capitalism, by definition, is a stupid and foolish human system

POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Monday, January 13, 2025 18:50
VIEWED: 28275
PAGE 2 of 3

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

1KIKI

Thursday, June 19, 2014 8:40 AM (P)

Geez

Oh, THAT'S the link you wanted? Jeeze, you could have just told me when I asked. Well, you didn't. So, I'm not going to bother.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Thursday, June 19, 2014 8:44 AM (P)

G

"Would you voluntarily reduce your income?"

Big difference between 'income' and 'profit'. Income is nearly always derived from work. Profit is accrued ... just because. But, why don't you make that argument to Geezer? He's the one who claims there are 'good' capitalists, ones who don't maximize profit every way they can. You - seem to disagree with that.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Thursday, June 19, 2014 8:54 AM (P)

"Any merchants in your neighborhood YOU DEAL WITH that seem to be after more than the last cent they can squeeze out of you?"

"All the stores you shop at? All the stores in your neighborhood?"

"Violation of Rule #3: Thou shall not use small numbers to represent the whole. (Hasty generalization)"

I'm sorry you can't keep your own questions straight. I was listing the stores IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD I DEAL WITH, as per your question, which are grocery stores. In fact, I went beyond and listed all the grocery stores there are. I also deal with gas stations. Chevron, Shell, 76, Mobil, Arco, and Valero. Those are in fact ALL of my choices. But - like the grocery stores - there are no local vendors. They're all part of large national and international companies. They have no say in prices, wages and benefits.

So, which of the grocery stores in my neighborhood I deal with are the 'good' capitalists?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Thursday, June 19, 2014 10:18 AM (P)

In any case, Geezer, you wanted to make a point. You wanted to show that not everything is sacrificed to profit in capitalism.

So I'll describe a small family-owned single location restaurant in my town. Food is ok. It's not high cuisine, but not fast food either. Prices are to my mind high, and have been steadily increasing. A sandwich menu (smallish sandwich, with fries and choice of fruit or other small side - beverage is extra) is $10.00 minimum. Fortunately California has laws that cover waitresses and protect them from the Herman Cain (yes, that Herman Cain) minimum wage law that holds their minimum to $2.13 forever. So, I'm not worried that they're getting royally screwed on wages, but that's not due to the owner. They're getting the absolute minimum he is allowed to pay here. And I know what he's paying on some items, for example the iced-tea service, and the pie service, as I talked with the vendors.

I see him paying the bare minimum wage, charging pretty high prices for things I know are cheap, and steadily raising prices. Do I think he'd raise prices and cut corners even more if he thought he could? Well, yes, based on his history, I do. I think it's the balancing act EVERY business engages in - how much can they charge before they drive too many customers away and ultimately lose some profit? But at its heart, it is about maximizing profits under different sets of constraints. The grocery stores and gas stations, as parts of larger and largely non-competing entities, charge what they want on the local level. The local businesses charge what they think they can get away with.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 19, 2014 6:23 PM (P)

GEEZER

Quote:
Just wanted to confirm that you are going to stereotype anyone who runs a business in which they have invested their capital - be it money, time, skills, etc. - as interested in only profit to the exclusion of everything else. You didn't disappoint.

But you sure did, Geezer! Because YOU haven't been able to name one, have you? I recall getting into a similar discussion with you a few years ago, about how businesses tend towards monopolies. As I recall, you brought up Ben & Jerry's and Burt's Bees as exaple of successful, individually-owned businesses. Unfortunately for your examples, Ben & Jerry's was bought up by Unilever, and Burt's Bees was bought up by Chlorox (after Burt and his bees got screwed by a business partner who sold the business out from under him). So far, you haven't been able to come up with one example that demonstrates your belief (and it IS a belief) that capitalists are in the business for something other than maximum profit, and that they can exist at that level of business ad infinitum.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 19, 2014 7:32 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So far, you haven't been able to come up with one example that demonstrates your belief (and it IS a belief) that capitalists are in the business for something other than maximum profit

Hey, here's an example- ME!
I make crazy sci-fi models & props targeted at people like me (non-well-to-do folks) who can't pay an arm & a leg for 'toys' they'd like to have. I make just enough money to keep going, and am by NO MEANS getting rich off of it.
My Trek VI phaser:

So, I do it for love of the project as much as making money.
Does that make me a bad Capitalist (I am definitely a poor one)?

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 20, 2014 7:02 AM (P)

I killed this thread with phasers???

Oh well.

THGRRI

Friday, June 20, 2014 8:51 AM (P)

There are many companies and investment options that focus on ethical investing. You can usually find from Christian financial ministries which companies support practices that you might not be in line with. There are also Christian investment advisors that can help you find companies and mutual funds that only invest in companies whose practices are ethical and in keeping with your personal Christian values.

Not everyone is morally corrupt.

si shen

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 20, 2014 9:02 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Not everyone is morally corrupt.

Go find a joke thread for this nonsense.

THGRRI

Friday, June 20, 2014 9:15 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Not everyone is morally corrupt.
Go find a joke thread for this nonsense.

No need. I realize there are some here who thrive on everything and everyone being corrupt and morally bankrupt. I always believed it is because they must see themselves that way as well. Why else would they only see the worst in everything and everyone else?

Are you morally bankrupt and corrupt, or is it just the rest of us?

si shen

1KIKI

Saturday, June 21, 2014 10:13 AM (P)

Chris,isall

You aren't a capitalist. I understand you have your definition, and in your definition, you might consider yourself one. But you don't own the mean of production or hire out the work. So by my definition, sorry, you don't count as one.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Saturday, June 21, 2014 10:16 AM (P)

TH

Please tell me what YOU consider 'ethical investing' - what are it's results that you consider 'ethical'. Just because someone calls themselves by that name, doesn't make it necessarily true.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, June 21, 2014 10:20 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
But you don't own the mean of production or hire out the work.

But I DO own the means of production, and I, uh... hire out the work to... myself!

1KIKI

Saturday, June 21, 2014 10:27 AM (P)

AHA! Cutting yourself in on the deal from both ends! VERRRYyyy tricksy.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Saturday, June 21, 2014 11:00 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
TH

Please tell me what YOU consider 'ethical investing' - what are it's results that you consider 'ethical'. Just because someone calls themselves by that name, doesn't make it necessarily true.

Socially responsible investing (SRI), also known as sustainable, socially conscious, "green" or ethical investing, is any investment strategy which seeks to consider both financial return and social good.

How is it you can complain so much about the behavior of others and not answer this question yourself?

si shen

1KIKI

Saturday, June 21, 2014 11:28 AM (P)

To get return on investment - assuming you're making more than your original investment back plus interest for the loss of use of your money - means that you're getting more than you're helping - you are still the winner in a zero-sum system and they are the losers. So - it may be considerate of certain specific goals - the environment for example - but it doesn't affect the end result of a world divided into owners and workers, wealthy and poor. Is that ethical?

;Llllll <- kittie typing on the keyboard

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Saturday, June 21, 2014 9:34 PM (P)

Quote:
1kiki
To get return on investment - assuming you're making more than your original investment back plus interest for the loss of use of your money - means that you're getting more than you're helping - you are still the winner in a zero-sum system and they are the losers.

What you are describing is exactly what a bank does when it loans someone the money to buy a home. When the loan is paid off the bank made a profit and the homeowner owns a home worth considerably more than the purchase price. This hopefully makes up for the interest paid on the loan. Both made out.

Not to mention the people who built the home. The people who are hired to maintain the home. I,E, new roof or plumbers, maybe landscapers, you get the point.

si shen

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 22, 2014 10:52 PM (P)

G
I think you're unaware of HOW MUCH of the $$ floating around is based on debt. The answer is... there is approximately 32 TIMES the amount of debt as there is of actual wealth. 97% of all of the world's money is based on debt.

Yanno, it's one thing to have a 10% debt. THAT, you have a prayer of growing the economy enough to pay it back with honest money. But having to multiply economies by 32X in order to pay off the debt with real money??? Not gonna happen!

There are all kinds of reasons how this happened, a number of possible consequences - particularly debt collapse or hyperinflation, and several preventive measures (none of which will happen). But I'm really too busy to go into it now, plus I haven't read the thread. But I think the west is in a "post-capitalist" economy, no longer based on production and consumption which serves the vast majority of the population, but into a mostly speculative economy based on "financialism"... ie making money on money.

If you think that doesn't make sense and can't last, you're probably right.

Wow, this sure is a long thread. I'm going to have to read it, I guess!

