100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: C(r)apitalism? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Economic freedom should be attainable for all. In order to achieve this, a government must create and implement laws that are in agreement with it's citizens. What makes it fair is keeping each other in check and within that there can be a free capitalist system. I think the problem is we have had a free global economy and governments are having a hard time trying to make it more fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tealbreeze
on
Tue 02/17/15 08:58 AM
|
|
A free market is naturally a fair market. Joe has a horse. I have a cow. I need to plow my field, he needs milk. I give my him my cow in exchange for his horse. Mutually beneficial transaction. Actually, I'm not even going to read this whole thread....It's about how NAFTA has done us in...just do a Google search yourself and see: Shenzhen, China + plastic factories You will bring up fkn thousands of companies. You wanna know where they went? That's where. Those people and workers are exploited. Socialism and Capitalism shaking hands. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic freedom should be attainable for all. In order to achieve this, a government must create and implement laws that are in agreement with it's citizens. What makes it fair is keeping each other in check and within that there can be a free capitalist system. I think the problem is we have had a free global economy and governments are having a hard time trying to make it more fair. it is Freedom that the Have-Nots Have Not! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic freedom is attainable for all in a free market system. Government intervention serves to limit who can attain economic freedom. People once came to the United States because of our capitalist system, but over the last 100 years, it has become increasingly more difficult to start a business, earn wealth, employ people, produce a good or service. If government intervention and regulation was such a great system and ensured economic opportunity, communism and fascism would have flourished. They didn't because they are abject failures that result in more economic equality, yes, but only because people are more equally poor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A free market is naturally a fair market. Joe has a horse. I have a cow. I need to plow my field, he needs milk. I give my him my cow in exchange for his horse. Mutually beneficial transaction. Actually, I'm not even going to read this whole thread....It's about how NAFTA has done us in...just do a Google search yourself and see: Shenzhen, China + plastic factories You will bring up fkn thousands of companies. You wanna know where they went? That's where. Those people and workers are exploited. Socialism and Capitalism shaking hands. Cronyism at it's best! Not a shred of Capitalism! You can accuse China of many things,but you definitely can't accuse them of Capitalism! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The big monopolies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were able to shut down competition not because of free market capitalism, but because politicians can be bought. Is there ever a guarantee against corruption? No. But government intervention guarantees there will be corruption. With free markets, however, the choice to conduct business is there. If you have something I want, do you just give without receiving anything in return? Probably not. You will name a price. If I believe the price is too high, I won't make the deal. For example, I was at an event some time ago where there were beer vendors. The price of the beer was $13 per can. I like beer, but I'm certainly not going to pay that price for it. I chose not to drink beer that night because the vendor would not negotiate the price. Going back to the example of feeding my chickens in exchange for eggs, my incentive to be fair is that my chickens are taken care of. Whoever is feeding them has the incentive of receiving the eggs. Is it possible that someone would steal more eggs than the agreed upon number for the work? Yes, that could happen. But if I find out, that person will be fired and not receive any. If I don't hold up my end of the deal, I now have to feed my own chickens, which means I have less time for whatever else I may have been doing. but these are optional commodities... free market may work on a small scale basis, which is why it was the ideal form of barter system in the earlier times when each population was self-sustaining and free market economics happened on more novel items exchanged...bigger and more extensive economies however, need regulation... if you were really thirsty, you'd buy that beer even for more than it's worth... but since it's regulated not to go above $13 (for example), you can have some left over to buy more than just one... and if you didn't have more than $13, you might end up having to exchange something far more precious to you, just out of desperation to quench your thirst... too many factors will make free market fail... kinda like utopia... dog eat dog world... never gonna be properly regulated by either party unless there is a set limit for which to set standards against and abide by... Capitalism has proven itself to be an extremely efficient economic model...Supply and demand works!...The problem is not in the construct, the problem is GREED!...When you have an economic model that gives control to the "owners" of capital, democracy will always suffer because political and economic systems are INTERDEPENDENT...Participants in BOTH systems can use their positions to compete for POWER and that is where ALL the problems begin and end...Dump the idea that a free market is good and government is bad (or vice versa) because both serve a "necessary" purpose...What's needed is an objective set of rules that specifically dictate governments role because, like it or not, capitalism today requires structure, security and ADAPTABILITY...It's governments role to frame these REQUIREMENTS in a way that is designed "for" the people because government "by" the people does not, and never will, guarantee assurance that it is indeed operating "for" the people.... I mostly agree with this. My support for free market capitalism should not be confused with a from of anarchy, which, in theory, would be ideal, but in practice only results in chaos. The problem with government setting the rules for any economic system is that said government will continually adjust those rules, not to advance economic liberty, but to advance the role of government. I hear you loud and clear and have since the beginning of this thread  ...I am NOT anti government, I am anti BIG government...But when it comes to capitalism, one can (AND SHOULD) embrace the concept and still be willing to admit that it is (has become?) as corrupt as politics....You cannot point the finger at one without pointing the finger at both because they are interdependent and you cannot solve a problem until you understand the cause... Ok, so we were on the same page, just reading different paragraphs.  