It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by daskakik
Originally posted by hawkiye
When government intervenes in the market and stifles market forces the means of production are no longer private they are government controlled.
This is where you are wrong. Government isn't the only thing that can stifle market forces. Private parties (provided that they have the means) can also manipulate and stifle those same forces yet they remain private. This is where those other types of capitalisms come in because they are privately owned and they do away with your laissez-fair.
Originally posted by hawkiye
No so called private business only have such power to intervene through government force in their favor. They got their power by being politically connected not by earning it in a free market. Government intervention has always been the problem while marxist continue to blame private free enterprise that does not exist anymore. if business uses government to protect their markets they are no longer private now are they. This is what the Marxist have used to label their insidious philosophies as capitalism.
The younger generation cant fathom the thought that their romantic ideals of socialism are complete BS lies fed to them through media propaganda grow up and face the truth!
According to you guys N Korea is a capitalist country since they dump billions into their military...
Originally posted by hawkiye
Capitalism keeps power with the people allowing them to dictate which businesses stay viable based on the quality of products or services they produce...
Originally posted by daskakik
Originally posted by hawkiye
Capitalism keeps power with the people allowing them to dictate which businesses stay viable based on the quality of products or services they produce...
You mean that other system that has never been implemented?
Sure sounds nice, too bad it isn't real.
edit on 10-6-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by hawkiye
I have and have done so objectively which brings me to the truth and not a romanticized version.
President Washington used a group of armed men larger than any that he had led during the revolution to collect a tax on whiskey which skewed the market in favor of the eastern farmers. Can you please explain to me how that equals free markets? I mean that is the only definition for capitalism that is being accepted.
Originally posted by GLontra
Of course it is.
If the USA is not a capitalist country, give me an example of a country that is capitalist...
Originally posted by hawkiye
Where did I say that equals free markets? I have said it is not and has not been perfect. I am not sure if we have ever had 100% free markets like we should. However we came closest after the civil war and up to about 1913 and those were our most prosperous times and they definitely proved that free market capitalism works well and is the blue print for success.
Originally posted by hawkiye
There is no other form of capitalism then free market anything else becomes centrally managed and monopolized and ceases to be capitalism.
Incidents like the whisky rebellion are sad forays into idiocy by government and even our founding fathers but they are not representative of the bar of freedom the AC and constitution set which is the goal.
Maximum freedom always facilitates prosperity. But the banking cartels would have you believe it is the root of all our problems.
When people are free and happy they are most productive that is just common sense reason and logic. The so called robber barons are always facilitated by government force period history has proven that for thousands of years. Government intervention is and has always been the problem from the monarchs to the modern oligarchs people call democracy!
Originally posted by hawkiye
There are none today The US abandoned it at least 80 years ago.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by hawkiye
There are none today The US abandoned it at least 80 years ago.
We have a world wide capitalist system, period.
This is what globalization is all about. Capitalist interests.
What you are calling nationalism is simply capitalists using the government to their advantage. Bail-outs was not the government controlling markets, it was capitalist interests within government taking care of their own.
I don't understand all these excuses people make for capitalism, you don't realise that it's simply your conditioning coming into play. You have been conditioned to believe capitalism is freedom, so if it appears to be restrictive then you want to believe it's not capitalism. But capitalism has no set of rules, other than restrictions placed on it by the state. Capitalism is simply "the private ownership of the means of production", if that is the case it doesn't matter what the state does, it is still capitalism. Capitalism is not government, it is economy, and there are no guarantees that capitalism cannot be totalitarian. Have you ever read 1984, or Brave New World?
Now I know a bunch of posters are going to jump on here and want to do some drive by postings about the evils of capitalism etc. Please don't if you want to argue against it then refute the points and links with evidence logic and reason instead of unsubstantive anti-capitalist talking points from some website or media outlet.
Originally posted by hawkiye
Capitalism cannot exist without freedom. As soon as government intervention granting monopolies is implemented it cease to be capitalism. That is why I said in my OP:
Nonsense. Capitalism gives no guarantee of freedom, other than for capitalists.
