Communism is dead and Capitalism is in its death throes

[Le Jacquelope]

We've argued and argued and argued, and now Darwin has spoken. Neither system is viable. We need an alternative.

What will become of the world to cpme, in which both economic schools of thought are finally discarded for the extremist dystopian garbage that it is?

The nanny state is dead. Naked greed is on its death bed. The world to come will have to accept that something in between is the answer.

Fair trade and ethical business dealings. It's coming whether you like it or not.

The question now is, how do we cope?

 

[amicus]

You err, as usual, on moral grounds and not for your benefit, but perhaps for others, I will take just a moment and clarify.

Capitalism, the free market, is merely an extensiion of man's long quest to realize individual freedom and liberty and self expression with is inherent and innate in the nature of man.

Thus, call it what you may, the free market will never fade away, just improve with time and trial and error as all human endeavors do.

You cannot turn humans into indentical ball bearings on a production line, we are a work in progress and will always seek greater freedom and independence.

Such a deal, eh?

Amicus...

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Hey Amicus... remember 14066?

Remember that?

LOL.

 

[DeeZire]

Capitalism, the free market, is merely an extensiion of man's long quest to realize individual freedom and liberty and self expression with is inherent and innate in the nature of man.

A long sentence with a simple meaning: Greed rules at the expense of all else.

Thus, call it what you may, the free market will never fade away, just improve with time and trial and error as all human endeavors do.

When the human race fades away due to environmental degradation, will alien cultures studying the history of the Earth make the connection between the free market and global warming? I guess that would depend on whether or not they watch Fox News.

You cannot turn humans into indentical ball bearings on a production line, we are a work in progress and will always seek greater freedom and independence.

But you can attempt to educate humans, so that they realize they have more to gain by working together than by working against each other. Of course, we can't really expect common sense to triumph over greed, at least not as long as the greedmongers continue to control our society, and the media that informs our society, but we can try.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Oh, capitalism isn't dead. There's nothing wrong with capitalism. Unregulated capitalism may be dead, and the idea that unregulated markets are the same as free markets, because they're not. Unregulated capitalism tends toward monopolies and economic feudalism, which is why the power of the marketplace has to be balanced by the power of government.

The dictatorship of the marketplace is as bad as the dictatorship of the state, and that's why we have the two of them set against each other in dynamic equilibrium. It's the tension between freedom and security.

I think what we're in for now is a more benign capitalism; more socially responsible. I was even thinking we might enter a depression where cash itself would become short and corporations would start dealing in scrip, in direct credit-for-goods mediated by internet banks, a kind of massive e-bay barter system where wealth would be entirely electronic. (Of course, that would take some very high-level security)

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Oh, capitalism isn't dead. There's nothing wrong with capitalism. Unregulated capitalism may be dead, and the idea that unregulated markets are the same as free markets, because they're not. Unregulated capitalism tends toward monopolies and economic feudalism, which is why the power of the marketplace has to be balanced by the power of government.

The dictatorship of the marketplace is as bad as the dictatorship of the state, and that's why we have the two of them set against each other in dynamic equilibrium. It's the tension between freedom and security.

I think what we're in for now is a more benign capitalism; more socially responsible. I was even thinking we might enter a depression where cash itself would become short and corporations would start dealing in scrip, in direct credit-for-goods mediated by internet banks, a kind of massive e-bay barter system where wealth would be entirely electronic. (Of course, that would take some very high-level security)

That depends on how you define capitalism.

Pure capitalism is laissez-faire. The rest is watered down in the eyes of purists.

 

[cantdog]

That depends on how you define capitalism.

Pure capitalism is laissez-faire. The rest is watered down in the eyes of purists.

Zoot has a point. In my neck of the woods, we are looking at slow death without alternative energy, and no one has the capital to convert from heating oil. We got people here, lots of them, with two and three jobs and still having to choose between food and medicine.

We are finding that exchange networks, mostly non-monetary, within neighborhoods, is a good paradigm for survival. Neighborhoods are the secret weapon for surviving tight times. No scrip involved, none of your syndical anarchism, but what is going on is a lot more like theoretical Communism than like any sort of capitalism.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Read UTOPIAS ELSEWHERE by Anthony Daniels, MD

Without capitalism citizens of communist nations consume what the bureacrats order produced: gray veggies and fruits in brown syrup and leaking jars. Plastic jelly shoes. Occasional gasoline and meat.

The asshats on this board confuse capitalism with Wall Street bandits.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Zoot has a point. In my neck of the woods, we are looking at slow death without alternative energy, and no one has the capital to convert from heating oil. We got people here, lots of them, with two and three jobs and still having to choose between food and medicine.

We are finding that exchange networks, mostly non-monetary, within neighborhoods, is a good paradigm for survival. Neighborhoods are the secret weapon for surviving tight times. No scrip involved, none of your syndical anarchism, but what is going on is a lot more like theoretical Communism than like any sort of capitalism.

Yup, self sufficient communities are the wave of the future, when it comes to meeting basic needs.

And financially, credit unions will be the bedrock to which America may soon be stripped, economically speaking.