If I implied that you thought I was pro anarchy, that was not my intent. I was merely saying that government intervention in a capitalist system eventually results in it becoming no longer a capitalist system. Not really "no longer a capitalist system", just no long an uncorrupted capitalist system...See the difference?...Capitalism IS the best way, we (the people) just need to figure out a way to clean up politics and "so called" free markets...And to be quite honest, I don't know if that is possible anymore...For the last two decades, my focus has been on doing everything I can to make sure my azz is covered should the chit hit the fan...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The big monopolies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were able to shut down competition not because of free market capitalism, but because politicians can be bought. Is there ever a guarantee against corruption? No. But government intervention guarantees there will be corruption. With free markets, however, the choice to conduct business is there. If you have something I want, do you just give without receiving anything in return? Probably not. You will name a price. If I believe the price is too high, I won't make the deal. For example, I was at an event some time ago where there were beer vendors. The price of the beer was $13 per can. I like beer, but I'm certainly not going to pay that price for it. I chose not to drink beer that night because the vendor would not negotiate the price. Going back to the example of feeding my chickens in exchange for eggs, my incentive to be fair is that my chickens are taken care of. Whoever is feeding them has the incentive of receiving the eggs. Is it possible that someone would steal more eggs than the agreed upon number for the work? Yes, that could happen. But if I find out, that person will be fired and not receive any. If I don't hold up my end of the deal, I now have to feed my own chickens, which means I have less time for whatever else I may have been doing. but these are optional commodities... free market may work on a small scale basis, which is why it was the ideal form of barter system in the earlier times when each population was self-sustaining and free market economics happened on more novel items exchanged...bigger and more extensive economies however, need regulation... if you were really thirsty, you'd buy that beer even for more than it's worth... but since it's regulated not to go above $13 (for example), you can have some left over to buy more than just one... and if you didn't have more than $13, you might end up having to exchange something far more precious to you, just out of desperation to quench your thirst... too many factors will make free market fail... kinda like utopia... dog eat dog world... never gonna be properly regulated by either party unless there is a set limit for which to set standards against and abide by... Capitalism has proven itself to be an extremely efficient economic model...Supply and demand works!...The problem is not in the construct, the problem is GREED!...When you have an economic model that gives control to the "owners" of capital, democracy will always suffer because political and economic systems are INTERDEPENDENT...Participants in BOTH systems can use their positions to compete for POWER and that is where ALL the problems begin and end...Dump the idea that a free market is good and government is bad (or vice versa) because both serve a "necessary" purpose...What's needed is an objective set of rules that specifically dictate governments role because, like it or not, capitalism today requires structure, security and ADAPTABILITY...It's governments role to frame these REQUIREMENTS in a way that is designed "for" the people because government "by" the people does not, and never will, guarantee assurance that it is indeed operating "for" the people.... I mostly agree with this. My support for free market capitalism should not be confused with a from of anarchy, which, in theory, would be ideal, but in practice only results in chaos. The problem with government setting the rules for any economic system is that said government will continually adjust those rules, not to advance economic liberty, but to advance the role of government. I hear you loud and clear and have since the beginning of this thread ...I am NOT anti government, I am anti BIG government...But when it comes to capitalism, one can (AND SHOULD) embrace the concept and still be willing to admit that it is (has become?) as corrupt as politics....You cannot point the finger at one without pointing the finger at both because they are interdependent and you cannot solve a problem until you understand the cause... Ok, so we were on the same page, just reading different paragraphs. If I implied that you thought I was pro anarchy, that was not my intent. I was merely saying that government intervention in a capitalist system eventually results in it becoming no longer a capitalist system. Not really "no longer a capitalist system", just no long an uncorrupted capitalist system...See the difference?...Capitalism IS the best way, we (the people) just need to figure out a way to clean up politics and "so called" free markets...And to be quite honest, I don't know if that is possible anymore...For the last two decades, my focus has been on doing everything I can to make sure my azz is covered should the chit hit the fan... I understand what you mean, but if things keep going as they are, our system will no longer be capitalist. On that point I'm going to maintain my disagreement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tealbreeze
on
Tue 02/17/15 09:16 AM
|
|
Can't really be capitalist if you are making money off of "service workers" performing services and made up interest dividends. That is not a commodity. Not tangible. IMHO.
