The problem of Capitalism

This above are simply invective. Pure Communism no longer even exists.

The source of all "democratically political power" is in the elected officials of the two principle organs of any democracy - the Head of state and the Legislature. What they pass is LAW and what is effected socially/economically/politically must observe the Written Law. (Exception: When that law is misconceived and needs modification.)

And as I have told many a Rightist Wonk, there is no such political-system as Communism left in the Western World. And in the Eastern-world it's just a political-prop for a centralized system that has found the monetary benefit of a Capitalist System (of exchange called otherwise Consumer Supply&Demand) - but its leaders do not dare become a democracy run by means of the popular-vote.

My Point: You cannot possibly compare China and the US because they are two entirely different systems of governance when it comes to Truly Democratic Elections. So, your presumption that America is beset by principles based upon Communism is very wrong!

You have your own particular comprehension of Capitalism. You think it protects your "freedom of choice" enshrined as political doctrine. Which it does not do.

Capitalism has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH POLITICAL DOCTRINE. For your edification - a dictionary definition:

Get it? There is nothing in the above that defines "Who gets what within a Capitalist Market-economy, and how much! Or how taxation is gathered and spent." Nothing, nada, niente, nixt, rien, tipota.

Because the definition of who-gets-what (in terms of Income Taxation) is a matter of elected-governance in any true democracy. That is, the people by means of legislatures should decide the law. But, when - if ever- have you seen NATIONAL INCOME TAXATION brought before the people to vote? Never in America! Because this particular-privilege of decision belongs to our representatives in both Chambers of Congress!

And so? So this: Both Gerrymandering and the Electoral College invented and made law throughout the land came were instituted in the earliest part of the 19th Century (1812) - the former by a state-governor who first devised the manipulation of voting-boundaries and the latter as a "give-the-dog-a-bone" to the South because it was thinking seriously of declaring itself an independent "country" in order to protect its right-to-slavery.

Since the 19th century America has learned how to employ the above manipulations to influence law-making as certain political-parties see fit (in a two-party system of governance).

We seem to think in America that voters have the right to decide laws within a free and fair system of democracy. Two centuries down the road-of-history and America is still waiting for a True Democracy (based purely upon the Popular-Vote) not afflicted or manipulated by either Gerrymandering or the Electoral College.

Waiting and waiting and waiting ...

 

PS: All the state Electoral College need do is report the official tally of the Popular-Vote and send it off to LaLaLand on the Potomac which publishes the results officially ....

 

Capitalism is much more than an economic system. When we speak of "Capitalist societies" we
understand this means these societies are likely liberal democracies. Freedom means more than
just freedom of speech or political choices - it's the freedom to own property and create business.

No system is pure Communism or even pure Capitalism. But the more left-wing a nation is, the
worse place it becomes. Look at the latest example - Venezuela. It is joining Cuba and North
Korea.

 

The quoted post said nothing about greed.
Certainly, Marxism/Stalinism is equally materialist with 'capitalism' ( a term that, I insist, is quite vague and far from being an ideology).
By the way, it can be easily argued that 'capitalism' is also about concentration of power, especially as money represents power in such a structure.

 

'Capitalism', at base, is simply one of any number of possible economic systems. As all such systems can only be social in existence and function, sociological aspects are inherent, inseparable.
Humankind's highest attribute is creativity, not mere accumulation of material things. Thus, any economic system, 'capitalism' included, that places excessive importance on our lower capacities creates problems for the individual and his/her society.

 

No, it aint. There are only two devised by mankind - the first was the exchange of physical-goods or services between individuals. Called bartering, two neighbors who exchange equally in a work-relationship are bartering. Before money, this was the principle means of exchange in a rudimentary market-economy.

That relationship is never accounted for in the GDP. But, such mutual-compensation is likely to be much more significant than economists think.

The second along came as a major enhancement to the "exchange" in the form of a money-intermediary. Also known as "capital". But, as the dictionary definition goes:

Barter is still popular in some communities or neighborhoods but we don't really understand its "worth".

Creativity is only one aspect inherent to life and living. Nobody needs the Internet to actually live. Humans on their own are superbly creative - or they can be.

And finally, there are far more basically important life-aspects of any society beyond just a market economy - two of which are Healthcare and Education. Both are the basic human fundamentals without which there is no creativity and very slow expansion of knowledge.

Methinks ...

 

You are literally telling me what and who I know. It's embarrassing, you need to give it a rest.

But yes .. I know people who are RICH and DON'T own land. Just as I know POOR people who do - suck it up, kiddo. Meantime, I think we can assume that these examples mess with your manifesto, so you have to reject them. That's funny!

 

In any case, there isn't much ground for maintaining that a moral question arises over using money to make money, unless one participates in a religion that judges it so.

 

you can't read?

 

Thank you for again proving your unfitness to participate in civil discourse.

 

That's right. Because I know BS when I read it.

No you don't.

No you don't. Poor people don't own real estate. You are just makin' $#!+ up.

Nope. Wrong again. If they existed, they would still be irrelevant to the facts I have identified.

