political division in america

[KimGordon67]

Yes. What other world do you think I'm talking about?

Just checking. I'll get back to this when I have a keyboard.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

You're saying there both is capitalism and isn't capitalism.

It happens all the time, everywhere, and yet nothing that happens in the US is capitalism because: government control.

Still doesn't get away from the fact that once you consider a nation, communities, and government, you MUST start considering capitalism in a wider sense than here and there.

Sure, I went and bought a hamburger at McDonald's.

But I paid taxes. That food has been through government inspection. The restaurant has to have certain health standards. Nothing about it is completely free and in the wild.

And MY one little purchase is from a huge corporation. Mickey D's. I'm just one consumer, but the price I pay, everything about it is interrelated to that larger corporation. And corporations cannot just do what they want willy nilly, because they conduct business in a nation a, a town, therefore gubmint, society, people, rules.

Those little girls selling lemonade got lemons probably with little stickers on them from the gubmint. Water that comes from the town. Sugar that comes from some corporation which has paid slaves wages somewhere in the third world to get it. Nothing about THAT is free and unregulated, either.

So no, "free" capitalism is a myth they use to sell to the dumb fucks who believe a gun = mah "freedom."

But it does work the same everywhere. It's the types of government control that are different, and once again government control, ownership and or administration over the means and markets is not capitalism.

Capitalism just people exchanging goods and services privately...that's ALL capitalism is.

If you've ever participated in or witnessed an un-licensed/regulated economic exchange... you've seen free market capitalism happen in real life. From a kids lemonade stand to buying drugs or a guitar from some guy off face book.




I'm not talking about an abstract concept. I just sold my Gibson Les Paul for 5,500 bucks just a few days ago.

There was absolutely no need for government to facilitate, regulate or manage the transaction. Which probably makes the sale illegal in California some how.

But legal or not that was pure free market exchange, capitalism in action....happens every day all over the world.




If everyone had equal levels of merit (economically speaking) there would be no poverty or inequality of any kind. Nor would there be a need for government to force equal merit.

And if someone really thought everyone had equal levels of merit, why would they not support capitalism? Why would anyone who thinks that support socialistic policy, government force of violence, in order to create social and economic equity? They wouldn't.....because deep down inside they know everyone is not equal. People are different on an individual basis.


And are you ever going to back up what you said in post #76?

 

[KimGordon67]

... but most important, how was the burger?

You're saying there both is capitalism and isn't capitalism.

It happens all the time, everywhere, and yet nothing that happens in the US is capitalism because: government control.

Still doesn't get away from the fact that once you consider a nation, communities, and government, you MUST start considering capitalism in a wider sense than here and there.

Sure, I went and bought a hamburger at McDonald's.

But I paid taxes. That food has been through government inspection. The restaurant has to have certain health standards. Nothing about it is completely free and in the wild.

And MY one little purchase is from a huge corporation. Mickey D's. I'm just one consumer, but the price I pay, everything about it is interrelated to that larger corporation. And corporations cannot just do what they want willy nilly, because they conduct business in a nation a, a town, therefore gubmint, society, people, rules.

Those little girls selling lemonade got lemons probably with little stickers on them from the gubmint. Water that comes from the town. Sugar that comes from some corporation which has paid slaves wages somewhere in the third world to get it. Nothing about THAT is free and unregulated, either.

So no, "free" capitalism is a myth they use to sell to the dumb fucks who believe a gun = mah "freedom."

 

[BotanyBoy]

You're saying there both is capitalism and isn't capitalism.

No I'm saying there are scales of capitalism and free markets are everywhere there are people. Not even the iron fist of Soviet Russia could eliminate them in their socialist quest for the communist utopia.

Still doesn't get away from the fact that once you consider a nation, communities, and government, you MUST start considering capitalism in a wider sense than here and there.

Thus the USA, like most modern countries, is a mixed economy.

Nothing about THAT is free and unregulated, either.

Nothing about THAT negates the fact that free markets exist and people exchange their goods and services on them regularly.

So no, "free" capitalism is a myth they use to sell to the dumb fucks who believe a gun = mah "freedom."

If it's a myth then how come there are so many unlicensed and unregulated drug dealers out there making BILLIONS this year?

If it's a myth then explain all the flea markets out there.....

If it's a myth then what is the "gun show loop hole" aka private sales?

How did I sell my privately owned property to another person without any government licensing or oversight?

According to you all that's all mythological....can't happen because capitalism and free markets are a myth right?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Didn't say it didn't happen. Said it wasn't "free."

 

[BotanyBoy]

Didn't say it didn't happen. Said it wasn't "free."

If it's not a government controlled exchange of goods and services, it is free.

 

[SimonDoom]

Didn't say it didn't happen. Said it wasn't "free."

How do you define "free"? If your definition of "free" is such that no system or transaction is truly free, then it's not a useful definition. A useful definition of a political/economic concept is one that allows us to make meaningful comparisons of different things, some of which qualify under that label and some that don't.

In a sense, no transaction is truly free, because every transaction is touched in some way, however remotely, by the coercive hand of government, but if that's all you mean, it's an unhelpful definition.

A looser, and more useful, and therefore better, definition of a "free" market transaction is one in which the terms of the transaction are made principally by the participants rather than by a third party working for the government, one where government's role primarily is to enforce the terms of the transaction in court rather than to dictate its terms to the parties. That's a perfectly sufficient definition of "free" in this context because it allows us to make meaningful comparisons between market-based systems and nonmarket-based systems.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Capitalism just people exchanging goods and services privately...that's ALL capitalism is.

Capitalism is private ownership of productive wealth. It is not less capitalism when the government provides business subsidies in return for political contributions, or if the dictator and his cronies own everything worth owning, as long as the cronies can sell their property and move somewhere else.

In North Korea a dictator and his cronies live like multi millionaires in a country of widespread malnutrition. The difference between that and the economy of a banana republic dictatorship is that Kim's cronies cannot sell anything and move elsewhere.

What exists in North Korea does not prove that socialism is a bad situation. It proves that a dictatorship is an inappropriate government for a socialist economy.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Capitalism is private ownership of productive wealth.

You left out the most important part of the definition of capitalism.

The distribution of that wealth being determined on a free or open market.

It is not less capitalism when the government provides business subsidies in return for political contributions, or if the dictator and his cronies own everything worth owning,

Yes it is less capitalist for the government to own the means of production and determine the distribution of those means.

When the government (including dictator and his friends) owns the means and determines the distribution of said means that is NOT capitalism.