Ten Myths About Capitalism

reply to post by hawkiye

You don't have to simplify it for me. You have to realize that local markets are manipulated at the local level. Federal government is not needed for good old boys to scratch each others backs. This means manipulated markets, which equals non-free markets which, according to your definition, means no capitalism.

We can also add the subsidies in public land that the federal government gave to the railroad companies in the 19th century as government intervention but you would probably rather overlook that in order to keep the rosy tint of that moment in US history.

How about this little gem:

1860

DuPont reserves the right to nullify contracts with states threatening to secede from the Union. After secession, unpaid inventories in the hands of agents in the southern states had to be written off and southern civilian markets were lost to less patriotic competitors, because DuPont refused to do any business with or within the Confederacy.

You probably don't believe they got something out of siding with the feds on that. After all that would mean that the 19th century wasn't full of this "free market capitalism", which is the the only real capitalism, that you keep referring to.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by hawkiye

 

You don't have to simplify it for me. You have to realize that local markets are manipulated at the local level. Federal government is not needed for good old boys to scratch each others backs. This means manipulated markets, which equals non-free markets which, according to your definition, means no capitalism.

We can also add the subsidies in public land that the federal government gave to the railroad companies in the 19th century as government intervention but you would probably rather overlook that in order to keep the rosy tint of that moment in US history.

How about this little gem:

1860

DuPont reserves the right to nullify contracts with states threatening to secede from the Union. After secession, unpaid inventories in the hands of agents in the southern states had to be written off and southern civilian markets were lost to less patriotic competitors, because DuPont refused to do any business with or within the Confederacy.

You probably don't believe they got something out of siding with the feds on that. After all that would mean that the 19th century wasn't full of this "free market capitalism", which is the the only real capitalism, that you keep referring to.

edit on 6-2-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Wow you named a couple things gee the country was over run with control and manipulation math doesn't seem to be your strong suit... Sigh!

Some local markets may have been manipulated but most were not for the simple fact people would take their business elsewhere and historical facts were that the standard of living increased and the GDP exponentially greater than anytime in out history. lets see can you name ten markets national that were manipulated?

So we have a a few things manipulated and a few local markets so according to you there has never been a free market.. The illogic is just astounding you should quit before you embarrass yourself further.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Can capitalism coexist with government? Yes, if the government is limited and stays the hell out of its business. There is a school of thought that implies that the government should only exist to protect life, liberty and property and do nothing else.

It has to work both ways, tho. Business has to stay out of government, as well.

Liberty is the protection that everyone is worried about.

Originally posted by hawkiye
So we have a a few things manipulated and a few local markets so according to you there has never been a free market.. The illogic is just astounding you should quit before you embarrass yourself further.

A few things? How many things have to be manipulated and how much government intervention needs to be involved before the label of capitalism doesn't stick any more?

You know what? It doesn't matter. Your definitions only apply to you and those that think like you.

I fail to see why your need to glamorize the past should cause me embarrassment.

reply to post by lampsalot


Yeah, Capitalism has allowed me to rise to where i am in my given field, own a side business and own personal property and build wealth.

The Progressive Tax system has stolen more from me, as I earn more and given it to others.

So, no issue for me on Capitalism.

The biggest means of theft from me is the Progressive ideals and stances.

Originally posted by CryHavoc
It has to work both ways, tho. Business has to stay out of government, as well.

Good point. When you have business men like John Hancock lining up to be the first to sign the country's magna carta, you would have to be a fool or a dreamer to believe that it was ever really about freedom.

Originally posted by TheWrightWing
reply to post by lampsalot

 

Thanks to Capitalism, our poorest in the US own colour TV's, cell phones, microwave ovens, Nike basketball shoes, are overfed, watch Cable TV, have internet access, etc...

Thanks to Capitalism, I was able to, despite being born to a very poor family, achieve an impressive amount of success and wealth. None of which was handed to me because it was my 'right'.

So, what are the alternatives to Capitalism? Let's explore them in great detail here, shall we?

uhmm, no they don't..... "our poorest"... live in tents, or out of shopping carts...leave your bubble and find out.

reply to post by jimmyx


You are so right.

Just like this woman. investmentwatchblog.com...

reply to post by macman

So I guess that means she wasn't one of americas poorest.

There are people in the US who are going through tough times. Pointing out a single person that may be scamming the system doesn't change reality.

reply to post by daskakik


Oh, so pointing out a small percentage of those that are homeless is??

The people deemed as poor and getting Govt goodies are like what has been given as an example.

Seeing people go through the grocery line, the mother with kid buying food with the food stamp card and then having the boyfriend/husband paying cash for beer speaks louder then anything.



Great thing for Capitalism though, as without it, that guy wouldn't have the wad of cash to buy his beer with.

Oh, I forgot you are in Stockton CA. How is that unemployment there going for you? Maybe that is YOUR bubble, and no wonder you believe all are living in tents and parks. That is all you see in the land of Progressive ideals and policies.

reply to post by macman

Still doesn't change the fact that americas poorest are not represented by the exceptions.

reply to post by daskakik


money.usnews.com...

They may be poor, but no homeless.

Please show me where it states that the large amount of the population is living in tents, or doesn't own a TV, a Car or numerous others items.

Hell, even the guy begging for spare change has a $400 mountain bike near the freeway entrance where I work.

reply to post by macman

But there are poor people who may or may not be homeless.

I really don't see what your point is. The post you replied to was itself a reply to post worded a certain way.

reply to post by daskakik


Ok then. Sure sure.


Not all homeless people are poor.

Please, rephrase then. Until then. sure sure.

reply to post by macman


And not all poor people are homeless.

What does that have to do with the fact that they are poor?

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by macman

 

And not all poor people are homeless.

What does that have to do with the fact that they are poor?

You just answered your own question.

The vast majority of people are not living out of tents and shopping carts. The rules don't need to be changed for what, 1% of the people.

reply to post by macman


No one proposed any type of change. They were countering the statement, which isn't true, that capitalism made it possible for poor people to have electronics and gadgets.

I'm pretty sure they have electronics even in communist countries but you want to grab a hold of one term, which really is neither here or there, and build a strawman around it.

reply to post by daskakik


Because of Capitalism, they are able to work for cash and buy the newest electronic things.

Because of the Progressive Tax System, backed by the ideas of Socialism and Communism, they are able to get money and stuff from the Govt, by stealing from others.


Does that make it better for you?

reply to post by macman

Still a strawman.

People make things, buy and sell them, regardless of the system they find themselves in.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by macman

 

Still a strawman.

People make things, buy and sell them, regardless of the system they find themselves in.

That's nice and all, but under the other systems, the the individual is not able to either own the company or control it.
Same goes with the current tax system. Or, do you suggest people go against the Progressive ideals of taxation and have the person sell under the table.


Capitalism is just fine, when left alone by the Govt.