 

[starrkers]

Capitalism works fine, as long as actual real money is used. It's when credit becomes the main currency that the shit hits the fan.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Starrkers is correct, I think. Addiction to debt is the main albatross around capitalism's neck. Well, that and the overregulation that weakens small business. People speak of regulation as a weapon against big business. It's just as often employed against small business, especially those who can't afford the capital-gains taxes, the lawyers' fees, and the massive overhead attached to such a fascist, regulatory state. Like it or not, Kevin Nealon's character was right in Weeds when he said, "Small business in this country is fucked."

But addiction to debt is, as I said, a major factor. It really wipes out savings and puts power in the hands of bankers. Like it or not, the most villainous and least ethical part of Corporate America, the one part which might well deserve tighter regulations, is the financial sector. The banks, their seduction of gullible debtors, and their usurious rates of interest. Which sinks the middle class in debt and reduces it to poverty.

Between that, excess regulations for small business, estate taxes, and capital-gains taxes, it's a wonder that we even have a middle class at times.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Starrkers is correct, I think. Addiction to debt is the main albatross around capitalism's neck. Well, that and the overregulation that weakens small business. People speak of regulation as a weapon against big business. It's just as often employed against small business, especially those who can't afford the capital-gains taxes, the lawyers' fees, and the massive overhead attached to such a fascist, regulatory state. Like it or not, Kevin Nealon's character was right in Weeds when he said, "Small business in this country is fucked."

But addiction to debt is, as I said, a major factor. It really wipes out savings and puts power in the hands of bankers. Like it or not, the most villainous and least ethical part of Corporate America, the one part which might well deserve tighter regulations, is the financial sector. The banks, their seduction of gullible debtors, and their usurious rates of interest. Which sinks the middle class in debt and reduces it to poverty.

Between that, excess regulations for small business, estate taxes, and capital-gains taxes, it's a wonder that we even have a middle class at times.

And yet my wife had a ragingly successful home staging small business that she had to jack up her rate to $750-$1000/hr to scare away customers and score herself some free time, and then she parlayed that into an personal and commercial lines insurance business that's even more off the charts. She's an overnight millionaire in her own right from her small business.

The Government sure destroyed us but good. We're hurting. Oh agonnnyyyy.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

And yet my wife had a ragingly successful home staging small business that she had to jack up her rate to $750-$1000/hr to scare away customers and score herself some free time, and then she parlayed that into an personal and commercial lines insurance business that's even more off the charts. She's an overnight millionaire in her own right from her small business.

The Government sure destroyed us but good. We're hurting. Oh agonnnyyyy.

Good for you, but that's not everyone's situation. Plenty of small merchants are suffering from overwhelming Federal regulations, especially since no can keep up with them or even know what all of them are. They keep changing every day.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Good for you, but that's not everyone's situation. Plenty of small merchants are suffering from overwhelming Federal regulations, especially since no can keep up with them or even know what all of them are. They keep changing every day.

Wow. I love this.

You just can't hang. There are plenty of businesses in practically every industry that are doing just fine.

Why don't you go live in China and other places where these regulations don't exist. Oh wait, they're crap holes. Sillyme.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Wow. I love this.

You just can't hang. There are plenty of businesses in practically every industry that are doing just fine.

Why don't you go live in China and other places where these regulations don't exist. Oh wait, they're crap holes. Sillyme.

Laws have a place. As long as they don't run the petty bourgeoisie into the ground, which is the real goal of the Marxists. Small shopkeepers are a barrier to their socialist utopia, so must be eradicated in their ideology.

There are sensible laws, but not ones which are impossible to follow, since they can't even be known.

Not laws which create so much overhead that small businesses frequently sink from sheer cost of doing business. For every success story, there are quite a few failures, not always due to bad business practices. Some are due to being overtaxed and hassled by Big Brother.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Laws have a place. As long as they don't run the petty bourgeoisie into the ground, which is the real goal of the Marxists. Small shopkeepers are a barrier to their socialist utopia, so must be eradicated in their ideology.

There are sensible laws, but not ones which are impossible to follow, since they can't even be known.

Not laws which create so much overhead that small businesses frequently sink from sheer cost of doing business. For every success story, there are quite a few failures, not always due to bad business practices. Some are due to being overtaxed and hassled by Big Brother.

Okay, what specific laws are not sensible?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Okay, what specific laws are not sensible?

For instance, requiring small businesses to pay FICA for their employees and keep up the paperwork. It's a needless burden to push on them.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

For instance, requiring small businesses to pay FICA for their employees and keep up the paperwork. It's a needless burden to push on them.

And if they don't pay FICA, who will?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

And if they don't pay FICA, who will?

Good point, but why should it be the duty of someone who is hanging on by a thread and might close down with too much overhead?

Hiring quotas, for instance. How can one be expected to keep diversity in say, Rhode Island, which only has so much diversity at all?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Good point, but why should it be the duty of someone who is hanging on by a thread and might close down with too much overhead?

Good argument. Perhaps we should suspend the law so their business can survive, right?

