political division in america

[Hypoxia]

Look, it's a free market, and that means everyone is free to succeed.

It's like how things are self-evident because they're self-evident ...

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose," wrote the West Point graduate and US Army captain. Free to succeed, free to fail, free to cheat and rob and default, free to break contracts, free to run. Free to live or die.

Liberty is not anarchic. Liberty requires responsibility and compromise. Liberty is always more than "nothing left to lose." Your FREEDOM to travel ends at a fenced boundary. Your LIBERTY to travel may require paying a gate toll.

Liberty always has a cost. Freedom... you get what you pay for. By the usual capitalist calculus then, freedom, costing nothing, is worthless. That should be self-evident.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I didn't 'slip up' - I'm utterly firm in my conviction about that. The 'myth' is the ideology ... the reality is different. In order to understand the reality, you have to move beyond dictionary definitions and look at how things have developed, in the real world, over time.

How is the myth the ideology then?

How is reality different?

All I'm saying is that based on prior experience, the chance of an actually informed discussion about this seems minimal.

All I'm saying is that refusing to put forth anything other than condescending comments like that makes you a flaming hypocrite, not to mention a smug asshole.

Now do you want to explain how the myth is the ideology?

How reality is different?

Or you just going to be a smug asshole?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Look, it's a free market, and that means everyone is free to succeed.

It's like how things are self-evident because they're self-evident ...

Nobody said that....you keep twisting words.

You keep running with that goal post because you can't back up your bullshit in post #76

And you say others positions are uniformed LOL

 

[KimGordon67]

How is the myth the ideology then?

How is reality different?



All I'm saying is that refusing to put forth anything other than condescending comments like that makes you a flaming hypocrite, not to mention a smug asshole.

Now do you want to explain how the myth is the ideology?

How reality is different?

Or you just going to be a smug asshole?

Do you seriously want to have an actual conversation about this that won't, at any point, degenerate into personal insults, and in which you'll happily look at any evidence I offer in support of my argument?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Do you seriously want to have an actual conversation about this that won't, at any point, degenerate into personal insults, and in which you'll happily look at any evidence I offer in support of my argument?

If you think you can manage to not start with the personal insults and shit talk then it won't degenerate into personal insults and shit talk.

Look at, sure. Readily accept as indisputable....not guaranteed or promised.

In the name of a clean slate though could you clearly state your argument?

 

[KimGordon67]

If you think you can manage to not start with the personal insults and shit talk then it won't degenerate into personal insults and shit talk.

Look at, sure. Readily accept as indisputable....not guaranteed or promised.

In the name of a clean slate though could you clearly state your argument?

As you point out, the assertion I made in post 76.

So, given that you assert the opposite, can you give your definition of 'fail', 'succeed' and 'their own merits'. (Not dictionary definitions - your understandings of the term within the assertion that 'under capitalism, people fail or succeed on the basis of their own merits' ... or if that's not what you're arguing, what your actual argument is, and how your interpreting the terms within it.)

And before you say 'it's your argument - you define the terms' ... I know what my definitions are, but if we start from there we'll spend pages arguing about the definitions of the terms of the debate. I'm happy enough to just work with your definitions.

 

[BotanyBoy]

As you point out, the assertion I made in post 76.

Ok.

So, for the umpteenth time, how is one of the most basic concepts of capitalism, something that's observable on a daily basis in most of the modern 1st world a myth??

So, given that you assert the opposite, can you give your definition of 'fail', 'succeed' and 'their own merits'. (Not dictionary definitions - your understandings of the term within the assertion that 'under capitalism, people fail or succeed on the basis of their own merits' ... or if that's not what you're arguing, what your actual argument is, and how your interpreting the terms within it.)

Of course.

Capitalism is a non-interference, free market economic model.

So....

If you can produce a desirable product/service at a price people will pay enough for to make yourself a profit, you succeed economically.

If you don't produce those goods and services or you can't do it at a price people are willing to pay? You fail.

Capitalism allows both to occur freely or put another way 'under capitalism, people fail or succeed on the basis of their own merits' .

And before you say 'it's your argument - you define the terms' ... I know what my definitions are, but if we start from there we'll spend pages arguing about the definitions of the terms of the debate. I'm happy enough to just work with your definitions.

Is that because "your" definitions are in contradiction with Webster, Oxford, Wiki and Britannica?

Because those are the definitions I'm using.

 

[KimGordon67]

Ok.

So, for the umpteenth time, how is one of the most basic concepts of capitalism, something that's observable on a daily basis in most of the modern 1st world a myth??





Of course.

Capitalism is a non-interference, free market economic model.

So....

