becoming - and is in danger of collapsing, whether in fiscal crises or popular revolt. The solution is to skim wealth off the top level, and re-introduce it to the bottom. Thus the people at the bottom levels of the tree have reliable means to meet their necessities, and the money put into their pockets percolates back up, stimulating economic activity the whole way until it, once again, collects at the top.

Well, if I may. Most everyone here makes good points. Keep it up.
I feel that if we fix the system or maybe remove the corruption we then won't need to regulate. Get rid of the loop holes. You know, make these company's do as they say...The corrupt lie.

Okay, you can't get rid of corruption without regulation.

It's an oxy-moron.

Human factor is not considered in the old theoretical economic systems as it is today.
The problem is not that there are to many rules, the REAL problem is special interest groups having so much access to government.

I know special interest groups sound nice cause it has the word special in it, but it isn't.
Special interest groups include, but are not limited to, tabbacco companies, pharmaceutical companies, financial agencies, ect.

What they do is fight to keep regulations away. Why do you think they do this?
So they can be free to regulate themselves.

*add* I am not advocating socialism as an answer, I think it is just as bad, there are no GOOD systems currently.
All of them are flawed when it comes to human being taking advantage for greed.
The first point of a truly good system would have to be how to limit human greed from destroying it.
No such system currenty exists.

The greatest trick they are playing now, is saying that it is governments fault that they are over regulating the market, and people are loving it, cause they don't know better.

The derivative market is a prime example of pure capitalism.

reply to post by KingAtlas


Regulations are nothing more than an illusion. The problem with government the market is this: in a free market, you have a system of risk and reward. The more risk you take on, the more you stand to gain or lose.

Private profits, private losses.

In our system of a massive government bureaucracy, the corporations and banks have rigged the system (by buying off politicians, etc.) to the point that no matter what risk they take on, whether it be the derivatives market or the sub-prime mortgage crisis, they always have the government to cover their losses.

Private profits, socialized losses.

I believe this is explained in one of the videos, but here's one other source:

www.economicpopulist.org...

In short, these banks and corporations have nothing to worry about when they make these atrocious investments. Do you think they would make decisions that would destroy the very economy that provides their capital, simultaneously bankrupting their company? Of course not. That would be a completely irrational decision.

They've just found a clever way to 'have their cake and eat it too.'

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by CaptainIraq

 

Basically, these amount to "government is bad because it restricts otherwise unrestrained corporate power." You're not going to attract many flies to this argument.

Well I don't think that I came off that way at all, but if I did, let me restate my position:
government is bad because it allows for unrestrained corporate power. Why? Because corporations (being recognized as individuals by the government - for some reason) have no inherent authority to force you to do anything, much the same as I don't have the authority to rob you at gunpoint. I may have power, but power by itself does not give sufficient conditions for authority.

Guess who we have given authority to? The Federal Government. So the corporations solution to their problem of not having any legal authority over us is simple: control the Federal Government. If 'men were governed by angels', as it were, then this wouldn't be a problem. However, the vast majority of politicians have sold themselves out to the corporate interest. It is through this means that they have gained control over every aspect of our lives.

But, when you add some jingo and buzzwords and make it "Big government is bad because it restricts the freedoms of the private sector" then you've got yourself something people might want to listen to.

Big government allows for the restriction of the most important aspect of free markets: competition. Take that out and it tips the scales in favor of the '1%'.

It also colludes "capitalism" with "free markets." These two are not synonyms. In fact unfettered capitalism is harmful to free markets, because of the realities of competition in the market. No industry wants competition. After all, competition means there are people who aren't buying your stuff, competition means that you have to keep your prices lower, competition even means you have to pay your workers and suppliers more. This is bad for profits, and profits are the be-all end-all of capitalist theory. So it is in the industry's interest to either buy out or otherwise destroy all competition, or if the competition is too strong for that, then to collude with htem and create a trust (thus preventing a free market.)

There is no one definition of capitalism; in the title I was referring to it in the colloquial sense (free market capitalism). They are not synonyms; free market is a subcategory of 'capitalism' in the general sense.

Government spending on services is also important for a number of reasons. Primarily there is (ideally) no profit motive constantly driving prices up and service down. It is usually entry-level and cheap, good for those people who are most in need of it. Further it is the duty and responsibility of a government to provide for the security and welfare o its citizens when needed - unlike a private organization which does so as a matter of choice and option.

Not entirely sure what you're getting at here, but you need to clearly define what 'welfare' is.

Lastly, "wealth redistribution" is necessary for the continued functioning of a capitalist society. While Marx may have been wrong on his theories of socialist utopias, he was spot-on about the means by which a capitalist system collapses. When the majority of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very few, it is not going anywhere or doing anything. Even if these people wanted to spend it all, they probably couldn't accomplish it, just because of how much wealth there is vs. how few spenders there are. This ends up becoming a system of wealth extraction where capital is constantly increasing at the top - but not anywhere else. It's like one of those trees on the Serengeti, which have tall bare trunks and then a very thin but wide canopy. This system eventually becomes unsustainable - as ours is becoming - and is in danger of collapsing, whether in fiscal crises or popular revolt. The solution is to skim wealth off the top level, and re-introduce it to the bottom. Thus the people at the bottom levels of the tree have reliable means to meet their necessities, and the money put into their pockets percolates back up, stimulating economic activity the whole way until it, once again, collects at the top.

Simply throwing money at a problem never solves it. And I hate to break your bubble, but the current concentration of wealth is not a result of not enough redistribution to the lower class, but a direct result of redistribution of wealth to the top by yours truly, the Federal Government (i.e., the bailouts).