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 22, 2014 11:31 PM (P)

Scrolling thru the thread, I came across this Geezer gem

Quote:
Just wanted to confirm that you are going to stereotype anyone who runs a business in which they have invested their capital - be it money, time, skills, etc. - as interested in only profit to the exclusion of everything else. You didn't disappoint.

I call this tactic "flinging poo while running away". Geezer, I see, failed to answer his own question and then ran away.

The problem with capitalism is that it's a form of rentier economy... where people collect money just because they own something. Sometimes, people own apartments or houses. Sometimes they own farmland. Sometimes they own the means of production; "profit" is the "rent" that a worker pays in order to use the tools to make stuff for the owner.(Hmmm... when I put it that way, it really IS screwed up, isn't it?)

In it's most abstract form, if you're a bank you "own" money. Even better- not only do you "own" the deposits (BTW, those of you who have money in a bank account, you should be aware that it is not YOUR money. You're considered an unsecured lender, and if the bank runs into serious financial difficulties your account is forfeit, according to the "bail-in" provisions that the FDIC and the Bank of England signed back in 2012 http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/news/2012/nr156.
pdf) you can get to MAKE MONEY OUT OF NOTHING! Imagine! You "own" something that you can conjure more of out of thin air, with virtually no restrictions!

This is clearly no longer capitalism, but something far beyond.

1KIKI

Sunday, June 22, 2014 11:45 PM (P)

"it may mathematically be a zero sum game technically on paper"

That's like saying entropy is just an idea. But if that's how the universe runs, and will eventually run down - that's how it runs and will eventually die.

As for the small business vs the large corporation, the only difference is scale. Theoretically they run by the same model. If you are underpaying someone for the value of their work in order to make a profit, it doesn't matter if it's just a few people just a little bit - in which case the eventual end will take longer to show up - or a lot of people being royally screwed - in which case it will take hardly any time at all.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Sunday, June 22, 2014 11:46 PM (P)

troll.

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

What you are describing is exactly what a bank does when it loans someone the money to buy a home. When the loan is paid off the bank made a profit and the homeowner owns a home worth considerably more than the purchase price. This hopefully makes up for the interest paid on the loan. Both made out.

Not to mention the people who built the home. The people who are hired to maintain the home. I,E, new roof or plumbers, maybe landscapers, you get the point.

si shen

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Monday, June 23, 2014 12:38 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Scrolling thru the thread, I came across this Geezer gem
Quote:
Just wanted to confirm that you are going to stereotype anyone who runs a business in which they have invested their capital - be it money, time, skills, etc. - as interested in only profit to the exclusion of everything else. You didn't disappoint.
I call this tactic "flinging poo while running away". Geezer, I see, failed to answer his own question and then ran away.

The problem with capitalism is that it's a form of rentier economy... where people collect money just because they own something. Sometimes, people own apartments or houses. Sometimes they own farmland. Sometimes they own the means of production; "profit" is the "rent" that a worker pays in order to use the tools to make stuff for the owner.(Hmmm... when I put it that way, it really IS screwed up, isn't it?)

In it's most abstract form, if you're a bank you "own" money. Even better- not only do you "own" the deposits (BTW, those of you who have money in a bank account, you should be aware that it is not YOUR money. You're considered an unsecured lender, and if the bank runs into serious financial difficulties your account is forfeit, according to the "bail-in" provisions that the FDIC and the Bank of England signed back in 2012 http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/news/2012/nr156.
pdf) you can get to MAKE MONEY OUT OF NOTHING! Imagine! You "own" something that you can conjure more of out of thin air, with virtually no restrictions!

This is clearly no longer capitalism, but something far beyond.

What works better? What should we do?

si shen

THGRRI

Monday, June 23, 2014 12:40 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
troll.
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

What you are describing is exactly what a bank does when it loans someone the money to buy a home. When the loan is paid off the bank made a profit and the homeowner owns a home worth considerably more than the purchase price. This hopefully makes up for the interest paid on the loan. Both made out.

Not to mention the people who built the home. The people who are hired to maintain the home. I,E, new roof or plumbers, maybe landscapers, you get the point.

si shen

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

Yes we are and while I am open to suggestions, your bitching is just that, bitching.

si shen

1KIKI

Monday, June 23, 2014 1:34 AM (P)

What works better?

Well, first of all, let me describe capitalism as an ecology of virus and host.

Rampant capitalism is like Ebola - it quickly commandeers resources but also quickly kills its host. Does it 'work'? If you consider that it quickly commandeers resources as a model of efficient 'working' then it 'works'. If you consider ultimate ends where it kills off its host, then it fails to 'work'. Moderate capitalism is like HIV - it commandeers resources more slowly, giving it more time to spread - but ultimately it too will kill its host, and eventually killing off all its hosts over time.

The first thing we need to do is recognize that short-term success isn't a basis for long-term survival. We need to stop looking at immediate results and understand long-term ones.

The second thing we need to do is disavow the idea that it's OK to cheat people of the full value of their contributions when we can, even if it's only a few people, and even if it's just a little bit of value.

We need to get rid of the idea of PROFIT.

That's not to say that people shouldn't be rewarded for their work - like Chris,isall making models at home. In fact, getting rid of the idea of profit means that people will get the FULL reward for their work.

And it's not to say that people who own businesses shouldn't make money. If they manage the business, they should be paid the full value of that management work. If they work producing things in their business, they should get paid the full value of their labor. And if they invested their money, all that investment should be paid back to them with inflation compensation.

It's just that people who own a business shouldn't get a 'free money for nothing forever' card.

We can keep everything the same, and just get rid of 'profit'.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

JONGSSTRAW

Monday, June 23, 2014 1:43 AM (P)

THGRRI

Monday, June 23, 2014 1:44 AM (P)

That is called Socialism and it does not work. Look I agree with treating people fairly and investing with the future in mind but the rest is Socialism which has proven itself to be every bit as corrupt if not more so that Capitalism.

Environmental Conditions

"In the Soviet system, environmentally threatening incidents such as the bursting of an oil pipeline received little or no public notice, and remedial actions were slow or nonexistent. Government officials felt that natural resources were abundant enough to afford waste, that the land could easily absorb any level of pollution, and that stringent control measures were an unjustifiable hindrance to economic advancement. In the 1990s, after decades of such practices, the government categorized about 40 percent of Russia's territory (an area about three-quarters as large as the United States) as under high or moderately high ecological stress. Excluding areas of radiation contamination, fifty-six areas have been identified as environmentally degraded regions, ranging from full-fledged ecological disaster areas to moderately polluted areas.

Air Quality

Although reductions in industrial production caused air quality indexes to improve somewhat in the 1990s, Russia's air still rates among the most polluted in the world. According to one estimate, only 15 percent of the urban population breathes air that is not harmful. Experts fear that a return to full industrial production will mean even more dangerous levels of air pollution given Russia's current inefficient pollution control technology. Of the 43.8 million tons of pollutants discharged into the open air in 1993, about 18,000 industrial enterprises generated an estimated 24.8 million tons. Vehicle emissions added 19 million tons".

http://countrystudies.us/russia/25.htm

Or I could just say:

si shen

1KIKI

Monday, June 23, 2014 1:47 AM (P)

I don't think you know the definition of socialism, you failed to read my post and ONCE AGAIN you've used this as an opportunity to push your anti-Russia bias. Troll.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 23, 2014 1:55 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
It's just that people who own a business shouldn't get a 'free money for nothing forever' card.

We can keep everything the same, and just get rid of 'profit'.

This threatens my fantasy of having a job doing basically nothing but making millions a year...

THGRRI

Monday, June 23, 2014 2:02 AM (P)

Quote:
1kiki
I don't think you know the definition of socialism.

I hear you speak to its merits day after day. If you don’t recognize that then you should take the time to research it.

si shen

1KIKI

Monday, June 23, 2014 2:02 AM (P)

Originally posted by 1kiki:
It's just that people who own a business shouldn't get a 'free money for nothing forever' card.
We can keep everything the same, and just get rid of 'profit'.

Originally posted by chrisisall:
This threatens my fantasy of having a job doing basically nothing but making millions a year...

But what if you traded this for the security of KNOWING you, your family, your son's future family, and THEIR families - would always be economically comfortable.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Monday, June 23, 2014 2:06 AM (P)

so·cial·ism noun \'so-sh?-?li-z?m\

: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

Now back to my post about Russia. What do you think now, maybe accurate?

si shen

1KIKI

Monday, June 23, 2014 2:21 AM (P)

Point out where I posted anything would be owned by the state. Troll.