 

No there isn't and that's just the problem! There is a moral-question regarding the unfairness of Wealth Distribution in the US!

If you had any sense whatsoever of economics you would understand that there is 'in economics) a quantifier called Income Disparity - and that comparatively it looks like this for major countries:

Now YOU justify that discrepancy between the two, which is due simply because of an unfair US policy as regards Upper-income Taxation.

Or here is a comparison of Europe and the US:


Do the above help understand the fundamentals of gross Income Disparity between the world's two mainly comparable economic entities ... ?

 

Only for your Own Purposes, when you want to employ it in YOUR CONCEPT of "a democracy". And I have written in this forum abundantly about what you can do with that silly notion!

Never took a course in high-school "Civics"? And if you did in the US, I'll bet nobody told you what I am printing here. Namely, that the US is a democratic country IN NAME ONLY. And will remain such until it corrects its two mistakes of ORIGINAL POLITICAL-SIN - Gerrymandering and the Electoral College, which both manipulate the popular-vote to favor one side or another (in a two-party electoral system) in elections to political office!

Yes, it is that too, but not in meaning. It's definition is far more intrinsic to its nature. Liberal democracies are not necessarily defined only by "Capitalism". I have given the definition of the word multiple times, but you-plural cannot seem to get the message.

Once again, for the truly stubborn, the definition of capitalism off the Internet (for the sake of simplicity) and from WikiPedia here:

And that is all! It is NOT a political-system unless a nation makes it so - and when the US did that, it allowed in (like a Financial Tornado) something that economists call INCOME DISPARITY. Of which the dictionary definition is (from here):

Which is polite to say the least, but the worst in application in some countries like the US! Language-wise, usage depends upon outcomes and not definitions, which often are completely different. (It's a mistake people make naturally when they are obsessed with insisting they are "right" and everybody else is "wrong".)

You're right on that one - but let's get our comparisons put correctly. You are comparing apples with nuts because both are fruit, when they are truly different!

Capitalism is a wholly economic attribute of a nation. It is not "political" in nature unless we make it so. Moreover (from here):

Despised or not is a matter of conviction and thus interpretation. Some people want to heap mountains of shat on the word "capitalism". Because it suits their purposes to underscore their detestation of the Accumulation of Capital - which need not be the nature itself of the word, if proper taxation is employed!

People have the inherent right to make as much money as they can. But they have no right whatsoever to obtain an Unfair Amount. And how do we know what the "unfair amount" is?

When we look at an economic parameter called Income Disparity - and from that perspective Uncle Sam is showing all his faults-and-failures.

See for yourself in this infographic-map here: Income Inequality in America in 2019 ...

 

Because I’ve refuted every argument you’ve made so far? Lol ok.

 

A tad ironic that countries with higher poverty tend to have higher working hours...

 

1) Nonsense. A parent determined to model self-restraint and a work ethic will do so, no matter their circumstances. We see this frequently in refugee groups, who have enormous economic and cultural obstacles, yet many still manage to produce children who escape poverty. And poor Asian migrants, who make the absolute most of the vast opportunities in the West. Parents who use their own circumstances as an excuse not to try, are making a clear CHOICE.

2) No, a school cannot replace the self-discipline learned in earliest childhood via parental modelling. Parents will ALWAYS be the primary influence. Besides, why should a school do the job a parent is supposed to do? They have more than enough to do just teaching academics. Unless you're one of these types who think parents should not have to be responsible for anything at all?

3) The specific vagaries of the employment sector do not decide our fates, outside of a full blown recession. WE do. If things are grim - pull together, cut expenditure, and pool resources. Or sit at home by yourself in your 'castle' complaining about the cost of living. CHOICES.

4) No one outside of a totalitarian state has a 'right' to employment. If you can't find any, make your own. Good lord you guys are apathetic. You want everything handed to you, and don't want to know about personal responsibility.

5) WE have to balance our budgets. It's not the damned Govt's job to look after us beyond keeping the trains on schedule and arresting criminals. As long as our economies still see people escaping poverty via education and/or sheer determination, AND THEY DO, all of this is just excuses.

 

1) Exactly. Yet America's 'poor' are some of the fattest people on earth.

2) Absurd. JAPAN is not a poor nation. No one is fat. Israel is not a poor nation, few fat people. France is not a poor nation, far fewer fat people than in America. Try again.

3) AMERICA has increasing numbers of fat teenagers.

 

1) Your building codes do not allow dwellings without kitchens.

2) They are not 'victims', they are people who make poor choices. Who else can we blame, when the family next door has the same income and circumstances, but makes far better choices and is thus able to escape poverty by doing so?

3) Why on earth would a family member 'turn out to be a thief', unless you have a family who makes terrible choices (see #2, above)? That's exactly the stuff I'm talking about. Make better CHOICES.

4) No, no processed food can be cheaper - pound for pound - than fresh in season. Sorry, I've been doing extreme frugality and vegetarianism for decades. You can't win this one.

5) If you live outside a city, then you can very easily produce your own vegetables, AND supermarkets exist. Imagine that! Who knew there were stores outside of capital cities!