What happens after this redistribution, anyway? You think giving the poor a check for $1000 dollars is going to get them a job? Nope. It's just going to encourage corporations to move even more overseas.

reply to post by CaptainIraq


Okay, you skipped over my entire point, by saying regulations are an illusion.

You have done a little bit of research and watched the propagnda guy at OWS, that much is obvious to me with your response.

Regulations are not the illusion, you say a corperation would not bankrupt an economy to make thier money, but that is exactly what they have done, and not only that, they came back for more.

Saying the reason that they get to uhm socialize their losses is because there are to many rules makes little sense. The reason is because the PROPER rules are not in place.

Pure capitalism won't work, because people are greedy. A million dollars isn't good enough anymore, they have to make a trillion. You think they will stop because it might bankrupt an economy, it won't you know why, because even if the economy is bankrupt, THEY STILL HAVE A TRILLION DOLLARS. That makes thier money even more valuable, because they control a larger percentage of the available money or power.

Truly look at the derivitives market, it is not because of too many regulations that this happened, it is because there are not enough regulations, and the right regulations.

You said the regulations are full of loopholes, that is not a reason to get rid of all the regulations. The lobbyist aren't just forcing in loopholes, they are fighting against the regulations, because they want to regulate themselves.

Why would this work, it makes no sense.


You would trust the same people who destroyed an economy, to regulate themselves.

Originally posted by KingAtlas
reply to post by CaptainIraq

 

Okay, you skipped over my entire point, by saying regulations are an illusion.

You have done a little bit of research and watched the propagnda guy at OWS, that much is obvious to me with your response.

Regulations are not the illusion, you say a corperation would not bankrupt an economy to make thier money, but that is exactly what they have done, and not only that, they came back for more.

Saying the reason that they get to uhm socialize their losses is because there are to many rules makes little sense. The reason is because the PROPER rules are not in place.

Let me clarify my position: those banks and corporations would not have made those decisions if they actually were taking any risk. The Federal Government basically guaranteed to reimburse them if they failed. This is well-documented stuff; you should be able to find it with a Google search.

On regulations, I meant that they are an illusion in the sense that their sole purpose is to eliminate competition. In a real free market, companies would be in a constant state of competition, ensuring that good business practices prevail.

In our system of ''capitalism'', the biggest corporations wield all the power, and since they own the politicians, they don't actually have to follow the regulations (as is the case with the tax code). Small and medium businesses, and subsequently their employees are the ones who end up drawing the short straw and suffering.

Pure capitalism won't work, because people are greedy. A million dollars isn't good enough anymore, they have to make a trillion. You think they will stop because it might bankrupt an economy, it won't you know why, because even if the economy is bankrupt, THEY STILL HAVE A TRILLION DOLLARS. That makes thier money even more valuable, because they control a larger percentage of the available money or power.

'Greed is good' - the only stipulation being that competition is involved. In a pure, government intervention free market, we essentially level the playing field. The entire reason we're in this mess is that we gave the Federal Government too much power, and corporations found a way to hijack our political system through lobbying. Take away power from the Federal Government, and you take away power from the corporations. That's their dirty little secret.

You said the regulations are full of loopholes, that is not a reason to get rid of all the regulations. The lobbyist aren't just forcing in loopholes, they are fighting against the regulations, because they want to regulate themselves.

News flash: they already do regulate themselves though lobbyists. You just said it yourself. The only regulations we need in this country are private property rights and the rule of law; that's the role of domestic government in a free society.

Again, without the Federal Government, they can't gain unfair advantages in the market. It's dog-eat-dog-eat-dog; essentially, we leave them in the 'state of nature' (if you're familiar with Hobbes or Rousseau). The funny thing about this system is that while it appears to 'let loose the hounds' on the economy, the fact is that we're really just letting them loose on each other, and we end up winning in the long run.

Why would this work, it makes no sense.


You would trust the same people who destroyed an economy, to regulate themselves.

And you would trust the same people who get us into wars based on lies, violate the constitution with things like the 'Patriot' Act, sell guns to Mexican drug cartels, and overthrow foreign governments to regulate them. Yeah, we can trust the Fed, don't worry just go about your business...

Look, man, I feel you on this (I really do). I used to be a huge proponent of heavy regulation. Then I did some research on free markets and found out that the exact thing I thought I was opposing turned out to be the only real solution to our problems.

Try to keep an open mind; there's no need to defend a position just because someone told you to, or because you've always done it.

I think the real thing is, we both are in agreement on alot of the subject matter.

I have done research into this also, we are very close to the same place, we see the way it works, but we have come to different conclusions.

I am not trying to convince you of anything.

I will just sum it up this way, you can't really trust anyone who has their hand in the cookie jar.

Basicaly you say, everyone just grab cookies and that will self regulate, if they are not fast enough or good enough they wont get one.

But I say, we should regulate, because I think that it prevents monopolies and collusions. If a couple of them get together they just block for each other, and only two can get cookies.

*add* also the reason the government guarenteed the debt was because of lobbyist. not inspite of them. the lobbyist are the real problem that stopped any real regulations from passing,

I mean I have simplified it down alot, but i think that is the jist of it.

It is all in how you look at it. i am not against everything in capitalism, but I think there are good and bad parts.
The real problem is when we stop thinking up new ideas and just fight about which existing idea is best, we all lose.

What we really need is a new system. Based on the world today. It is alot different world than when they though up capitalism. It is an old idea. Capitalism is best used in a Non -global environment.