You ASSUMED that because I made comments about the shortcomings of capitalism - shortcomings economists have known about for over 100 years - that I MUST be anti-American. And you ASSUMED I therefore MUST be pro-Russian. You failed to take in vital information THAT I POSTED. Instead, you used my posts as a forum to flog YOUR OWN BIASES AND AGENDA, and engage in red-baiting. So, let me make a comment about your mental state. The difference between being a propagandized puppet like you and a thinking person is the ability to take in information that doesn't fit with your own biases, and to be able to logically evaluate information - ANY information - coming from ANY source, not just your preferred mouthpieces. These are things you've consistently failed to do. I see you are no different from our favorite RWE buffoon, rappy. I hope you like the company.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SIGNYM

Monday, June 23, 2014 2:29 AM (P)

What would work better?

Well, as far as banks are concerned, requiring 100% capitalization would be a good start.

Something interesting on economics, focus specifically on the segment about Singapore (section 3).

Quote:
Yesterday, Ha-Joon Chang exposed the shortest economics textbook ever. Today the Cambridge University Economics professor uncovers everything you didn't know about economics (in 13 simple points)...

1. Economics was originally called 'political economy'

Economics is politics and it can never be a science. Yet the dominant neoclassical school of economics succeeded in changing the name of the discipline from the traditional 'political economy' to 'economics' at the turn of the 20th Century. The Neoclassical school wanted economics to become a pure science, shorn of political (and thus ethical) dimensions that involve subjective value judgments. This change was a political move in and of itself.

2. The Nobel Prize in Economics is not a real Nobel Prize

Unlike the original Nobel Prizes (Physics, Chemistry, Physiology, Medicine, Literature and Peace), established by the Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel at the end of the nineteenth century, the economics prize was established by the Swedish central bank (Sveriges Riksbank) in 1968 and is thus officially called the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Members of the Nobel family are known to have criticized the Swedish central bank for giving prizes to free-market economists of whom their ancestor would have disapproved.

3. There is no single economic theory that can explain Singapore's economy

This is what I call the 'Singapore problem'. If you read the standard account of Singapore's economic success in places like the Economist or the Wall Street Journal, you will only hear about Singapore's free trade and welcoming attitude towards foreign investment. You will never hear about how almost all the land in Singapore is owned by the government, while 85% of housing is supplied by the government's housing corporation. 22% of GDP is produced by state-owned enterprises (including Singapore Airlines), when the world average in that respect is only about 9%.

To put it bluntly, there isn't one economic theory that can single-handedly explain Singapore's success; its economy combines extreme features of capitalism and socialism. All theories are partial; reality is complex.

4. Britain and the US invented protectionism, not free trade

Britain had the most protected economy in the capitalist world in the late 18th and the early 19th century. Much of this protection was provided in order to promote British manufacturers against superior foreign competitors in Europe, the Low Countries (what are Belgium and the Netherlands today) in particular.

The US went even further. Taking inspiration from British protectionist policy, Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary of the US (that's the guy on the ten-dollar bill) developed a theory called the 'infant industry argument' - the view that the government of an economically backward nation should protect and nurture its young industries until they 'grow up' and can compete in the world market. Hamilton died in 1804 in a pistol duel, but the US adopted protectionism in the 1820s and remained the most protected economy in the world for most of the next century.

5. Free trade first spread mostly through un-free means

Free trade spread around the world throughout the 19th century. But its spread mostly owed to something that you would not normally associate with the word 'free' -force, or at least the threat of using it. Colonisation was the obvious route to 'unfree free trade', as the colonial masters forced the subjugated countries to open up their trade completely. But even many non-colonized countries were forced to adopt free trade. Through 'gunboat diplomacy', they were forced to sign unequal treaties that deprived them of, among

THGRRI

Monday, June 23, 2014 2:47 AM (P)

Quote:
….1kiki
Point out where I posted anything would be owned by the state. Troll.

We need to get rid of the idea of PROFIT.

If you eliminate profit who else is going to run industry?

Quote:
…1kiki
And it's not to say that people who own businesses shouldn't make money. If they manage the business, they should be paid the full value of that management work. If they work producing things in their business, they should get paid the full value of their labor. And if they invested their money, all that investment should be paid back to them with inflation compensation.

You made both these comments in the same statement. How is it you see both these ideas working together? Because you are a moron who is clueless and only wants to bitch, Troll.

si shen

1KIKI

Monday, June 23, 2014 2:55 AM (P)

I'm sorry you lack imagination.

You must think it was capitalists that invented language. Imagined the bowl. Made tools from rock, wood and bone. Harnessed fire. Built rafts. You must think the only reason anyone does anything is to profit from the work of others. I pity your small mind. It must get awfully boring on your little hamster wheel.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SIGNYM

Monday, June 23, 2014 3:25 AM (P)

Apparently THGRII doesn't know the definition of "profit".

THGRRI

Monday, June 23, 2014 3:34 AM (P)

Quote:
….signym
To put it bluntly, there isn't one economic theory that can single-handedly explain Singapore's success; its economy combines extreme features of capitalism and socialism. All theories are partial; reality is complex.

All successful democracies practice some socialism. It is a necessary component for a country’s survival. Much of it amounts to theft, such as that which goes to Corporate America.

America’s corporations are major recipients of welfare.

“The federal government spent $92 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to businesses and private- sector corporate entities — expenditures commonly referred to as “corporate welfare” — in fiscal year 2006. The definition of business subsidies used in this report is broader than that used by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, which recently put the costs of direct business subsidies at $57 billion in 2005. For the purposes of this study, “corporate welfare” is defined as any federal spending program that provides payments or unique benefits and advantages to specific companies or industries”.

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-sta
te-how-federal-government-subsidizes-us-businesses

Quote:
…signym

4. Britain and the US invented protectionism, not free trade.

“The opposition to trade liberalization and the goals of the WTO come from the adjustment problem. Economic adjustment is an ongoing and continuous process in all markets, in all countries, and it comes in many different forms. Any significant change in the underlying conditions of supply and demand will initiate market-driven adjustments. Opposing globalization and the adjustment that goes with it through a strategy of opposing the WTO is, in the end, a rearguard action against structural economic change and a political bid to shift the burden of that change to others and to the economy as a whole. Do away with the WTO, and many governments will succumb to the protectionist influences that the WTO was intended to keep at bay, the chapter states”.

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195166163
.001.0001/acprof-9780195166163-chapter-4

Quote:

Capitalism did best between the 1950s and the 1970s, an era of high regulation and high taxes

Despite what we hear these days about the detrimental economic effects of high taxes and strong government regulation, the advanced capitalist economies grew the fastest between the 1950s and the 1970s, when there were a lot of regulations and high taxes. Between 1950 and 1973, per capita income in Western Europe grew at an astonishing rate of 4.1% per year. Japan grew even faster at 8.1%, starting off the chain of 'economic miracles' in East Asia in the next half a century. Even the US, the slowest-growing economy in the rich world at the time, grew at an unprecedented rate of 2.5%. Per capita income for these economies collectively have since then managed to grow at only 1.8% per year between 1980 and 2010, when they cut taxes for the rich and deregulated their economies.

This is fact our conservative friends should research.

This implies much I what I believe. None of this is your words Signym you posted someone else without comment so I am responding to the text itself.

P.S. There is no future for anyone if we do not go green globally in a big way and stop over taxing our resources.

si shen

THGRRI

Monday, June 23, 2014 3:42 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I'm sorry you lack imagination.

You must think it was capitalists that invented language. Imagined the bowl. Made tools from rock, wood and bone. Harnessed fire. Built rafts. You must think the only reason anyone does anything is to profit from the work of others. I pity your small mind. It must get awfully boring on your little hamster wheel.

All my posts and you still do not realize I am not a pure capitalist exposes your ignorance.

si shen

THGRRI

Monday, June 23, 2014 3:44 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Apparently THGRII doesn't know the definition of "profit".

The kind of profit 1kiki is speaking about has been tried and replaced by something better. It's just not to your liking.

si shen

1KIKI

Monday, June 23, 2014 3:56 AM (P)

Do you have a point? Or do you enjoy blah blah blah as your entire repertoire?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Monday, June 23, 2014 4:00 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Do you have a point? Or do you enjoy blah blah blah as your entire repertoire?

My point is!

If you see me as father time
Then I shall respond in kind
If you see me as the Reaper
Into your soul I shall go deeper

si shen

SIGNYM

Monday, June 23, 2014 10:06 AM (P)

Quote:
All successful democracies practice some socialism

Democracy is a social system. Socialism (if it ever existed, which it has not) is an economic system, as is capitalism/ financialism. Are you counterposing democracy and socialism? If so, why?

The reason why I think you don't know what "profit" means is because you presented two of KIKI's statements as if they were inherently contradictory. They were...