6) Not in my country. Power costs the same everywhere. And it's ALL killing the planet.

7) People only die in heatwaves if they're very elderly, or behaving irresponsibly (exercising, or walking around at midday etc). I live in the land of heatwaves, it's all doable, when you manage it properly.

8 ) Humidity is irrelevant. I lived on the damned equator once .. and we dried our clothes outside. No clothes dryers in my tiny village of bamboo huts.

9) Yes, that's exactly what you have to do if you want to escape poverty. Did you think it would be easy? Do you think people shouldn't have to put themselves out to achieve things? This is what I'm talking about when I say CHOICES. You don't want to be arsed working hard at this stuff after working all day for man, that's YOUR choice. Others are prepared to do it, and that's THEIR choice. But make no mistake, these are choices, all the way.

10) No, the choices are very clear. You don't get them wrong unless that's your intention.

11) Yes, I am a perpetrator of providing access to land in perpetuity for those not able to procure their own. A perpetrator of opting out of the economic system I disagree with. A perpetrator of reducing my carbon footprint. What are YOU doing?

 

Sorry, but they do. Plenty of people living right on the breadline (ie, social security with no other sources of income) who own their modest houses. Keep in mind the homes we're talking about have little resale value, and so selling achieves nothing but housing insecurity.

 

Countries with higher poverty tend to have higher home ownership rates. Its a desperate attempt at self insurance. Of course, given the inability to maintain house standards and value, it isn't surprising that home ownership is then associated with greater mental illness.

 

In all fairness, this isn't true. Given the importance of land and also your inability to actually provide a relevant anti-Georgist comment, you could try harder here. Perhaps go macro-fiendish!

 

You haven't even attempted to refute any of my arguments -- and you won't, because you know I will just demolish and humiliate you. All you have done is claim they have been refuted, while offering no evidence for such refutations.

It's real simple, rahl: unimproved land value comes from the desirable services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at a given location. None of those are anything the OWNER provides, and yet he is legally entitled to take their value. Justice self-evidently demands that the publicly created value of land be recovered for the purposes and benefit of the public that creates it.

So, why do you hate justice so maniacally that you disgrace yourself by such despicable behavior?

 

No they don't.

Sure. But owning a mobile home on a rented pad in a trailer park is not owning land and not owning real estate.

They aren't poor. Low income =/= poor. Poor is not having the material wherewithal to sustain yourself. They have it.

 

Note the scare quotes. Many of those recorded as "poor" are not. They just have low reported incomes. Many are retired, own their homes, and quite comfortable. Some are on welfare, but have substantial income from crime or the underground economy.

But they have very skimpy pensions.

You obviously haven't watched sumo....

I don't know what you think your point is.

Who aren't poor.

 

And you actually think that is relevant to people who are living in one room of such a "dwelling"??? You are a joke.

They most certainly are, and I will thank you to remember it.

Garbage. The fact that one person might be strong enough to succeed despite being infested with parasites does not mean that those who aren't strong enough aren't burdened by being infested with the same parasites, or that being infested with parasites was their CHOICE. Give your head a shake.

Huh?? So now your absurd, despicable, blame-the-victim filth even extends to blaming people for what their family and acquaintances do??

Disgraceful.

No one CHOSE to have their rights to liberty forcibly stripped from them and given to landowners as their private property, and I will thank you to remember it.

No, you're just objectively wrong. I've seen it many times, and there are sound economic reasons for it. Try getting fresh in-season peas cheaper than frozen.

A retraction and apology for your false and absurd claims would go some way to rescue your credibility.

I've already won it, child. Deal with it.

Garbage. You need decent land, and you have to pay a landowner full market value for permission to use it.

You have to pay a landowner full market value just for PERMISSION to shop at a supermarket, and I will thank you to remember it.

Imagine that! Store owners are so stupid, they locate their operations in places so bereft of economic opportunity that no one is willing to pay landowners for permission to live there.

You just disqualified yourself from credible discussion. "Killing the planet"?!?? What nonsense.

More of your evil, blame-the-victim tripe.

More evil, blame-the-victim filth.

Then the humidity wasn't very high. Duh. I have lived where the humidity was so high, not only did clothes not dry, but water condensed on my hands when I went outdoors.

How about not being infested by greedy, privileged parasites?

I think it WOULD be easy if people weren't constantly being robbed by rich, greedy, privileged parasites.

I think achieving things is hard enough without also having to pay rich, greedy, privileged parasites full market value just for PERMISSION to achieve them.

The fact that some are strong enough to thrive despite the parasites they support doesn't mean those who aren't strong enough are to blame for the parasites. And I will thank you to remember it.

Garbage. You haven't a clue what you are talking about, and your evil, blame-the-victim filth is despicable.

Telling the truth about WHY people are not able to procure their own land, or do the other things they would be able to do if they didn't have to pay rich, greedy, privileged parasites full market value just for PERMISSION to do them. That's a lot more than you are doing for them, or will ever do, and I will thank you to remember it.