No goods to sell. Just dinners, schooling, health care, and let's make up the numbers for vehicles crushed why don't we? Oh...eta: and since when is selling washing machines and dryers on the Today Show, NBC news?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The big monopolies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were able to shut down competition not because of free market capitalism, but because politicians can be bought. Is there ever a guarantee against corruption? No. But government intervention guarantees there will be corruption. With free markets, however, the choice to conduct business is there. If you have something I want, do you just give without receiving anything in return? Probably not. You will name a price. If I believe the price is too high, I won't make the deal. For example, I was at an event some time ago where there were beer vendors. The price of the beer was $13 per can. I like beer, but I'm certainly not going to pay that price for it. I chose not to drink beer that night because the vendor would not negotiate the price. Going back to the example of feeding my chickens in exchange for eggs, my incentive to be fair is that my chickens are taken care of. Whoever is feeding them has the incentive of receiving the eggs. Is it possible that someone would steal more eggs than the agreed upon number for the work? Yes, that could happen. But if I find out, that person will be fired and not receive any. If I don't hold up my end of the deal, I now have to feed my own chickens, which means I have less time for whatever else I may have been doing. but these are optional commodities... free market may work on a small scale basis, which is why it was the ideal form of barter system in the earlier times when each population was self-sustaining and free market economics happened on more novel items exchanged...bigger and more extensive economies however, need regulation... if you were really thirsty, you'd buy that beer even for more than it's worth... but since it's regulated not to go above $13 (for example), you can have some left over to buy more than just one... and if you didn't have more than $13, you might end up having to exchange something far more precious to you, just out of desperation to quench your thirst... too many factors will make free market fail... kinda like utopia... dog eat dog world... never gonna be properly regulated by either party unless there is a set limit for which to set standards against and abide by... Capitalism has proven itself to be an extremely efficient economic model...Supply and demand works!...The problem is not in the construct, the problem is GREED!...When you have an economic model that gives control to the "owners" of capital, democracy will always suffer because political and economic systems are INTERDEPENDENT...Participants in BOTH systems can use their positions to compete for POWER and that is where ALL the problems begin and end...Dump the idea that a free market is good and government is bad (or vice versa) because both serve a "necessary" purpose...What's needed is an objective set of rules that specifically dictate governments role because, like it or not, capitalism today requires structure, security and ADAPTABILITY...It's governments role to frame these REQUIREMENTS in a way that is designed "for" the people because government "by" the people does not, and never will, guarantee assurance that it is indeed operating "for" the people.... I mostly agree with this. My support for free market capitalism should not be confused with a from of anarchy, which, in theory, would be ideal, but in practice only results in chaos. The problem with government setting the rules for any economic system is that said government will continually adjust those rules, not to advance economic liberty, but to advance the role of government. I hear you loud and clear and have since the beginning of this thread ...I am NOT anti government, I am anti BIG government...But when it comes to capitalism, one can (AND SHOULD) embrace the concept and still be willing to admit that it is (has become?) as corrupt as politics....You cannot point the finger at one without pointing the finger at both because they are interdependent and you cannot solve a problem until you understand the cause... Ok, so we were on the same page, just reading different paragraphs. If I implied that you thought I was pro anarchy, that was not my intent. I was merely saying that government intervention in a capitalist system eventually results in it becoming no longer a capitalist system. Not really "no longer a capitalist system", just no long an uncorrupted capitalist system...See the difference?...Capitalism IS the best way, we (the people) just need to figure out a way to clean up politics and "so called" free markets...And to be quite honest, I don't know if that is possible anymore...For the last two decades, my focus has been on doing everything I can to make sure my azz is covered should the chit hit the fan... I understand what you mean, but if things keep going as they are, our system will no longer be capitalist. On that point I'm going to maintain my disagreement. Yours IS a damn good argument! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The big monopolies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were able to shut down competition not because of free market capitalism, but because politicians can be bought. Is there ever a guarantee against corruption? No. But government intervention guarantees there will be corruption. With free markets, however, the choice to conduct business is there. If you have something I want, do you just give without receiving anything in return? Probably not. You will name a price. If I believe the price is too high, I won't make the deal. For example, I was at an event some time ago where there were beer vendors. The price of the beer was $13 per can. I like beer, but I'm certainly not going to pay that price for it. I chose not to drink beer that night because the vendor would not negotiate the price. Going back to the example of feeding my chickens in exchange for eggs, my incentive to be fair is that my chickens are taken care of. Whoever is feeding them has the incentive of receiving the eggs. Is it possible that someone would steal more eggs than the agreed upon number for the work? Yes, that could happen. But if I find out, that person will be fired and not receive any. If I don't hold up my end of the deal, I now have to feed my own chickens, which means I have less time for whatever else I may have been doing. but these are optional commodities... free market may work on a small scale basis, which is why it was the ideal form of barter system in the earlier times when each population was self-sustaining and free market economics happened on more novel items exchanged...bigger and more extensive economies however, need regulation... if you were really thirsty, you'd buy that beer even for more than it's worth... but since it's regulated not to go above $13 (for example), you can have some left over to buy more than just one... and if you didn't have more than $13, you might end up having to exchange something far more precious to you, just out of desperation to quench your thirst... too many factors will make free market fail... kinda like utopia... dog eat dog world... never gonna be properly regulated by either party unless there is a set limit for which to set standards against and abide by... Capitalism has proven itself to be an extremely efficient economic model...Supply and demand works!...The problem is not in the construct, the problem is GREED!...When you have an economic model that gives control to the "owners" of capital, democracy will always suffer because political and economic systems are INTERDEPENDENT...Participants in BOTH systems can use their positions to compete for POWER and that is where ALL the problems begin and end...Dump the idea that a free market is good and government is bad (or vice versa) because both serve a "necessary" purpose...What's needed is an objective set of rules that specifically dictate governments role because, like it or not, capitalism today requires structure, security and ADAPTABILITY...It's governments role to frame these REQUIREMENTS in a way that is designed "for" the people because government "by" the people does not, and never will, guarantee assurance that it is indeed operating "for" the people.... I mostly agree with this. My support for free market capitalism should not be confused with a from of anarchy, which, in theory, would be ideal, but in practice only results in chaos. The problem with government setting the rules for any economic system is that said government will continually adjust those rules, not to advance economic liberty, but to advance the role of government. I hear you loud and clear and have since the beginning of this thread ...I am NOT anti government, I am anti BIG government...But when it comes to capitalism, one can (AND SHOULD) embrace the concept and still be willing to admit that it is (has become?) as corrupt as politics....You cannot point the finger at one without pointing the finger at both because they are interdependent and you cannot solve a problem until you understand the cause... Ok, so we were on the same page, just reading different paragraphs. If I implied that you thought I was pro anarchy, that was not my intent. I was merely saying that government intervention in a capitalist system eventually results in it becoming no longer a capitalist system. Not really "no longer a capitalist system", just no long an uncorrupted capitalist system...See the difference?...Capitalism IS the best way, we (the people) just need to figure out a way to clean up politics and "so called" free markets...And to be quite honest, I don't know if that is possible anymore...For the last two decades, my focus has been on doing everything I can to make sure my azz is covered should the chit hit the fan... I understand what you mean, but if things keep going as they are, our system will no longer be capitalist. On that point I'm going to maintain my disagreement. Hasn't been Capitalist in a long time,if it ever really was! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The big monopolies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were able to shut down competition not because of free market capitalism, but because politicians can be bought. Is there ever a guarantee against corruption? No. But government intervention guarantees there will be corruption. With free markets, however, the choice to conduct business is there. If you have something I want, do you just give without receiving anything in return? Probably not. You will name a price. If I believe the price is too high, I won't make the deal. For example, I was at an event some time ago where there were beer vendors. The price of the beer was $13 per can. I like beer, but I'm certainly not going to pay that price for it. I chose not to drink beer that night because the vendor would not negotiate the price. Going back to the example of feeding my chickens in exchange for eggs, my incentive to be fair is that my chickens are taken care of. Whoever is feeding them has the incentive of receiving the eggs. Is it possible that someone would steal more eggs than the agreed upon number for the work? Yes, that could happen. But if I find out, that person will be fired and not receive any. If I don't hold up my end of the deal, I now have to feed my own chickens, which means I have less time for whatever else I may have been doing. but these are optional commodities... free market may work on a small scale basis, which is why it was the ideal form of barter system in the earlier times when each population was self-sustaining and free market economics happened on more novel items exchanged...bigger and more extensive economies however, need regulation... if you were really thirsty, you'd buy that beer even for more than it's worth... but since it's regulated not to go above $13 (for example), you can have some left over to buy more