Quote:
Point out where I posted anything would be owned by the state. Troll. We need to get rid of the idea of PROFIT.- KIKI

If you eliminate profit who else is going to run industry? -THGRRI

And it's not to say that people who own businesses shouldn't make money. If they manage the business, they should be paid the full value of that management work. If they work producing things in their business, they should get paid the full value of their labor. And if they invested their money, all that investment should be paid back to them with inflation compensation.-KIKI

You made both these comments in the same statement. How is it you see both these ideas working together? Because you are a moron who is clueless and only wants to bitch, Troll.

Are you saying that if there isn't "profit" in business, people should work for free?

Nobody is suggesting that anyone would or should work "for free". Using Chris as an example, of course he wants to get money for his replicas.. preferably more than he paid for materials, and at least SOME compensation for his time! But getting paid for your work isn't the same as "profit".

Again, using Chris as an example, let assume that he's now working for someone else. They pay for the materials, and sell the product, and Chris gets some portion of the sales, which is less that what he would have gotten had he made and sold by himself. The "other guy" gets money for nothing. THAT'S profit... money for nothing. Chris was the one who was made to "work for free".

AFA who would "run the business" without profit ... accountants count, human resources hires and fires, producers produce, managers manage, stockroom keeps inventory, advertisers advertise. Everyone gets paid for their work, the business runs, and there isn't an owner in sight.

AFA "profit" being replaced by something "better"... so far, profit doesn't seem to have been replaced by anything - either better OR worse. Do you have a specific example? If not, I'm going to have to conclude that you have nothing to say on the topic.

THGRRI

Monday, June 23, 2014 12:08 PM (P)

What I said was simple. It does not need all the confusion you bring to explain. My statement speaks for itself and others will read it and judge. I'm comfortable with that. After all you are distorting what was said with double talk.

Example: You say Democracy is a social system. No it's not. It utilizes social programs in the way it functions in much the same way we pursue capitalism. It is not a social system.

Socialism: : a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies. This scenario does not work in a Democracy.

Your minion suggested we need to eliminate profit in one sentence and suggested a person should be paid what they are worth in the next. In effect if you own a business you should get what you deserve. That is a profit. That is what I pointed out. All your bullshit can't change that.

I've given you more credit than you deserve.

si shen

SIGNYM

Monday, June 23, 2014 8:32 PM (P)

Sorry, I miswrote. What I should have said was- Democracy is a POLITICAL system. It describes how our government is made up, and how our laws our made. Usually, it has something to do with a vote.

If a democracy were to take a vote, and abolish the laws of incorporation as they currently exist, and turn business ownership over to the governing body of elected representatives, not only would that be democracy, it would be socialism. In fact, it would be "democratic socialism". As opposed, for example, to tyrannical capitalism, in which there is a non-elected government and privately owned business.

Quote:
The kind of profit 1kiki is speaking about has been tried and replaced by something better. It's just not to your liking.

Hmm, this is like the onstage magician whose trick failed to materialize. Do you have a point to this grandiose statement?

SIGNYM

Monday, June 23, 2014 8:41 PM (P)

First of all, G, if you're trying to talk about Econ 101, you should stick with Econ 101 definitions of "profit", and not refer to common definitions. In econ, the term "profit" is very clear. Your first objection undercuts your reference to economics. Or your reference to economics undercuts your first point. Either way, it's a stupid point.

Also, you insist that the investor risked time and money. Well, modern-day investors risk no time at all. They put money in a bank, or a fund. Or, if they're a bank, they're not even risking THEIR money, since they get to add zeros to bank accounts and simply create money whole cloth. And if they REALLY screw up, they get a bailout from the gov. Sweet deal, eh??

Once the investor gets a return on his or her money- say, the principal plus inflation plus some extra- does it continue to be a workable system that the investor continues to reap profit ad infinitum for a one-time event? Or does this system create flaws and imbalances that cause the economy to inevitably break down?

THGRRI

Monday, June 23, 2014 9:31 PM (P)

Incorporation means to join with something that already exists. There are laws regarding mergers and acquisitions put in place to protect the public and shareholders invested it both entities that are merging, but that has nothing to do with what you are describing. You probably saw somewhere were two nonprofits were incorporating. (Joining together)

Quote:
…signym
If a democracy were to take a vote, and abolish the laws of incorporation as they currently exist, and turn business ownership over to the governing body of elected representatives.

In a democracy you cannot vote to take away someone else’s property. Please do not site one instance. We are talking about the entire nation. And the system you and 1kiki keep referring to is Russia pre Mikhail Gorbachev.

You really do live in your head of fantasies don’t you? I don’t mind that except you preach how things should be along with how others are evil, and it is all based on a complete lack of understanding of how things really work.

Quote:
…signym
Hmm, this is like the onstage magician whose trick failed to materialize. Do you have a point to this grandiose statement?

Nope, nothing I wish to elaborate on further.

si shen

SIGNYM

Monday, June 23, 2014 10:11 PM (P)

MIKER/THGRRRI

Quote:
Incorporation means to join with something that already exists.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

In the economic sense, to incorporate means "to form a legal corporation"- to make a synthetic human being (incorporare, to make a body). There is nothing natural about corporations... or property, for that matter... as both are defined and enforced by society. In the Founding Fathers' day, the incorporating entity was the state (no, I don't mean The State, I mean each specific state had the authority to create corporations. Before that, corporations were a creation of the King... Crown Corporations).

In the Founding Fathers' day, corporations could only deal in one entity - eg, grain, or roadways, but not both. In the Founding Fathers' day, corporations could only exist for a specific number of years- usually about 20-30. Then they expired. Here is what some Founding Fathers had to say about corporations, banks, wealth inequity, and the role of government

Quote:
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”- Jefferson

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -Jefferson

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men: Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it." -Adams

"The balance of power in a society, accompanies the balance of property in land. The only possible way, then, of preserving the balance of power on the side of equal liberty and public virtue,is to make the acquisition of land easy to every member of society; to make the division of the land into small quantities, so that the multitude may be possessed of landed estates." - Adams

"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." -Jefferson

“Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.”- Adams

"Incorporated companies with proper limitations and guards may, in particular cases, be useful; but they are at best a necessary evil only."- James Madison

(They also had some juicy things to say about fiat money and government debt, but that's another story)

Now, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that you go off in an unsubstantiated, subjective rant about my "agenda", without ever addressing the points I made.

Yanno, I'm being very patient with you because you haven't been here before, and these ideas are prolly very new to you, but they're very old hat to long-time posters.

Quote:
Hmm, this is like the onstage magician whose trick failed to materialize. Do you have a point to this grandiose statement?- Signy

Nope, nothing I wish to elaborate on further.- THGRRI/ MIKER

So, ya got nuthin'. Thought so.

Well, real life calls. Go look up those quotes, you might learn something.

1KIKI

Monday, June 23, 2014 10:24 PM (P)

G

"the advantage or benefit that is gained from doing something" <<< "something"

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

That is not the profit you are looking for. MOVE ALONG.

"Why would he do so if it means he makes less for his family for the same effort?"

The availability of capital comes to mind. Those with more capital dominate those who have less, or none.

Now, let's take a look at YOUR system for its inconsistencies. Did you ever walk through a ghetto? The most memorable times I've walked through one (the same one) were summer and winter. Now in summer there were many many young black males loitering around with nothing to do. In winter the driving snow was blowing in through the broken windows and the curtains were flapping in the wind. The building privided no protection from the weather. So here we have an obvious need to fill, and the labor to do it. Your theory says capitalism will rise to fill the need. Why didn't it?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SIGNYM

Monday, June 23, 2014 10:49 PM (P)

Quote:
In calculating economic profit, opportunity costs are deducted from revenues earned. Opportunity costs are the alternative returns foregone by using the chosen inputs. As a result, you can have a significant accounting profit with little to no economic profit.

Aren't you proving KIKI's point that modern capitalism/ financialism is geared towards MAXIMUM profit? Because that's what this definition implies... if you aren't making the MAXIMUM profit, then it's a loss - or at least, a cost?

I answered your point about zerohedge in the ISIS thread, where you put it. Why are you looking here? Go look there.

AFA your other points, I have a life and work to do. I'll have to get back to this much, much later.

THGRRI

Monday, June 23, 2014 11:01 PM (P)

G not to worry, it is just time for signym to give her history lesson to confuse what is very simple. Let’s just take the first paragraph in her new post to me.