Hiring quotas, for instance. How can one be expected to keep diversity in say, Rhode Island, which only has so much diversity at all?

Do you know of someone who's actually been busted for not having diversity in Rhode Island? I'm not sure the law actually says that they would. Are you sure this isn't just a right wing scare story?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Murphy's law and the laws of sheer statistics logically indicate that they probably have. I strongly suspect it, at any rate.

I have no confidence in bureaucrats to use their common sense about such things. Especially Federal regulators and admin law officials, who are just scum and parasites in my book.

If we bothered to follow the Constitution, we would leave things like old-age pensions up to states and local governments, who are more than capable of handling them. I'm sure that between 50 states and numerous territories (including DC), they could find practical solutions that don't oppress small business.

All this we could have done if we hadn't been suckered by FDR, who with Congress deliberately set the retirement age past the usual lifespan of most Americans. In other words, it was another excuse to raise taxes for his illegal programs and agencies (several of which were ruled invalid until he used the court-packing scheme to bully them into submission).

Personally, I think that as a country, we went wrong with when we started electing "progressives" of both parties to high office. Much of its agenda was disastrous for this country (Prohibition and eugenics, anyone).

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Murphy's law and the laws of sheer statistics logically indicate that they probably have. I strongly suspect it, at any rate.

I have no confidence in bureaucrats to use their common sense about such things. Especially Federal regulators and admin law officials, who are just scum and parasites in my book.

If we bothered to follow the Constitution, we would leave things like old-age pensions up to states and local governments, who are more than capable of handling them. I'm sure that between 50 states and numerous territories (including DC), they could find practical solutions that don't oppress small business.

All this we could have done if we hadn't been suckered by FDR, who with Congress deliberately set the retirement age past the usual lifespan of most Americans. In other words, it was another excuse to raise taxes for his illegal programs and agencies (several of which were ruled invalid until he used the court-packing scheme to bully them into submission).

Personally, I think that as a country, we went wrong with when we started electing "progressives" of both parties to high office. Much of its agenda was disastrous for this country (Prohibition and eugenics, anyone).

Murphy's law also says a lot of black businesses have gotten away with discriminating against white applicants, and many white-owned businesses must have, by Murphy's law, gotten away with discriminating against black applicants.

And you didn't answer my question about who pays FICA if the employer doesn't? And when should we arbitrarily suspend the law for 'financial hardship'?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Murphy's law also says a lot of black businesses have gotten away with discriminating against white applicants, and many white-owned businesses must have, by Murphy's law, gotten away with discriminating against black applicants.

And you didn't answer my question about who pays FICA if the employer doesn't? And when should we arbitrarily suspend the law for 'financial hardship'?

An odd question for one supposedly concerned with the fiscal hardship of the poor. Don't the middle class small merchants deserve your compassion, too?

The answer I already gave. Let the states handle Social Security. I'm sure that they can find all kinds of innovative solutions that would escape a DC bureaucrat's notice.

Especially since the Constitution, the SUPREME law, denies the Feds jurisdiction to make laws about old-age pensions, anyway. Or do you think that only the Feds are able to do anything?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Hey, we left pensions and unemployment insurance and fair wages up to the robber barons at the turn of the century and what did we get? Nothing. It took bloody years of unionization to force those kinds of concessions out of the bosses. They didn't do it out of the kindness of their hearts.

No. The problem with capitalism is, left to its own devices it tends towards monopoly and economic feudalism, not diversity and fair markets. You get fair markets through regulation by the only entity strong enough to stand up to the market: government.

Unregulated markets follow the law of the jungle: the strong devour the weak. That's why you won't take your business to Haiti or Somalia. They're hell holes precisely because they're unregulated. We have laws to prevent exploitation in society. In the marketplace we have regulations.

This most recent financial crisis didn't come about because of an excess of regulations, but because of an absence of regulatory oversight. Yes, there are a lot of stupid regs that businesses have to follow. Too many, for sure. But you know, things are a lot more complicated now than they were 50 or 100 years ago when you could just go and dump your toxic waste out into a river and not worry about it, and it's too bad but that's just the way things are.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

An odd question for one supposedly concerned with the fiscal hardship of the poor. Don't the middle class small merchants deserve your compassion, too?

The answer I already gave. Let the states handle Social Security. I'm sure that they can find all kinds of innovative solutions that would escape a DC bureaucrat's notice.

There's one small problem with your theory - people don't necessarily live in the same state all their lives. Someone has to keep a record of their Social Security contributions from place to place.

And what proof do you have that the states will do a better job? Or that they'll tax employers less for their own FICA?

I mean, really, if the feds are taxing an employer for FICA or the states are, the employer is still paying just as much. And the state Governments are harder on you for not paying taxes.

Especially since the Constitution, the SUPREME law, denies the Feds jurisdiction to make laws about old-age pensions, anyway. Or do you think that only the Feds are able to do anything?

Funny, how you never made it to the Supreme Court. Are you by any chance at least an attorney? I call BS.

And the Feds are no more or less incompetent than the state Governments. They're all people.