If you can produce a desirable product/service at a price people will pay enough for to make yourself a profit, you succeed economically.

If you don't produce those goods and services or you can't do it at a price people are willing to pay? You fail.

Capitalism allows both to occur freely or put another way 'under capitalism, people fail or succeed on the basis of their own merits' .




Is that because "your" definitions are in contradiction with Webster, Oxford, Wiki and Britannica?

Because those are the definitions I'm using.

The ways in which 'success', 'failure' and 'merits' are measured can vary widely.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Double post, sorry.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The ways in which 'success', 'failure' and 'merits' are measured can vary widely.

Not with regard to modern (relatively) economic systems, which is what we are talking about.

Specifically capitalism where your merit is your ability to produce goods and services of a profitable value.

And as with all modern economics socialism, capitalism and mixed economies alike....

Success is making profit.

Failure is not.

You can change the perspective of those things....from the individual to the state as a whole. But the goal is still the same for all the systems, produce value and distribute/exchange it.

The only argument is how to go about doing it.

Are you ever going to try and explain how capitalism doesn't allow people to succeed or fail at their own hand?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

"Capitalism" doesn't exist or manifest itself in a void. It's not some pure disembodied thing floating around in some ideal, perfect, immaterial world.

It's absurd to even talk about "it" "allowing" or "disallowing" anything. "Capitalism" does not exist outside people, places, myths, nations. American capitalism is different from Chinese capitalism, etc. How its implemented, conducted, written, regulated (by whomever) in HISTORY. Talking about "it" in this abstract way as if it's just plunked down by gods is ridiculous.

You can say the US has a capital-ist economy, but not that the USA is capital-ism.

Its more appropriate to ask how the United States, its people, history, laws, and myths, enact capitalism. And so even if in your ideal, perfect realm (questionable to begin with), anything capitalism pretends to be true is true, it's a whole other question in reality.

But of course, if you're sexless, you just like to stay floating around in a non-corporeal state.

The only argument is how to go about doing it.

Are you ever going to try and explain how capitalism doesn't allow people to succeed or fail at their own hand?

 

[BotanyBoy]

American capitalism is different from Chinese capitalism, etc.

Those aren't real things.

You can say the US has a capital-ist economy, but not that the USA is capital-ism.

No you can't. You can say the USA has a mixed economy.

Its more appropriate to ask how the United States, its people, history, laws, and myths, enact capitalism.

You don't enact capitalism. Capitalism is the natural state of economic exchange interactions between individuals.

Capitalism is just the private ownership of the means of production, and the free exchange of those means on open/free markets.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Still floating around in the abstract.

And yes, there is such a thing as AMERICAN capitalism, German capitalism, whatever. It's not the exact same wherever you go because: real world.

You can think of it as "free" in the abstract, but the fact is American capitalism has ALWAYS been regulated and limited, to some degree or other, down to rules about where you could grow crops back in ye olde Pilgrim days. Trade RULES, permits, tax LAWS, etc. It has ALWAYS been shaped, tailored, adapted.


If you think "free" means "without any restrictions whatsoever" you're living in a dream world.

Those aren't real things.




No you can't. You can say the USA has a mixed economy.





You don't enact capitalism. Capitalism is the natural state of economic exchange interactions between individuals.

Capitalism is just the private ownership of the means of production, and the free exchange of those means on open/free markets.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Still floating around in the abstract.

Not at all, it's clearly defined.

And yes, there is such a thing as AMERICAN capitalism, German capitalism, whatever. It's not the exact same wherever you go because: real world.

No, there isn't. Capitalism is the same everywhere, because the definition of capitalism.

You should go read it sometime.

You can think of it as "free" in the abstract, but the fact is American capitalism has ALWAYS been regulated and limited, to some degree or other, down to rules about where you could grow crops back in ye olde Pilgrim days. Trade RULES, permits, tax LAWS, etc. It has ALWAYS been shaped, tailored, adapted.

1) not all regulations are in conflict with capitalism.

2) That's why most modern societies use some sort of mixed economy, neither capitalist nor socialist.

If you think "free" means "without any restrictions whatsoever" you're living in a dream world.

That's exactly what free means....

Definition of free


d :enjoying personal freedom :not subject to the control or domination of another You are free to do whatever you want.
2 a :not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being :choosing or capable of choosing for itself a player free to negotiate a contract with any team

4 a :having no trade restrictions duty-free imports
b :not subject to government regulation, free competition
c of foreign exchange :not subject to restriction or official control
5 a :having no obligations (as to work) or commitments I'll be free this evening
6 :having a scope not restricted by qualification a free variable

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free


You really ought to pick up a dictionary every now and then.