Quote:
.....signym

In the economic sense, to incorporate means "to form a legal corporation"- to make a synthetic human being (incorporare, to make a body). There is nothing natural about corporations... or property, for that matter... as both are defined and enforced by society. In the Founding Fathers' day, the incorporating entity was the state (no, I don't mean The State, I mean each specific state had the authority to create corporations. Before that, corporations were a creation of the King... Crown Corporations).

Her original post was:

Quote:

…signym
If a democracy were to take a vote, and abolish the laws of incorporation as they currently exist, and turn business ownership over to the governing body of elected representatives.

My response was:

Incorporation means to join with something that already exists. There are laws regarding mergers and acquisitions put in place to protect the public and shareholders invested it both entities that are merging, but that has nothing to do with what you are describing. You probably saw somewhere were two nonprofits were incorporating. (Joining together)

Here is the definition of incorporate:

1. To unite (one thing) with something else already in existence: incorporated the letter into her diary.
2. To admit as a member to a corporation or similar organization.
3. To cause to merge or combine together into a united whole.
4. To cause to form into a legal corporation: incorporate a business.
5. To give substance or material form to; embody.

Now check out the history lesson I received on the country and states’ rights. I will not repost the lesson here you have to scroll up and check it out. All trying to convince us we can take peoples business away from them in a democracy while not admitting she does not even know what incorporate means.

Quote:
....signym

I mean each specific state had the authority to create corporations.

signym, I think what you are trying to say is states approve the establishment of a corporation. Like congress approves the joining of major corporations today or determines Net Neutrality laws. Not that they created state run corporations. Please do not tell me the IRS is a corporation, it is an agency. What Jefferson is speaking to is corporations that continually merge into mega giants that can not be controlled, which means we need a separation of corporations and state like we do church and state.

si shen

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:08 AM (P)

Query: incorporate legal definitiion

incorporate
Use Incorporate in a sentence
in·cor·po·rate
1 [v. in-kawr-puh-reyt; adj. in-kawr-per-it, -prit] Show IPA
verb (used with object), in·cor·po·rat·ed, in·cor·po·rat·ing.
1.
to form into a legal corporation.

corporation
Use Corporation in a sentence
cor·po·ra·tion
[kawr-puh-rey-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. See also municipal corporation, public corporation.

Query: supreme court corporation rights

Corporate personhood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:14 AM (P)

Yes, to form a legal corporation as dictated by the State. What is your point?

You still can't change those laws to steal peoples business from them.

si shen

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:17 AM (P)

My point is that SignyM is right and you're wrong, once again.

SignyM: In the economic sense, to incorporate means "to form a legal corporation"- to make a synthetic human being (incorporare, to make a body). There is nothing natural about corporations

Query: incorporate legal definitiion

incorporate
Use Incorporate in a sentence
in·cor·po·rate
1 [v. in-kawr-puh-reyt; adj. in-kawr-per-it, -prit] Show IPA
verb (used with object), in·cor·po·rat·ed, in·cor·po·rat·ing.
1.
to form into a legal corporation.

corporation
Use Corporation in a sentence
cor·po·ra·tion
[kawr-puh-rey-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. See also municipal corporation, public corporation.

Query: supreme court corporation rights

Corporate personhood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

TH: "Incorporation means to join with something that already exists."
And you are so very, very wrong.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:28 AM (P)

What a moron, you are using a very narrow interpretation to make an invalid point.

Here is the problem with you signym and you 1kiki. You are both Socialists and are continually complaining about capitalism. Much of the complaint is justified. It is when you interject personal feelings about making it better that you run amuck.

Example:

You complain about the injustice of the way resources are distributed. Rightfully so, but then you imply we should take from the few and give it to fewer as though that will show them. Being Socialists you believe this can be done. It can not. Again, Russia post Gorbachev.

Your both nuts.

si shen

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:33 AM (P)

So, you think that when people are talking about economic and legal topics we shouldn't use the appropriate definitions, we should use irrelevant ones, like you do. Ones you base your entire argument on. Got it.

"... but then you imply we should take from the few and give it to fewer ..."

Where did I imply that? Find a quote anywhere.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:55 AM (P)

Holly Shit, 1kiki you keep agreeing with signym and her you. If you don’t agree with her posts or her yours then you both need to stop defending each other’s points.

You want to take away profit.

Quote:
…1kiki

We need to get rid of the idea of PROFIT.

Even government cannot get rid of profit. Somebody always gets something. Especially in a democracy, it cannot be done. To determine there is to be no profit, you must own the business or declare it a non-profit which means tax exempt. No profits, no taxes, eventually no government. (I.E Russia, post Gorbachev)

There seems to be a theme here, yet I can’t quite put my finger on it? …..

Here we go round the mulberry bush....

And here's where I bid you adieu. You want a socialist country and I do not. Here is a current list of socialist countries. Take your pick and send me a post card.

Sorry the list of failed states was too long to cut and paste so here is the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries

People's Republic of China 1 October 1949 Communist Party of China Xi Jinping
(since 2012) Li Keqiang
(since 2012)
Republic of Cuba 1 July 1961 Communist Party of Cuba Raúl Castro
(since 2006)
Lao People's Democratic Republic 2 December 1975 Lao People's Revolutionary Party Choummaly Sayasone
(since 2006) Thongsing Thammavong
(since 2010)
Socialist Republic of Vietnam 2 July 1976 Communist Party of Vietnam Nguyen Phu Trong
(since 2011) Truong Tan Sang
(since 2011) Nguyen Tan Dung
(since 2006)

si shen

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3:02 AM (P)

"Somebody always gets something."

Yes, if you work you should get rewarded with the value of your labor. Hm. How MANY times have I made that point? If you invest you should be able to get your investment back plus interest for inflation. I KNOW I made that point at least once. Where have I said nobody gets anything? I even said EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS THE SAME. Private ownership? check. Corporate ownership? check. Public owner ship? check. Stock market? check. Banks? check. I'm not sure I can be more explicit when I say EVERYTHING.

" You want a socialist country ..." nice lie. I have never posted that (which is why you couldn't come up with a quote) or even implied it. I asked you to prove that claim of yours. You failed completely. Because, why again? I never posted or even implied such a thing.

The problem with profit - as I pointed out earlier, a shortcoming real economists have been trying to fix for over 100 years - is that eventually all the money ends up in the hands of investors and none in the hands of workers/ consumers. I think the way to fix this problem is to get rid of the idea of profit. IE: people don't get free money just because they put some money into something a long time ago. I think my solution could keep an economy rolling along indefinitely without crashing into that endpoint so many economists have been struggling over.

So, I gotta ask, how does it feel to be a chronic liar? And how does it feel to be rappy's twin? Yanno, flouncing off with your lies in tatters?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 5:56 AM (P)

Quote:
…..1kiki
worse than believing this is the way things should be as opposed to any other system - don't even cognate that there ARE different systems, that things have been different in history, are different around the globe, and will be different in the future.
Traditionally, we are shown the dangers of non-Capitalism. Look at the cold war & the whole Red scare thing... make anything non-Capitalist scary & dangerous.
knowledge leads to inability to learn new information or even direct experience.
I think one answer is to limit profit to payback of initial investment plus accrued interest over the time the current amount of money is still outstanding, rather than have it as a 'free money' card ad infinitum.
And if they invested their money, all that investment should be paid back to them with inflation compensation.
We can keep everything the same, and just get rid of 'profit'.
It's just that people who own a business shouldn't get a 'free money for nothing forever' card.

Read your statements. It shows you have a complete lack of understanding of economics not to mention what it means to live in a free society. To implement what you suggest it means government completely controls all aspects of the economics of your business. We have this today, it is called being a government agency.

In just a few moments I was able to find a few things to show you that you would have to change things in the constitution and Bill of Rights to enforce what you suggest. Good bye freedom.

Constitution:

6: No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

Bill of Rights

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Section

6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled for the public good.

si shen

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 7:39 AM (P)

So, I DIDN'T promote a socialist economy! You're catching on!

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 7:53 AM (P)

In going over all your posts I realized you did not possess the intellect needed to promote any type of economic system. So yes you are right.

si shen

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 8:55 AM (P)

ad hominem

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 9:28 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
In going over all your posts I realized you did not possess the intellect needed

Rappyland, it's wonderful, and exclusive...

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 8:18 PM (P)

Quote:
You still can't change those laws to steal peoples business from them.

If you take something away from somebody, but it's not against the law, is it really "stealing"?

THGRRI

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 8:29 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
You still can't change those laws to steal peoples business from them.
If you take something away from somebody, but it's not against the law, is it really "stealing"?