than just one... and if you didn't have more than $13, you might end up having to exchange something far more precious to you, just out of desperation to quench your thirst... too many factors will make free market fail... kinda like utopia... dog eat dog world... never gonna be properly regulated by either party unless there is a set limit for which to set standards against and abide by... Capitalism has proven itself to be an extremely efficient economic model...Supply and demand works!...The problem is not in the construct, the problem is GREED!...When you have an economic model that gives control to the "owners" of capital, democracy will always suffer because political and economic systems are INTERDEPENDENT...Participants in BOTH systems can use their positions to compete for POWER and that is where ALL the problems begin and end...Dump the idea that a free market is good and government is bad (or vice versa) because both serve a "necessary" purpose...What's needed is an objective set of rules that specifically dictate governments role because, like it or not, capitalism today requires structure, security and ADAPTABILITY...It's governments role to frame these REQUIREMENTS in a way that is designed "for" the people because government "by" the people does not, and never will, guarantee assurance that it is indeed operating "for" the people.... I mostly agree with this. My support for free market capitalism should not be confused with a from of anarchy, which, in theory, would be ideal, but in practice only results in chaos. The problem with government setting the rules for any economic system is that said government will continually adjust those rules, not to advance economic liberty, but to advance the role of government. I hear you loud and clear and have since the beginning of this thread ...I am NOT anti government, I am anti BIG government...But when it comes to capitalism, one can (AND SHOULD) embrace the concept and still be willing to admit that it is (has become?) as corrupt as politics....You cannot point the finger at one without pointing the finger at both because they are interdependent and you cannot solve a problem until you understand the cause... Ok, so we were on the same page, just reading different paragraphs. If I implied that you thought I was pro anarchy, that was not my intent. I was merely saying that government intervention in a capitalist system eventually results in it becoming no longer a capitalist system. Not really "no longer a capitalist system", just no long an uncorrupted capitalist system...See the difference?...Capitalism IS the best way, we (the people) just need to figure out a way to clean up politics and "so called" free markets...And to be quite honest, I don't know if that is possible anymore...For the last two decades, my focus has been on doing everything I can to make sure my azz is covered should the chit hit the fan... I understand what you mean, but if things keep going as they are, our system will no longer be capitalist. On that point I'm going to maintain my disagreement. Hasn't been Capitalist in a long time,if it ever really was! PURE capitalism no longer exists...Due to governments role in private enterprise, American now has a mixed economy...And we can biotch all we want, but it's still working and it's still better than the alternative....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The big monopolies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were able to shut down competition not because of free market capitalism, but because politicians can be bought. Is there ever a guarantee against corruption? No. But government intervention guarantees there will be corruption. With free markets, however, the choice to conduct business is there. If you have something I want, do you just give without receiving anything in return? Probably not. You will name a price. If I believe the price is too high, I won't make the deal. For example, I was at an event some time ago where there were beer vendors. The price of the beer was $13 per can. I like beer, but I'm certainly not going to pay that price for it. I chose not to drink beer that night because the vendor would not negotiate the price. Going back to the example of feeding my chickens in exchange for eggs, my incentive to be fair is that my chickens are taken care of. Whoever is feeding them has the incentive of receiving the eggs. Is it possible that someone would steal more eggs than the agreed upon number for the work? Yes, that could happen. But if I find out, that person will be fired and not receive any. If I don't hold up my end of the deal, I now have to feed my own chickens, which means I have less time for whatever else I may have been doing. but these are optional commodities... free market may work on a small scale basis, which is why it was the ideal form of barter system in the earlier times when each population was self-sustaining and free market economics happened on more novel items exchanged...bigger and more extensive economies however, need regulation... if you were really thirsty, you'd buy that beer even for more than it's worth... but since it's regulated not to go above $13 (for example), you can have some left over to buy more than just one... and if you didn't have more than $13, you might end up having to exchange something far more precious to you, just out of desperation to quench your thirst... too many factors will make free market fail... kinda like utopia... dog eat dog world... never gonna be properly regulated by either party unless there is a set limit for which to set standards against and abide by... Capitalism has proven itself to be an extremely efficient economic model...Supply and demand works!...The problem is not in the construct, the problem is GREED!...When you have an economic model that gives control to the "owners" of capital, democracy will always suffer because political and economic systems are INTERDEPENDENT...Participants in BOTH systems can use their positions to compete for POWER and that is where ALL the problems begin and end...Dump the idea that a free market is good and government is bad (or vice versa) because both serve a "necessary" purpose...What's needed is an objective set of rules that specifically dictate governments role because, like it or not, capitalism today requires structure, security and ADAPTABILITY...It's governments role to frame these REQUIREMENTS in a way that is designed "for" the people because government "by" the people does not, and never will, guarantee assurance that it is indeed operating "for" the people.... I mostly agree with this. My support for free market capitalism should not be confused with a from of anarchy, which, in theory, would be ideal, but in practice only results in chaos. The problem with government setting the rules for any economic system is that said government will continually adjust those rules, not to advance economic liberty, but to advance the role of government. I hear you loud and clear and have since the beginning of this thread ...I am NOT anti government, I am anti BIG government...But when it comes to capitalism, one can (AND SHOULD) embrace the concept and still be willing to admit that it is (has become?) as corrupt as politics....You cannot point the finger at one without pointing the finger at both because they are interdependent and you cannot solve a problem until you understand the cause... Ok, so we were on the same page, just reading different paragraphs. If I implied that you thought I was pro anarchy, that was not my intent. I was merely saying that government intervention in a capitalist system eventually results in it becoming no longer a capitalist system. Not really "no longer a capitalist system", just no long an uncorrupted capitalist system...See the difference?...Capitalism IS the best way, we (the people) just need to figure out a way to clean up politics and "so called" free markets...And to be quite honest, I don't know if that is possible anymore...For the last two decades, my focus has been on doing everything I can to make sure my azz is covered should the chit hit the fan... I understand what you mean, but if things keep going as they are, our system will no longer be capitalist. On that point I'm going to maintain my disagreement. Hasn't been Capitalist in a long time,if it ever really was! PURE capitalism no longer exists...Due to governments role in private enterprise, American now has a mixed economy...And we can biotch all we want, but it's still working and it's still better than the alternative.... yep,but you know what happens if you mix Food and Poison! Ain't the Food that will win in the end!  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The big monopolies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were able to shut down competition not because of free market capitalism, but because politicians can be bought. Is there ever a guarantee against corruption? No. But government intervention guarantees there will be corruption. With free markets, however, the choice to conduct business is there. If you have something I want, do you just give without receiving anything in return? Probably not. You will name a price. If I believe the price is too high, I won't make the deal. For example, I was at an event some time ago where there were beer vendors. The price of the beer was $13 per can. I like beer, but I'm certainly not going to pay that price for it. I chose not to drink beer that night because the vendor would not negotiate the price. Going back to the example of feeding my chickens in exchange for eggs, my incentive to be fair is that my chickens are taken care of. Whoever is feeding them has the incentive of receiving the eggs. Is it possible that someone would steal more eggs than the agreed upon number for the work? Yes, that could happen. But if I find out, that person will be fired and not receive any. If I don't hold up my end of the deal, I now have to feed my own chickens, which means I have less time for whatever else I may have been doing. but these are optional commodities... free market may work on a small scale basis, which is why it was the ideal form of barter system in the earlier times when each population was self-sustaining and free market economics happened on more novel items exchanged...bigger and more extensive economies however, need regulation... if you were really thirsty, you'd buy that beer even for more than it's worth... but since it's regulated not to go above $13 (for example), you can have some left over to buy more than just one... and if you didn't have more than $13, you might end up having to exchange something far more precious to you, just out of desperation to quench your thirst... too many factors will make free market fail... kinda like utopia... dog eat dog world... never gonna be properly regulated by either party unless there is a set limit for which to set standards against and abide by... Capitalism has proven itself to be an extremely efficient economic model...Supply and demand works!...The problem is not in the construct, the problem is GREED!...When you have an economic model that gives control to the "owners" of capital, democracy will always suffer because political and economic systems are INTERDEPENDENT...Participants in BOTH systems can use their positions to compete for POWER and that is where ALL the problems begin and end...Dump the idea that a free market is good and government is bad (or vice versa) because both serve a "necessary" purpose...What's needed is an objective set of rules that specifically dictate governments role because, like it or not, capitalism today requires structure, security and ADAPTABILITY...It's governments role to frame these REQUIREMENTS in a way that is designed "for" the people because government "by" the people does not, and never will, guarantee assurance that it is indeed operating "for" the people.... I mostly agree with this. My support for free market capitalism should not be confused with a from of anarchy, which, in theory, would be ideal, but in practice only results in chaos. The problem with government setting the rules for any economic system is that said government will continually adjust those rules, not to advance economic liberty, but to advance the role of government. I hear you loud and clear and have since the beginning of this thread ...I am NOT anti government, I am anti BIG government...But when it comes to capitalism, one can (AND SHOULD) embrace the concept and still be willing to admit that it is (has become?) as corrupt as politics....You cannot point the finger at one without pointing the finger at both because they are interdependent and you cannot solve a problem until you understand the cause... Ok, so we were on the same page, just reading different paragraphs. If I implied that you thought I was pro anarchy, that was not my intent. I was merely saying that government intervention in a capitalist system eventually results in it becoming no longer a capitalist system. Not really "no longer a capitalist system", just no long an uncorrupted capitalist system...See the difference?...Capitalism IS the best way, we (the people) just need to figure out a way to clean up politics and "so called" free markets...And to be quite honest, I don't know if that is possible anymore...For the last two decades, my focus has been on doing everything I can to make sure my azz is covered should the chit hit the fan... I understand what you mean, but if things keep going as they are, our system will no longer be capitalist. On that point I'm going to maintain my disagreement. Hasn't been Capitalist in a long time,if it ever really was! PURE capitalism no longer exists...Due to governments role in private enterprise, American now has a mixed economy...And we can biotch all we want, but it's still working and it's still better than the alternative.... yep,but you know what happens if you mix Food and Poison! Ain't the Food that will win in the end! That's why I'm working to cover my own azz!...AND, when I think of the possibilities if everyone in the US did the same, I can't help but get a little wet.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man's rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man's right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal When I say capitalism, I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism,with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church............ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The big monopolies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were able to shut down competition not because of free market capitalism, but because politicians can be bought. Is there ever a guarantee against corruption? No. But government intervention guarantees there will be corruption. With free markets, however, the choice to conduct business is there. If you have something I want, do you just give without receiving anything in return? Probably not. You will name a price. If I believe the price is too high, I won't make the deal. For example, I was at an event some time ago where there were beer vendors. The price of the beer was $13 per can. I like beer, but I'm certainly not going to pay that price for it. I chose not to drink beer that night because the vendor would not negotiate the price. Going back to the example of feeding my chickens in exchange for eggs, my incentive to be fair is that my chickens are taken care of. Whoever is feeding them has the incentive of receiving the eggs. Is it possible that someone would steal more eggs than the agreed upon number for the work? Yes, that could happen. But if I find out, that person will be fired and not receive any. If I don't hold up my end of the deal, I now have to feed my own chickens, which means I have less time for whatever else I may have been doing. but these are optional commodities... free market may work on a small scale basis, which is why it was the ideal form of barter system in the earlier times when each population was self-sustaining and free market economics happened on more novel items exchanged...bigger and more extensive economies however, need regulation... if you were really thirsty, you'd buy that beer even for more than it's worth... but since it's regulated not to go above $13 (for example), you can have some left over to buy more than just one... and if you didn't have more than $13, you might end up having to exchange something far more precious to you, just out of desperation to quench your thirst... too many factors will make free market fail... kinda like utopia... dog eat dog world... never gonna be properly regulated by either party unless there is a set limit for which to set standards against and abide by... Capitalism has proven itself to be an extremely efficient economic model...Supply and demand works!...The problem is not in the construct, the problem is GREED!...When you have an economic model that gives control to the "owners" of capital, democracy will always suffer because political and economic systems are INTERDEPENDENT...Participants in BOTH systems can use their positions to compete for POWER and that is where ALL the problems begin and end...Dump the idea that a free market is good and government is bad (or vice versa) because both serve a "necessary" purpose...What's needed is an objective set of rules that specifically dictate governments role because, like it or not, capitalism today requires structure, security and ADAPTABILITY...It's governments role to frame these REQUIREMENTS in a way that is designed "for" the people because government "by" the people does not, and never will, guarantee assurance that it is indeed operating "for" the people.... I mostly agree with this. My support for free market capitalism should not be confused with a from of anarchy, which, in theory, would be ideal, but in practice only results in chaos. The problem with government setting the rules for any economic system is that said government will continually adjust those rules, not to advance economic liberty, but to advance the role of government. I hear you loud and clear and have since the beginning of this thread ...I am NOT anti government, I am anti BIG government...But when it comes to capitalism, one can (AND SHOULD) embrace the concept and still be willing to admit that it is (has become?) as corrupt as politics....You cannot point the finger at one without pointing the finger at both because they are interdependent and you cannot solve a problem until you understand the cause... Ok, so we were on the same page, just reading different paragraphs. If I implied that you thought I was pro anarchy, that was not my intent. I was merely saying that government intervention in a capitalist system eventually results in it becoming no longer a capitalist system. Not really "no longer a capitalist system", just no long an uncorrupted capitalist system...See the difference?...Capitalism IS the best way, we (the people) just need to figure out a way to clean up politics and "so called" free markets...And to be quite honest, I don't know if that is possible anymore...For the last two decades, my focus has been on doing everything I can to make sure my azz is covered should the chit hit the fan... I understand what you mean, but if things keep going as they are, our system will no longer be capitalist. On that point I'm going to maintain my disagreement. Hasn't been Capitalist in a long time,if it ever really was! PURE capitalism no longer exists...Due to governments role in private enterprise, American now has a mixed economy...And we can biotch all we want, but it's still working and it's still better than the alternative.... yep,but you know what happens if you mix Food and Poison! Ain't the Food that will win in the end! That's why I'm working to cover my own azz!...AND, when I think of the possibilities if everyone in the US did the same, I can't help but get a little wet....  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Leigh2154
on
Tue 02/17/15 09:41 AM
|
|
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man's rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man's right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal When I say capitalism, I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism,with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church............ Yes boss, but what did you think of my last post?....roflmaOFF...!!   OK, scratch that!! ... U...!!!..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic freedom should be attainable for all. In order to achieve this, a government must create and implement laws that are in agreement with it's citizens. What makes it fair is keeping each other in check and within that there can be a free capitalist system. I think the problem is we have had a free global economy and governments are having a hard time trying to make it more fair.  Yep,Government Mandated Freedom!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic freedom should be attainable for all. In order to achieve this, a government must create and implement laws that are in agreement with it's citizens. What makes it fair is keeping each other in check and within that there can be a free capitalist system. I think the problem is we have had a free global economy and governments are having a hard time trying to make it more fair. it is Freedom that the Have-Nots Have Not! I guess we are in agreement. Anyway, now that we have a global economy, international relations are more important than ever, the countries which have a good dialogue will have the most success. I think this is why Obama is very careful about foreign talks (he is not a pushover), it's good for the economy. The countries who don't get along will be left out, such as North Korea and possibly China. Now in the next generation it will be important to secure a stronger world economy and hopefully the big banks and corporations will no longer get away with whatever.. And the rate of poverty around the world should be reduced as the wealth becomes redistributed more evenly due to fair capitalism. At least that is what I hope to see. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Done properly it beats socialism any day, because to be quite blunt, I'm sick of my hard earned money getting spent on lazy b------ds.
Pardon my Dyslexia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic freedom should be attainable for all. In order to achieve this, a government must create and implement laws that are in agreement with it's citizens. What makes it fair is keeping each other in check and within that there can be a free capitalist system. I think the problem is we have had a free global economy and governments are having a hard time trying to make it more fair. it is Freedom that the Have-Nots Have Not! I guess we are in agreement. Anyway, now that we have a global economy, international relations are more important than ever, the countries which have a good dialogue will have the most success. I think this is why Obama is very careful about foreign talks (he is not a pushover), it's good for the economy. The countries who don't get along will be left out, such as North Korea and possibly China. Now in the next generation it will be important to secure a stronger world economy and hopefully the big banks and corporations will no longer get away with whatever.. And the rate of poverty around the world should be reduced as the wealth becomes redistributed more evenly due to fair capitalism. At least that is what I hope to see. Redistribution is socialism, not capitalism. Socialism may provide more equality, but that's because everyone is equally poor. This is not a zero sum game where there is only so much to go around. Bill Gates being a billionaire isn't preventing anyone else from also becoming a billionaire. If redistribution worked, why did the Soviet Union dissolve? Hint: the people wanted a system more like the United States once they got a small taste of it is a major part of that answer. Rising tides to lift all boats. The problem is, too many are advocating blowing holes in everyone's boat with redistribution schemes. |
|
|
|
|
