I AM A CAPITALIST: Your Problem With That Is?

You are a hoot. "What Unions Do" was a book written by Freeman and Medoff, and the critique wasn't mine.

To ignore the monopoly face is even more ignorant, as that has become the dominate face in the US.

As far as hatred, how much violence has been perpetrated by the Tea Party, how much by unions?

I'll let you go back to your koolaid.

 

I didn't read your post. See previous post!

 

I think your confused. What you describe is not a monetary system trait but a human one. Every man seeks to expand his own personal empire by collecting material things or money, regardless of what social system is in place. Countries do the same thing. If left unbridled, one country would always be at war with another to claim it's land and wealth. Once enough is claimed, no other country would be in a position to take it over. Not so uncommon of a practice when you have limited real estate and resources and growing populations to support. You make capitalist sound like Dr. Evil, when in essense, it is man himself not the system, that determines what the limits to greed are.

 

This is taking the realist political economic stance to its most dodgy extreme, ultimately suggesting that economics is somehow irrelevant. Clearly the economic paradigm is crucial. Greed, for example, would lead to completely different market concentration rates in market socialism than in capitalism

 

Small business capitalists are not the problem. It is the big business leviathans who destroy the democratic process through their campaign financing largesse and their massive ownership of energy production, financial institutions, utilities, agribusiness, and mass media that are the problem.

Suffice it to say, we now live in a one-party plutocracy masquerading as a two-party republic where the common man (including the small businessman) is virtually a political and economic slave who exists at the convenience of a handful of multinational corporations.

 

Depends on what you mean by "the problem". In terms of influence costs you're obviously correct (although small business capitalists are likely to encourage underprovision of public goods). In terms of labour exploitation, they're very much part of the inefficiency beast!

 

You're incorrect here. I think the problem is with your definition of "inefficient." Capitalism is nothing but darwinism. You might not like how it operates, but it works like clockwork. It requires no effort to function. It is merely a natural process. Compare this to all variations of manmade marxism which inevitably collapse no matter how much they are modified. Because they are unnatural products of the human ego. Even if they come from a benevolent place. They are not compatible with human nature.

 

Exhaustion of mutually beneficial exchange. Standard stuff really, ensuring that my statement was perfectly correct

 

English, doc. I'm going to need you to elaborate here.

 

I gave the standard definition of economic efficiency. Given its nature, your counter was automatically made irrelevant

 

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. You're not even addressing anything I'm asking you.

 

It was all based on hot air. You stated that the problem was my definition of inefficient. That clearly is a load of bobbins as I'm applying the standard economic definition. You then went on to make some bogus comment that I "didn't like how it operates". That's bobbins as I haven't referred to some subjective evaluation of what I think is right or wrong. I've referred to how capitalism necessarily delivers inefficiency. You then gave a bogus comment about Marxism (for no apparent reason too as I'm not a Marxist, although it is clear that we need to refer to Marxism if we want to understand capitalism)

 

Nothing wrong with what you do. But your probably is not representing capitalism, cause such business is mostly private in socialism, too.
Capitalism becomes a problem, when it starts to get rid of rules.

 

I don't think you understand the concept of socialism. By definition no business is private in socialism:

In socialism all business is publicly, not privately owned.

edit: I realized that publicly may not be the best word. In socialism no business is privately held - society, usually through the government, owns all businesses.

 

You're still not really refuting anything I've said. You haven't explained how capitalism is "inefficient." You've just thrown some silly (brit?) slang into your argument in hopes that it will sound condescending enough to end this exchange.

 

Marxists believe in the power and control of the state. Progressives are socialists and Marxists and the dem party is overtaken by them. You have a socialist/Marxist in the White House who surrounds himself with Marxists of various sorts, some with communist cores..
THAT'S the problem.

.

 

Capitalists control America, the president is a puppet.

 

Could you mind paying taxs at least as the only people that do are your workers ,and BTW,its that capitialism as a whole system that is collapsing ,not the individual Capitialists that are the problem .

as far as your workers which you see as yours you pay them ,well they don't need you at all in the day to day running of your factory now do they .

So why not just take it off you its you against what 20to 30 working class families ,looking at it like that then who gives a rats about you and yours.

BTW,even Indicvidual Capitialists can side with the working Class ,look at Frederick Engles for instance.

 

How naive.

 

In 1989 there were 185.000 (16.6 million citizens, 7.5 million automobiles) private companies in the GDR (East-Germany), primarily in the areas of retail, restaurants and handicraft.

Some facts:
The number of employees in East Germany 1989-1993 decreased from 9.8 to 6.2 million.

Proportion of infants for whom there was a nursery place in the GDR in 1989: 80 %
Proportion of infants for whom there was a nursery place in Germany in 2011: 25 %

 

If you believe that you clearly know nothing about taxes and the tax code. You must have eaten the liberal class warfare BS that claims that business owners pay no taxes. This couldn't be farther from the truth. I wouldn't be surprised if this business owner pays more in taxes each year than you earn. Many business owners pay taxes in the 28% federal bracket, pay another 15%-20% to state plus 15% Social Social Security/Medicare, not to mention property taxes on any assets the business holds.

But cling to your very false belief that only laborers pay taxes.

 

I define capitalism as the freedom to combine my own labor, or the labor I purchase from others, with my own capital to produce goods that I can then sell to earn a living and contribute to a free market. This is what Thomas Jefferson meant by "pursuit of happiness".

The only problem I have is with government interfering with capitalism; stealing this right that everyone ought to have and giving it to a handful of individuals (corporations) via the unjust and highly misguided notion of intellectual property.

When the state has control over all production, we call it communism. But what do you call it when the state gives limited monopoly rights to select groups of private corporations in every industry under heavy regulations? Technically we can still call it capitalism but it's not a free market. It's communism disguised as capitalism. Which might explain why there is such a huge wealth disparity in America, why business in America gets along so well with China, and why jobs are a matter of life and death.

A hundred years ago, less than fifty years after the industrial revolution, America still had a thriving cottage industry. We had a handful of corporate monopolies- oil and steel- but we didn't have walmarts or kmarts or fast food franchises or income taxes. Now the US economy has been utterly and completely inundated with patent grants and there is no more cottage industry.

Every time I hear some over-paid politician or corporate CEO or brown-nosing executive/middle-manager brag about how much he/she's doing so much good for the nation, creating jobs and supporting his/her large successful family while my life is ruined by this fake economy, I feel like a rape victim receiving a lecture from my rapist about how they've improved my sex life.

 

Capitalism will not exist without government interventionism.

And that's the problem: economic error! The debate over capitalism is dominated by those that neither understand capitalism nor the possible variants of the paradigm. Here, for example, you've made the classic error of confusing the economic spectrum (from command economy to laissez faire) with political economic comment. That will often lead to ridiculous remarks that enable inefficiencies to further flourish. Thus, government action is bogusly called 'socialism' and a liberal democratic result that enhances social mobility is denied the class-ridden populace.

 

How many different "global empires" have formed, only to fall because they were too big to maintain control over the vast holdings.

 

Explain.