Possession is .9 of the law.

si shen

1KIKI

Wednesday, June 25, 2014 12:38 AM (P)

misunderstanding of aphorism

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Wednesday, June 25, 2014 1:07 AM (P)

It is a general truth which is what aphorism means. No misunderstanding at all.

si shen

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, June 27, 2014 6:47 AM (P)

So, I'm asking for Cliff Notes. Did everybody prove her wrong?

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 27, 2014 7:11 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So, I'm asking for Cliff Notes. Did everybody prove her wrong?

No, we all proved that Capitalism is flawed. Which is why our system contains Socialist elements.
My personal take away is that no one system is best.
But I knew that B4.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 27, 2014 11:12 AM (P)

Quote:
Possession is .9 of the law.

Might makes right?

Say, do you have any objection to terrorism?

If so, why?

SIGNYM

Friday, June 27, 2014 11:13 AM (P)

Quote:
I asked Signym to provide a scenario, what would an average person's day be like under your preferred system?

You did? I saw a few questions like that early on... before I got involved in the thread... but I thought they were directed at KIKI.

1KIKI

Friday, June 27, 2014 12:59 PM (P)

Aphorism used in support of argument AS IF IT WAS A FACT.

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
It is a general truth which is what aphorism means. No misunderstanding at all.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Friday, June 27, 2014 1:02 PM (P)

And yet, Chris,isall there are people, even ones on this very board, and in Washington and state governments, who argue that the only good system is one of pure capitalism.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Friday, June 27, 2014 1:06 PM (P)

G

Perhaps you didn't notice, but while I pointed out the problems of capitalism, I also suggested a solution - multiple times.

I'm sorta getting tired of people who can't or don't read, and having to post the same things over and over.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 27, 2014 5:45 PM (P)

G, so I scrolled back thru the thread, and indeed, you did ask me a question once. It got obviously buried.

However, in looking at OTHER threads (specifically, the "if Hillary becomes POTUS" thread, I found this

Quote:
Bigger problems in other countries does not mean our own problems are nonexistent. Complaining is the only way those problems get the attention and solutions they need.-BYTE

Yes! Yes! Yes!-G

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=58250
Well, you seem to be all manner of agreeable about complaining in one thread, and so annoyed with it in this thread. So while I have a number of possible ideas about what to do in place of capitalism, maybe I'll just let this stand as my answer to your hypocrisy.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 27, 2014 5:50 PM (P)

MIKER

Quote:
In going over all your posts I realized you did not possess the intellect needed to promote any type of economic system. So yes you are right.

In going over your posts, I realize that you have even less command of economics than most. You don't know, and can't use, the appropriate definitions of "profit" and "incorporate", and because you're so utterly ignorant of the topic, are completely not worth talking to about it.

THGRRI

Friday, June 27, 2014 8:50 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Possession is .9 of the law.
Might makes right?

Say, do you have any objection to terrorism?

If so, why?

It is just the way it works out. Ask OJ Simpson. He is in jail for trying to recover some of his property. It is not so easy if someone else has it. If you have never heard that term then you truly are not from here.

As for asking if I have any objections to terrorism as though I might support it, I would just say fuck you. One has nothing to do with the other, but that is part of what you do isn't it? Cloud the issue.

si shen

THGRRI

Friday, June 27, 2014 8:59 PM (P)

Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Aphorism used in support of argument AS IF IT WAS A FACT.

Originally posted by THGRRI:
It is a general truth which is what aphorism means. No misunderstanding at all.

Understanding the concept requires you to be capable of critical thinking. Skills you surly do not possess as shown by your thoughts on doing away with profit, while still making sure everyone makes a profit.

That's some funny shit.

Possession means holding property in one’s power or the exercise of dominion over property. By having possession one exercises control over something to the exclusion of all others.

The saying “possession is nine points of the law” is an old common law precept that means one who has physical control or possession over the property is clearly at an advantage or is in a better possession than a person who has no possession over the property. Even if a person is the rightful owner of the property but has no possession over it, the person who is in possession will be in a better position should the property ever be subject to challenge. This is especially true with adverse possession. However mere possession alone does not grant the possessor rights in the property superior to those of the actual owner. This adage “possession is nine tenths of the law” is not a law but a logical rule of force that has been recognized across ages.

An Aphorism, true in general.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/possession-is-nine-points-of-the-law/

si shen

THGRRI

Friday, June 27, 2014 9:12 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
MIKER
Quote:
In going over all your posts I realized you did not possess the intellect needed to promote any type of economic system. So yes you are right.
In going over your posts, I realize that you have even less command of economics than most. You don't know, and can't use, the appropriate definitions of "profit" and "incorporate", and because you're so utterly ignorant of the topic, are completely not worth talking to about it.

Boy, Miker must have been a major head ach for you huh? Well I am pleased to carry on in his stead and will answer this for him, 1kiki.

I haven't forgotten what has been posted prior. In going over my posts what you actually discovered was you have no way to express what system you would put into place. You have been asked and when you tried to make suggestions it was pointed out to you they resembled Russia pre Gorbachev. A system that polluted worse than capitalism and provided far less for its population in return. This shows you have very little command of economics.

si shen

1KIKI

Friday, June 27, 2014 10:54 PM (P)

"A system that polluted worse than capitalism and provided far less for its population in return." Posted of course with no analysis of the relative starting point of either country, or, if you look at Russia through time for a relevant analysis of changing quality if life for the masses under feudalism/ communism/ gangster capitalism, a discussion of the vast improvement in quality of life for the vast majority of people under communism.

But here's an even better comparison - two non-western countries that started out at the same economic level, at the same time, and went in different directions.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/may/12/quality-life-indi
a-vs-china/

Quality of Life: India vs. China
Amartya Sen (Nobel prize winning economist)

The central point to appreciate here is that while economic growth is important for enhancing living conditions, its reach and impact depend greatly on what we do with the increased income. The relation between economic growth and the advancement of living standards depends on many factors, including economic and social inequality and, no less importantly, on what the government does with the public revenue that is generated by economic growth.

Some statistics about China and India, drawn mainly from the World Bank and the United Nations, are relevant here. Life expectancy at birth in China is 73.5 years; in India it is 64.4 years. The infant mortality rate is fifty per thousand in India, compared with just seventeen in China; the mortality rate for children under five is sixty-six per thousand for Indians and nineteen for the Chinese; and the maternal mortality rate is 230 per 100,000 live births in India and thirty-eight in China. The mean years of schooling in India were estimated to be 4.4 years, compared with 7.5 years in China. China’s adult literacy rate is 94 percent, compared with India’s 74 percent according to the preliminary tables of the 2011 census.
Not posted for the benefit of the original poster, but for anyone else who reads and can think.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Friday, June 27, 2014 11:36 PM (P)

Why look at China and India 1kiki when they are both playing catch up with us. When both had to abandon what they were doing and adapt our approach to business. You should remember that both did the same thing in attracting business. They gave state assisted Education to many of its citizens while we have to incur large debts to educate ourselves, thus our need to demand higher wages. That along with state assisted medical which is a big burden to business in this country. Other than that it is us that built up their countries by moving our jobs there.

The biggest point you are apparently unable to take away from the story is that “Quality of Life: India vs. China” is that what’s behind improving conditions in both countries is their enhanced practice of capitalism.

si shen

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 28, 2014 12:05 AM (P)

Quote:
Boy, Miker must have been a major head ach for you huh? Well I am pleased to carry on in his stead and will answer this for him, 1kiki.

Except I'm not KIKI. If you could look at our IP addresses (which of course you can't) you'd see that even when we're in the inet at the same time our addresses are different and that they go thru different servers since we're not located in the same place. Also, if you've been here for a while- which you haven't- you'd see that I've been here since forever, while KIKI appeared later, and while we agree on many things we don't have the same "fist" and we don't have the same approach.

SO- you're not MIKER? 'Cause, yanno, I thought it was funny that MIKER suddenly appears and then flounces out, and then THGRII appears out of the blue right afterwards, with the same arguments, same mis-spellings and all. But- OK, "THGRII", I'll address you as a different person if you wish. It's your anonymous inet perogative to call yourself whatever you want.

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 28, 2014 1:04 AM (P)

Quote:
The biggest point you are apparently unable to take away from the story is that “Quality of Life: India vs. China” is that what’s behind improving conditions in both countries is their enhanced practice of capitalism.

THGRII, it would be useful and interesting if you would do just A LITTLE research before you post.

China can hardly be considered to practice "capitalism", since all of its major industries and banks are state-owned, and its services (education, healthcare etc) are state-provided.