Capitalism certainly isn't freedom for the workers, it is exploitation. The worker is not free to do with what he produces as he sees fit. A worker is required to produce more than they are paid for, and has no say on what happens to that product. In a true free system the workers would be able to demand the full fruits of their labour.
What keeps workers from doing that is private ownership of the means to produce for their needs. Capitalists produce for their own needs, as in they produce profits by taking the surplus value created by the worker.
As long as industry is privately owned that is capitalism, no matter what the state does, and the state is always going to be controlled by whomever has the economic power.
Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by ANOK
Free markets are proven successful they regulate themselves.
That is not in any way shape or form capitalism! That is what the bankers want you to think so they can protect their meal ticket. And they have succeeded wildly in brainwashing a whole generation it seems...
Originally posted by daskakik
Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by ANOK
Free markets are proven successful they regulate themselves.
Please, you haven't even proven that free markets have ever existed. All you are presenting is theory.
That is not in any way shape or form capitalism! That is what the bankers want you to think so they can protect their meal ticket. And they have succeeded wildly in brainwashing a whole generation it seems...
You want to force us to use your definition of capitalism but if we do that then Capitalism has never and probably can never exist, so what is the point?edit on 11-6-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)
Oh and it is only in recent years the definition of capitalism has been hijacked to what you think it means.
Thackeray saw how capitalism and imperialism with their emphasis on wealth, material goods, and ostentation had corrupted society and how the inherited social order and institutions, including the aristocracy, the church, the military, and the foreign service, regarded only family, rank, power, and appearance.
Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by hawkiye
You already refuted that proof. It was the time of robber barons and government working together. It doesn't fit your strict definition and since you have already stated, and I quoted, that anything other than free markets is not capitalism, you seem to be arguing both sides.
Oh and it is only in recent years the definition of capitalism has been hijacked to what you think it means.
The word was coined by William Makepeace Thackeray in his novel, The Newcomes.
Thackeray saw how capitalism and imperialism with their emphasis on wealth, material goods, and ostentation had corrupted society and how the inherited social order and institutions, including the aristocracy, the church, the military, and the foreign service, regarded only family, rank, power, and appearance.
Sorry but you are the one who is using a revised definition.
edit on 12-6-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by hawkiye
Gezuz christ you people are a real piece of work. I have said now in several posts it has never been perfect.
For the most part we have been a free market economy up until 1913 when things began to shift and it still took many years to wipe most of it away. We still have some remnants of the free markets but so few it cannot be called that any more.... No system has ever been implemented to the satisfaction of its strict definition! However up until 1913 this country was 80-95% (and sometimes more) free market most of that time minus wars and a few government debacles here and there and it accounted for most prosperous nation with the highest standard of living for the most people in the history of the world despite its problems and faults. That is not even arguable so please cut the propaganda it is getting ridiculous.
The Robber Barons were facilitated by government force pure and simple as I said government debacles.
The origin of the word Capitalism from Thackery has little to do with the cultural us of the word for the last 150 years. Its Cultural meaning became cemented in the 19th century and associated with the principles of freedom and liberty America was founded on and has been used in that vein ever since, until recently that is. Marx assigned his own meaning to it different from Thackery. Adam Smith is called the father of Capitalism and his philosophy is also that of freedom and liberty of which the founders revered and pulled from heavily. That is how it has been defined by the majority until now, that is its traditional cultural definition.
‘Capitalism’ was a word and a phenomenon neither used by, nor known to, Adam Smith. Capitalism was a wholly late 19th-century experience.
The attempt to change the meaning of Capitalism is really an attack on freedom. The enemies of freedom are relentless. It is just amazing to me that anyone would even consider more freedom being bad or wrong. It is a loser mentality that has been cultivated by marxists and others. hat worse is its proponents. are the ones saying we need more choice... Sigh! The are cutting off their noses to spite their face.
To students of the Founders, the philosophy of capitalism is the only moral system that defines to man his individual liberty, and therefore the only valid political, economic, and social standard for pursing freedom prosperity and peace.