There is...crystal clear...black and white.

https://media.tenor.com/images/421aee6986e10a74dbc52aae7c3965ac/tenor.gif

 

[JackLuis]

There have been many forms of Capitalism in America:

Robber Baron Capitalism

Wall Street coddling Capitalism

Crony Capitalism

and

Regulated Capitalism

Very few times have there been truly free markets.

 

[BotanyBoy]

There have been many forms of Capitalism in America:

Robber Baron Capitalism

Wall Street coddling Capitalism

Crony Capitalism

and

Regulated Capitalism

Very few times have there been truly free markets.

If they weren't truly free or even open...then by definition it wasn't capitalism.

Just like most of the "capitalism" types you listed....

Crony capitalism? Wall Street Coddling capitalism?

LOL there is nothing capitalistic about government control, administration and ownership over the means of production or the markets that production is exchanged on.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Well the only "place" it exists is in the abstract. Disembodied. An ideal you're reading in a dictionary. The moment you put it into PRACTICE in: real world and history, it is by no means "the same everywhere."

No, there isn't. Capitalism is the same everywhere, because the definition of capitalism.

You should go read it sometime.

Awesome. Then Kim's argument needs no explanation. You're admitting there is no REAL manifestation of capitalism. It only exists as a myth, i.e. a definition printed on a page

1) not all regulations are in conflict with capitalism.

2) That's why most modern societies use some sort of mixed economy, neither capitalist nor socialist.

We weren't discussing freedom in a general sense, but free as it applies to capitalism.

Again, all you can go is quote a little story from the dictionary. Wonderful. Has nothing to do with reality.

That's exactly what free means....

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

You really ought to pick up a dictionary every now and then.


There is...crystal clear...black and white.

https://media.tenor.com/images/421aee6986e10a74dbc52aae7c3965ac/tenor.gif

 

[KimGordon67]

That all pretty much answers my next question, but as BotBoy is clearly talking about an abstract concept, rather than a functioning system, I'll leave it. (Although it's worth noting he dismissed my hypothetical in which everyone had equal levels of merit as 'impossible' or 'ridiculous' or words to that effect.)

 

[BotanyBoy]

Well the only "place" it exists is in the abstract. Disembodied. An ideal you're reading in a dictionary. The moment you put it into PRACTICE in: real world and history, it is by no means "the same everywhere."

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.

That all pretty much answers my next question, but as BotBoy is clearly talking about an abstract concept, rather than a functioning system, I'll leave it.

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.

(Although it's worth noting he dismissed my hypothetical in which everyone had equal levels of merit as 'impossible' or 'ridiculous' or words to that effect.)

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 it does work the same everywhere.

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

If you've ever participated in or witnessed an un-licensed, un-regulated economic exchange... you've seen free market capitalism happen in real life.




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?

No, because you're clearly flitting between real world and abstract instances at will.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No, because you're clearly flitting between real world and abstract instances at will.

I'm not because it's not abstract. It's demonstrable and happens all around pretty much everyone in the 1st world on a regular basis if not daily.

You've almost certainly witnessed the voluntary exchange of goods and or services between private parties if not participated in them yourself.

There it is...that's free market capitalism. Real life.

Even being from a far further left European state you've seen it before haven't you?

You can't back up what you said in post #76, I get it.

 

[KimGordon67]

I'm not because it's not abstract. It's demonstrable and happens all around pretty much everyone in the 1st world on a regular basis if not daily.

You've almost certainly witnessed the voluntary exchange of goods and or services between private parties if not participated in them yourself.

There it is...that's free market capitalism. Real life.

Even being from a far further left European state you've seen it before haven't you?

You can't back up what you said in post #76, I get it.

You seem to be working on the assumption that the entire system is comprised of entrepreneurs.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You seem to be working on the assumption that the entire system is comprised of entrepreneurs.

Not at all.

I'm working on the assumption that the entire system (or lack there of) is comprised of functioning adults able to engage in and manage their own exchanges. Because adults.


Employees engage in their economic exchange by being employed.

They exchange their time/skills producing for a co-op/corporation/small bidniz in exchange for money/benefits.

 

[KimGordon67]

Not at all.

I'm working on the assumption that the entire system (or lack there of) is comprised of functioning adults able to engage in and manage their own exchanges. Because adults.


Employees engage in their economic exchange by being employed.

They exchange their time/skills producing for a co-op/corporation/small bidniz in exchange for money/benefits.

And these corporations etc and the people working for them exist in a world where shit hapoens, eg babies, death, etc?

 

[BotanyBoy]

And these corporations etc and the people working for them exist in a world where shit hapoens, eg babies, death, etc?

Yes, they exist in the real world.

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