THGRRI

Saturday, June 28, 2014 1:42 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
The biggest point you are apparently unable to take away from the story is that “Quality of Life: India vs. China” is that what’s behind improving conditions in both countries is their enhanced practice of capitalism.
THGRII, it would be useful and interesting if you would do just A LITTLE research before you post.

China can hardly be considered to practice "capitalism", since all of its major industries and banks are state-owned, and its services (education, healthcare etc) are state-provided.

Except for the industry that is co-owned by other countries as I point out. If you read what I posted you will see I acknowledge state provided education and health care as reasons for the influx of capitalism. It cuts costs. Right now China is evolving and capitalism is flourishing in China and India. If you do not recognize that what the F@#k do I care.

I will nether acknowledge nor deny any identity you chose to attach to me. I don't give a shit 1kiki.

si shen

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 28, 2014 3:23 AM (P)

No, you missed the point:

ELECTRICAL GENERATION IS OWNED BY THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT. Not "some", or "most", but ALL. Petroleum purchase and refining, and petrochemicals. Banking. Transportation. The state-owned enterprises (SOEs) comprise the backbone of strategic, heavy, large industry, and when you add provincial and city ownerships, it rises even more. Furthermore, China seems to be reversing course on its liberalization policies

Quote:
A new shorthand has entered common parlance: guojin mintui, meaning the state [sector] advances and the private retreats. It seems to suggest that the state sector's share of the economy is growing, which it is not; non-state businesses are in fact prospering. But the government has been muscling in on business in a variety of ways. It has been tightening its grip on some industries it considers “strategic”, from oil and coal to telecommunications and transport equipment. It has been devising market-access rules that favour state firms. And to the chagrin of private businesses, it has allowed state companies to remain active in a surprising range of palpably non-strategic sectors, from textiles and papermaking to catering. In recent years property development has become a lucrative sideline for government businesses. “The tentacles of state-owned enterprises extend into every nook where profit can be made,” writes Zheng Yongnian of the National University of Singapore.

Of 42 mainland Chinese companies in the Fortune 500 list of the world's biggest firms in 2010, all but three were owned by the government. Carl Walter, a Beijing-based investment banker, said in a recent book that getting as many companies as possible into that select group was a matter of deliberate policy. China's own list of the 500 biggest Chinese companies spans 75 industries. In 29 of these not a single private firm makes the grade and in ten others they play only a minor part.

http://www.economist.com/node/18832034

Is it capitalist economy?

1KIKI

Saturday, June 28, 2014 11:20 AM (P)

Once again our resident troll sock puppet, when presented with the analysis of a world-class economist, posted nothing of intelligence or even mild interest in response, and posted absolutely nothing to substantiate the mental diarrhea it tries to pretend is discussion. I really do wonder what passes for a brain in it.

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Why look at China and India 1kiki when they are both playing catch up with us. When both had to abandon what they were doing and adapt our approach to business. You should remember that both did the same thing in attracting business. They gave state assisted Education to many of its citizens while we have to incur large debts to educate ourselves, thus our need to demand higher wages. That along with state assisted medical which is a big burden to business in this country. Other than that it is us that built up their countries by moving our jobs there.

The biggest point you are apparently unable to take away from the story is that “Quality of Life: India vs. China” is that what’s behind improving conditions in both countries is their enhanced practice of capitalism.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 28, 2014 1:02 PM (P)

Quote:
Agreeing with Byte's statement does not mean I like complaining - I personally detest complainers and whiners, even when I do it :). It just means I see a positive side to it - it can be a great motivator for change.
I'm still interested in your ideas, but whenever.

G, I have no interest in talking to people who pretend to be "reasonable". Because what'll happen is that we'll get in a discussion, and then sooner or later... probably sooner rather than later... I'll hit a wall consisting entirely of your prejudice, which you'll refuse to acknowledge.

So I'll just sketch out some ideas.

I don't have "an ideal" society in mind, but a number of remedies that can be tried, depending on how far one wants to revise society.

The first attempt would simply be to redistribute the money currently whirling around in a speculative hurricane at the top, and reduce the role of debt in the economy. One could institute some form of wealth tax or financial xfer tax, raise minimum wages across the board, and require much higher capitalization rates of banks (winding up near 50+%). That might help stabilize the flow of money, prevent another financial collapse, and improve the "real economy" which consists of production and consumption.

Moving on, there could be a world-wide trade reform consisting - not of "free trade" (profit uber alles) but of tariffs which would be imposed on any nation's goods that engages in corrupt practices and destablizing behavior- for example, a 5% tariff for adult literacy rates less than 80%, a 5% tariff for legal disparities between men and women, a 5% tariff for governments which do not hold free and fair elections, etc. ... yanno, considering that most corrupt leaders engage in a cluster of bad behaviors, it would add up!

You could eliminate private banks.

However, there is also the problem that economies are TOO intertwined. Efficiency and ruggedness pull in opposite directions- ruggedness requires surplus and redundant systems while efficiency requires streamlining in both time (just in time) and space. National economies should be encouraged to be food, energy, and industry-secure. That way, if there's a large shock (solar flare for example) the pieces can break into parts which continue to operate at a survivable -if lower- level.

Even further, one could simply eliminate corporations as a business form, and require that all businesses be cooperatives, and that all banks be government-owned. I would also think that governments be devolved to the lowest effect (problem-solving) level, and that direct democracy be the political form.

Finally, you could eliminate money (that would be my choice), or allow/encourage the development of many currencies so that no one nation can dominate international finance.

I left out a bunch of ideas, I've listed these many times before and I really don't feel like going thru them... AGAIN.

As I see it, people would continue to work and consume, and the role of profiteers could be reduced or eliminated.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, June 28, 2014 1:47 PM (P)

I've always been in favour of governments being able to own resources and utilities. There is no reason why governments shouldn't make a profit and redestribute that as infrastructure spending. That means for resource rich countries that funding for education, healthcare, care of the elderly could be pretty much funded by resource profit and that individual taxpayers would not have to bear such a burden, plus you don't have to rely on user pays systems.

THGRRI

Saturday, June 28, 2014 6:06 PM (P)

It's getting there; signym

How China Became Capitalist

Over the past 35 years, China has embraced capitalism not just in the economy. The Theory of Moral Sentiments has more than a dozen Chinese translations; the book has won the heart and mind of premier Wen Jiabao. The message of Adam Smith resonates strongly with the Chinese, not least because of its striking affinity with the traditional Chinese thinking on economy and society. A surprising outcome of China’s transition to capitalism is that China has found a way back to its own cultural roots.

http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/how-china-becam
e-capitalist

si shen

THGRRI

Saturday, June 28, 2014 6:45 PM (P)

Quote:
…..signym
I don't have "an ideal" society in mind, but a number of remedies that can be tried, depending on how far one wants to revise society.

This is one of your remedies or suggestions on how to improve our current form of capitalism.

Quote:
….signym
However, there is also the problem that economies are TOO intertwined. Efficiency and ruggedness pull in opposite directions- ruggedness requires surplus and redundant systems while efficiency requires streamlining in both time (just in time) and space. National economies should be encouraged to be food, energy, and industry-secure. That way, if there's a large shock (solar flare for example) the pieces can break into parts which continue to operate at a survivable -if lower- level.

It’s subjective in tone and little more than confusing bullshit. It is intentionally vague and makes little to no sense. Much of what you suggest in the rest of your response shows no understanding of what happens when governments overextend and try and control the world. Something you accuse this country of doing continuously.

You suggest eliminating public banks and again show your agenda to be one of complete centralized government.

No thanks.

si shen

THGRRI

Saturday, June 28, 2014 6:50 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I've always been in favour of governments being able to own resources and utilities. There is no reason why governments shouldn't make a profit and redestribute that as infrastructure spending. That means for resource rich countries that funding for education, healthcare, care of the elderly could be pretty much funded by resource profit and that individual taxpayers would not have to bear such a burden, plus you don't have to rely on user pays systems.

You can accomplish the same thing by ending corporate welfare and expanding the tax base once again.

si shen

THGRRI

Saturday, June 28, 2014 7:38 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Once again our resident troll sock puppet, when presented with the analysis of a world-class economist, posted nothing of intelligence or even mild interest in response, and posted absolutely nothing to substantiate the mental diarrhea it tries to pretend is discussion. I really do wonder what passes for a brain in it.

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Why look at China and India 1kiki when they are both playing catch up with us. When both had to abandon what they were doing and adapt our approach to business. You should remember that both did the same thing in attracting business. They gave state assisted Education to many of its citizens while we have to incur large debts to educate ourselves, thus our need to demand higher wages. That along with state assisted medical which is a big burden to business in this country. Other than that it is us that built up their countries by moving our jobs there.

Quote:
....1kiki

The biggest point you are apparently unable to take away from the story is that “Quality of Life: India vs. China” is that what’s behind improving conditions in both countries is their enhanced practice of capitalism.

Because it is a distraction from the point and wants to suggest that we should think more like the Chinese and or India because they are becoming more successful and or have better philosophies. Ignoring the fact that they are climbing out of the gutter by riding on our backs, along with Europe. They are doing well because much of our economy (jobs)shifted to those countries. (cheep labor)

When Thomas Freedman asked some India officials what is the United States supposed to do with all it's jobs migrating to India? They responded by saying the United States should do what it always does. Create the jobs of the future.

si shen

1KIKI

Saturday, June 28, 2014 11:46 PM (P)

T

I have a three-fold problem with the article you linked.
- One is that they don't actually talk about standard of living for the country as a whole. Metrics that are impossible to move unless you make improvements for the vast majority of the population are lifespan, female lifespan, literacy, vaccination rates, and infant mortality. If one has genuinely improved the lives of the masses, these figures move in a good direction. If one hasn't, no other metric can substitute as an indicator. (Due to the nature of arithmetic averages and the item being measured, it's possible to raise an average GDP by making one person astronomically wealthy while everyone else starves by 30; you can't raise average lifespan by making one person astronomically old.)
- Another is that they don't provide a definition of what they consider capitalism. Without that definition it's hard to reconcile the fact that the government entirely owns the vital energy, basic manufacturing, healthcare and financial sectors with the description 'capitalist'.
- The other is that (like you) they provide no facts or figures to demonstrate a time-line or indicate magnitudes. Without facts, it's impossible to evaluate their claims as anything other than fantasy.

As for your earlier contention that both the Chinese and Indians improved their standard of living as a result of capitalism, you've failed to make the links on any of your claims.

You referenced a paper that failed to demonstrate either your claims or even its OWN conclusions, you didn't demonstrate that India improved its standard of living for the masses or how capitalism can be linked to it, and you haven't explained why the people of one country are vastly better off than the people of another.

What you did was to take an 'authority' and post their paper without any real understanding of what was in it, or ability to logically examine the topic.

And FINALLY, and most importantly, you've failed entirely to address the topic of this thread - the shortcomings of capitalism as an economy and as value system.

Until you can address these issues I won't be discussing this with you further.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Saturday, June 28, 2014 11:58 PM (P)

G

Your argument is limited. Saying 'that's how it works!' doesn't take into account the past where things didn't work this way, the present where there are places they don't work this way, or the future where people will do things differently.

Try thinking about this society - I dunno - AS IF IT WAS A SCIENCE FICTION STORY you weren't enmeshed in and vested in - and considering how it might change.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 29, 2014 12:46 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Try thinking about this society - I dunno - AS IF IT WAS A SCIENCE FICTION STORY you weren't enmeshed in and vested in - and considering how it might change.

Gillian: Don't tell me, you don't use money in the 23rd Century.

Kirk: Well, we don't.

1KIKI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 12:53 AM (P)

ALLL riiiight!

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, June 29, 2014 4:25 AM (P)

Quote:
I agree about unsticking that glut of invested wealth, but I have objected to the idea of a wealth tax. It may have to happen at some point, but I would prefer a way to make the rich voluntarily redistribute their wealth.

Too funny. You made me spit out my morning coffee.

THGRRI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 5:22 AM (P)

Quote:
….1kiki
I have a three-fold problem with the article you linked.

That is because you do not understand the point of the article and why I chose to post it as a response to signym. No surprise there.

Quote:
…..signym
A new shorthand has entered common parlance: guojin mintui, meaning the state [sector] advances and the private retreats. It seems to suggest that the state sector's share of the economy is growing,

Is it capitalist economy?

Meaning China

Quote:
….1kiki
- One is that they don't actually talk about standard of living for the country as a whole. Metrics that are impossible to move unless you make improvements for the vast majority of the population are lifespan, female lifespan, literacy, vaccination rates, and infant mortality.

This is not relevant to the point I was addressing with the article. This is what you do. Spin things off.

Quote:
…..1kiki
- Another is that they don't provide a definition of what they consider capitalism. Without that definition it's hard to reconcile the fact that the government entirely owns the vital energy, basic manufacturing, healthcare and financial sectors with the description 'capitalist'.

Perhaps they figured you had some understanding of what capitalism means because most people do. If you don’t understand how China is weaving capitalism into its finical system that is sad because it has been explained in many venues for more than a decade. If you don’t understand how India’s economy has benefited in recent years through capitalistic pursuits that too indicates a staggering ignorance of the subject.

Quote:
…..1kiki
You referenced a paper that failed to demonstrate either your claims or even its OWN conclusions, you didn't demonstrate that India improved its standard of living for the masses or how capitalism can be linked to it, and you haven't explained why the people of one country are vastly better off than the people of another.

This article is from the Cato Institute. That you would suggest they failed to make proper arguments to support their own conclusions has me rolling on the floor in laughter.

Let’s get right to it shall we;

The article I referenced was in response to signym suggesting China had not adopted capitalism and has absolutely nothing to do with the questions you have posted about it. Nothing, but hey, that’s what you do, is it not?

“Over the past 35 years, China has embraced capitalism not just in the economy. The Theory of Moral Sentiments has more than a dozen Chinese translations; the book has won the heart and mind of premier Wen Jiabao. The message of Adam Smith resonates strongly with the Chinese, not least because of its striking affinity with the traditional Chinese thinking on economy and society. A surprising outcome of China’s transition to capitalism is that China has found a way back to its own cultural roots”.

http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/how-china-becam
e-capitalist

Quote:
…1kiki
And FINALLY, and most importantly, you've failed entirely to address the topic of this thread - the shortcomings of capitalism as an economy and as value system.

This thread was a bitch fest and attack against capitalism by some who live in a fantasy world. Who say things like we need to do away with all private banks and give complete control to the government.

"At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin."

So you are right, I did not join in but instead have shown you and others to be completely unsophisticated in your understanding of what system we want, which system history shows works best, and what system history shows doesn’t work well at all.

Most im

1KIKI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 6:06 AM (P)

So, you have nothing to contribute to the topic.

I have to say, you yourself don't seem to understand the article. The title was "How China Became Capitalist". Not, how it may be weaving some parts of capitalism into small areas of its economy ... nope, it called China capitalist. Is it?

According to a decision issued on Friday by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), non-state-owned capital will be allowed to take equity stakes in projects featuring investment by state-owned capital, and employees of multi-ownership enterprises will be able to hold shares in their companies.

The country will vigorously develop mixed ownership to improve the basic economic system while keeping the dominant role of public ownership, with the state-owned economy playing a leading role, while encouraging, supporting and guiding the non-public sector, enhancing its vitality and creativity, according to the decision.
http://english.cri.cn/6826/2013/11/15/3441s798833.htm

Ownership of Land in China

China applies a system of public ownership to all land. As a general rule, land in urban areas is owned by the State and land in rural areas is owned by 'collectives' (rural collective economic organisations) and can only be used for agricultural purposes.
http://www.mondaq.com/x/89998/agriculture+land+law/Ownership+Of+Land+I
n+China

Against widespread expectations of a more market-oriented economy in the wake of China’s state sector restructuring in the late 1990s and the country’s accession to the World Trade Organisation in 2001, during the last decade SOEs have not only remained on the economic stage but have been recapitalised and consolidated. They have become the largest companies not only in China but also internationally.
http://www.thechinastory.org/2013/07/contesting-state-ownership/

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 6:10 AM (P)

Apparently nothing you are capable of understanding. But that's not a surprise.

“Over the past 35 years, China has embraced capitalism not just in the economy. The Theory of Moral Sentiments has more than a dozen Chinese translations; the book has won the heart and mind of premier Wen Jiabao. The message of Adam Smith resonates strongly with the Chinese, not least because of its striking affinity with the traditional Chinese thinking on economy and society. A surprising outcome of China’s transition to capitalism is that China has found a way back to its own cultural roots.

But today, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that the economic forces that were really transforming the Chinese economy in the first decade of reform were private farming, township and village enterprises, private business in cities, and the Special Economic Zones. None of them was initiated from Beijing. They were marginal players operating outside the boundary of socialism".

Time for the next minion.

si shen

1KIKI

Sunday, June 29, 2014 6:20 AM (P)

And meanwhile, to understand the role of capitalism in improving life FOR THE MASSES you'll note here that the greatest gains in life expectancy in China - for women from 45 to 63, and for men from 44 to 64 - came between the years 1950 and 1972. http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/china/life-expectancy-at-birth

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE