[Handsome Creepy Eel]

You have to keep in mind that unrestrained capitalism automatically leads to socialism over time. Just look at how Google and Apple have become governments of their own and wield far more political power (and socialist influence used to enrich themselves even more) than most countries.

[Comte De St. Germain]

I've just learned to simplify politics down to one thing and one thing only. What benefits me and my own. I'll sell what I want to sell. Buy what I want to buy government or no. Same with my vote. I'll vote for what's good for me.


That's what a lot of socialists and free-market capitalists don't seem to realize. I politically align mostly with the forum because the kind of culture that we want and the kind of government we would support is what I'd want to be living with.

So the main question I ask you OP is. What kind of society benefits you? What elements of socialism or capitalism would you think benefits you?

[ScrapperTL]

Politics is just like Game, you must hold your Frame.
You loosen up your Frame and give into a little bit "Socialism"
Thats essentially modern day USA.

You hold your Frame like a boss and go Full-Steam Ahead Capitalism and you have the Ronald Regan era.

Absolutely worthless to compromise.
History has proven time and time again that even a smidgen of accommodation to leftist ideology will spark the beginning of an eventual downfall of a once strong society.

The only way to reverse the tide is
1) Aggressive unrelenting masculinity (think Donald Trump)
2) Start a new society elsewhere (something like Texas seceeding from the union)
3) Join a new society elsewhere (Parts of Russia maybe?)

[heavy]

All societies have safety nets for their citizens...because people want to help out their fellow neighbors. It's called charity.

The question is whether you want to institute it. Forced charity is an oxymoron.

"Forced" is a great inspiration for collectivism and hate.

I always point to abortion laws. For or against, when you force it down a very population (and geography and demographic), when you say no state across this entire nation can outlaw abortion. In fact, you can't even vote on it. You can't even vote on the term. It's all legal forever decrees the federal government. Well, don't be surprised when you get a two party, "I hate the other side" system.

Of course, you can substitute abortion for welfare laws, etc. If you force it, you're really gonna piss people off. Especially when it goes against 400 years of philosophy that shaped half the world.

[TigerMandingo]

(10-06-2016 10:23 AM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

I've just learned to simplify politics down to one thing and one thing only. What benefits me and my own. I'll sell what I want to sell. Buy what I want to buy government or no. Same with my vote. I'll vote for what's good for me.

Good reply. I agree with your approach. In the end, it all comes down to securing your own interests and of those closest to you. That being said, I do think we need more government oversight of infrastructure, healthcare etc.

(10-06-2016 10:31 AM)ScrapperTL Wrote:  

You hold your Frame like a boss and go Full-Steam Ahead Capitalism and you have the Ronald Regan era.

The Reagan worship is a bit funny. Guys seem to ignore that it was under Reagan that: the middle class shrunk, manufacturing jobs sent overseas, Wall St. deregulation and casino-style speculation went ahead full steam etc. etc. In fact, many of the economic problems we blame on Obummer, Bush, and Clinton were actually conceived during the Reagan era.

Minus the leftie ideology, Reagan was as much of a corporate puppet as the next 4 presidents. Here is the "great communicator" being told by a Wall St. honcho to hurry the fuck up

[ScrapperTL]

Reagan was not perfect, but opportunity was ripe in his era.
Under his administration, If you were a go-getter, you became a millionaire, period.
If you were a lazy passive aggressive pussy, you got what you deserved.
Countries feared and respected us worldwide.
It should be blasphemy to disgrace the man's name on this forum.
I pray everyday Donald Trump will become President and to be atleast HALF the man that Reagan was.

[WestIndianArchie]

It's a lovely idea, all of them really.

But

People game the system.
People on the bottom and on the top.

WIA

[N°6]

(10-06-2016 05:38 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

You have to keep in mind that unrestrained capitalism automatically leads to socialism over time. Just look at how Google and Apple have become governments of their own and wield far more political power (and socialist influence used to enrich themselves even more) than most countries.

The point is lost on American libertarians. If the church and state are weak (as they are now), finance and privateers become strong. The US' lost-count trillions $ debt is what happens to weak states. Income tax services debt, while private sector debt is shifted onto the state.

[TooFineAPoint]

(10-06-2016 12:40 PM)N°6 Wrote:  

(10-06-2016 05:38 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

You have to keep in mind that unrestrained capitalism automatically leads to socialism over time. Just look at how Google and Apple have become governments of their own and wield far more political power (and socialist influence used to enrich themselves even more) than most countries.

The point is lost on American libertarians. If the church and state are weak (as they are now), finance and privateers become strong. The US' lost-count trillions $ debt is what happens to weak states. Income tax services debt, while private sector debt is shifted onto the state.

By what measure do you claim the state is currently weak?

[Meister Eckhart]

(10-06-2016 12:40 PM)N°6 Wrote:  

(10-06-2016 05:38 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

You have to keep in mind that unrestrained capitalism automatically leads to socialism over time. Just look at how Google and Apple have become governments of their own and wield far more political power (and socialist influence used to enrich themselves even more) than most countries.

The point is lost on American libertarians. If the church and state are weak (as they are now), finance and privateers become strong. The US' lost-count trillions $ debt is what happens to weak states. Income tax services debt, while private sector debt is shifted onto the state.

The State is not weak. The State is an ever-increasing leviathan that has formed an unholy alliance with business interests.

Power is too concentrated in both private and public spheres. Free markets are supposed to be competitive enough to prevent monopolies, and the American government was supposed to be divided to check interests at local, state, and federal levels.

Now Washington rules by edict like an Imperial capital, and medium sized businesses are gobbled up by oligarchs who simultaneously mask their interests as being both good for the economy and "for the people" by destroying competition and created oligopolies and making them immune to the market.

[N°6]

(10-06-2016 01:54 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

(10-06-2016 12:40 PM)N°6 Wrote:  

(10-06-2016 05:38 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

You have to keep in mind that unrestrained capitalism automatically leads to socialism over time. Just look at how Google and Apple have become governments of their own and wield far more political power (and socialist influence used to enrich themselves even more) than most countries.

The point is lost on American libertarians. If the church and state are weak (as they are now), finance and privateers become strong. The US' lost-count trillions $ debt is what happens to weak states. Income tax services debt, while private sector debt is shifted onto the state.

By what measure do you claim the state is currently weak?

History.

The power that you probably attribute to the state is tax and war.

In the era of democracy (weak state) tax and war are reflections of the state's thralldom to finance. If the state issued currency as opposed to private banks at usury, tax and war would decrease and man would have colonised the moon.

The state in its purest form is "one for all and all for one" and it can permit capitalism as wealth creation for one and all. There is not contradiction to this. It is the materialist era of the false Right - Left divide that holds to this.

The bottom line however is usury. Its only produce is poverty on a planet of plenty. A casual read through Genesis shows the reader that this planet's DNA is "abundance" and a read through Proverbs shows that a man can only live in one house at a time. The usurer however perverts Time, Space and Work.

[Dalaran1991]

Doesnt work. Look at France.

[DjembaDjemba]

I'm highly libertarian in my leanings, but even I'll admit there needs to be the occasional, and very rare government intervention.

A strong state is ultimately undesirable. Europe and Japan are good examples of this. It's led to statism, and an overbearing bureaucracy that stifles innovation, creates unnecessary barriers for those without the necessary government connections, and it erodes the power of free enterprise in general.

Europe and Japan seldom create new companies. Innovation is slow, and their largest companies have been the largest companies for a hundred years. Most of them were usually created by the government under a top down state based industrialization policy (all the German and Japanese car manufacturers were created this way). The overbearing state in those societies is actually holding back a very highly educated population. Where's the European Google, Amazon, Apple, Intel, Microsoft, SpaceX, etc?

However on the other hand, a completely laissez faire approach while desirable, can lead to problems with monopolization. Eventually the largest companies will concentrate capital to the point where they become monopolies that in themselves act in protective (and unscrupulous) manner, in similarity to an overbearing state. They can create barriers of entry, they can buy out competitors and shut them down (thus stifle innovation), and price discriminate.

This is where the state, or preferably the courts can keep these companies from overgrowing and becoming a problem down the line. Independent courts upholding fair market laws against unscrupulous market players is better than an overzealous and usually potentially vandetta driven government trying to go after individual companies. But the kicker is, it's the government that ultimately writes the laws anyhow. And the less laws they write, the better.

Free market capitalism with these ever so tiny corrections can keep re-inventing itself over and over again and can be generally stable as Britain and the USA have shown. The top down (strong state + strong flavour of the month idealogy whatever it is now - church/party membership/dear leader) eventually run out of steam and need to move into the realm of free market capitalism to re-invigorate themselves and remain stable.

Anti-trust laws can keep companies from becoming so big that they become governments in themselves or they suck all the capital out of the markets and keep competitors out.

But unfortunately, there's no such mechanism to keep governments from over-regulating. Therein lies the biggest problem with the size of government versus the size of corporations. And as already mentioned on this thread, you can ignore corporations for the most part, but you can't ignore an oversized, overbearing government. And since the government and the choices it makes, whether at the municipal, state, or federal level can have a disproportionate effect on your life, it ought to mean it should be restricted as much as possible.

In a scale from 1 to 100, 1 being pure market capitalism with an almost absent form of government (no taxes, no borders, no army, no tariffs, no government religious policy), and 100 being total government intervention (communism under Stalin, Fascism under Hitler, total control on all aspects from state capital allocation, to reproductive rights), being at 50 would not be fair and balanced as the government would grow itself from that mark quickly. We should be aiming at somewhere around 10-15 at most.

[Ivanis]

Disagree.

As John Galt already pointed out, we pretty much already have that in the states. Where I see this going wrong is when you entrust the proper regulation of monopolies to the government then there is a danger of bribery. If some business successfully bribes a regulatory staff then we would end up with an outcome similar to that of the ISP(Internet Service Provider) issue that we are currently facing. AT&T, Frontier, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable run the monopoly on the internet. Its a damned if you do damned if you don't situation IMO.

Towns have came together and raised the money to run there own fiber optic cables and start there own ISP's, only to be fought by big ISP's such as Comcast who have political leaders in their pockets.

From our countries history with socialized programs(Welfare, Obamacare, social security, etc) I wouldn't trust the government to have such power over business. Furthermore, I would argue that our government is already too big. It should be in place to keep us safe(ie: Police, Fire department, Military, etc.), Not to implement regulation around every turn(ie: The proposed Carbon Tax, Small business regulation, higher and higher taxes that serve no purpose but to make our lives more complicated, etc). My opinion is that if you bring the government too far to the side of the libertarians; it won't work. In contrast, if you make the government socialist, or make it too big; it too won't work.

[Phoenix]

(10-07-2016 03:29 PM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  

highly educated population. Where's the European Google, Amazon, Apple, Intel, Microsoft, SpaceX, etc?

Note the type of all these companies: tech. America is itself so overbearing that the only industry it's managed to excel in is it's least regulated one -- and not deliberately, but simply because it's harder to regulate.

(10-07-2016 03:29 PM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  

However on the other hand, a completely laissez faire approach while desirable, can lead to problems with monopolization. Eventually the largest companies will concentrate capital to the point where they become monopolies that in themselves act in protective (and unscrupulous) manner, in similarity to an overbearing state. They can create barriers of entry, they can buy out competitors and shut them down (thus stifle innovation), and price discriminate.

This is where the state, or preferably the courts can keep these companies from overgrowing and becoming a problem down the line.

All the monopoly stuff is overblown, and the origin of the anti-monopoly stuff is the same groups who justify everything else the government does. It's just another false intellectual cover for equally bad behaviour.

Definitely read up about Rockefeller. He's the quintessential example of a monopolist, as he was unapologetic and no-holds-barred in his attempts to make oil monopolies. See just how bad for the consumer (i.e. the majority) it ultimately was.

Basically it isn't an issue. Purely private monopolies simply aren't that strong. It faces pressure to cheat from inside, and constant new-entrant pressure from outside. Rockefeller was having to constantly buy new refiners as they entered the market. This lead to people building refineries just to sell to him; repeat. The only reason Rockefeller could afford to keep doing that was that refineries under his control were so efficient and profitable.

People battling to create, hold, and break monopolies is as much a part of the free market as anything else, and is no problem whatsoever. The entrenchment it creates is very shallow, and can lend stability to markets, as it did under Rockefeller by restraining the producer's price race-to-the-bottom -> go bankrupt -> prices rise -> repeat cycle.

The problem is when the government gets involved. A monopoly backed by a gun is a whole different situation. That is a very deep entrenchment. It changes mere breaks of trust or refusals to cooperate or submit into a criminal act. The only monopoly danger is a government-backed one. And once the interventionist government is there, it becomes a race by private companies to lobby the law in their direction.

It's a terrible, dysfunctional, and destructive system, that should be abolished.

[puckerman]

(10-05-2016 07:26 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

I'd rather not get into Ayn Rand, there is already a thread for that. But I will say that we have attempted to implement her philosophy in the form of Alan Greenspan and the results have been disastrous.

No, "we" didn't. Greenspan is a Keynesian and a crony capitalist. What he did for all the years had nothing to do with what Rand advocated. He was a worthless sell out who never believed in a free market.

[puckerman]

(10-05-2016 11:26 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Libertarians get their panties in a twist about poor people getting assistance but no fucks given about the ~40 billion we just handed over to Israel...

Excuse me. Libertarians want to get rid of ALL foreign aid. So, they definitely "get their panties in a twist" about it.

[Leonard D Neubache]

If I recall correctly the first American anti-trust law was in regard to a growing monopoly on the beef market.

One producer in particular was producing beef at such a low cost to the consumer that other producers lobbied the government to mandate a minimum price well above the frontrunner's price.

This essentially doubled the profits of the frontrunner who in turn was able to steamroll his opposition harder and faster than ever. And who also lost out? Every damn person buying beef.

The closer the west was to free market capitalism the more successful it became. The more we have strayed from it the faster our decay.

[puckerman]

(10-09-2016 12:20 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

The closer the west was to free market capitalism the more successful it became. The more we have strayed from it the faster our decay.

That would most likely be the northern states before the Civil War. Andrew Jackson killed the Bank of the United States. This opened up the era of "wildcat banking." American absorbed boatloads of immigrants, especially during the Irish Potato Famine. It was easily the freest banking had ever been, and it was the best period of growth the country ever saw.

I stress that it was only in the north. The south had slavery, which isn't compatible with capitalism at all. But this was also the south didn't see nearly as much growth.

Read Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville. It will show you what the country used to be like. One thing, he observed was how quickly Americans were to help each other out. This was when there was little or no "safety net" by the government. People were the safety net, and it was the most effective net of all.

This was also before the expansion of socialist schooling. The USA might very well have been the most politically-informed society that ever existed. Those people would never tolerate someone like Clinton or Trump in political office.

[void]

Oligopols are the result of strong competition. Having 100 brands of fruit loops is the sign of an inefficient market enabling such an overhead. Oligopols are only bad, if the members secretly coordinate prices.

[bodacious]

Socialism must always be fought. Always. It´s like laziness or lack of disciplina. If you don´t fight it. It will get a hold on you.

[therealpoder]

The situation described in the OP is the situation we already have, at least in the United States.

The problem of government ownership of education, health care, etc. is that without competition, profit and loss, there's no reason for the government to provide good services. Poor education quality and long waits and inferior health care are the norm in socialized systems. They are also more expensive since it has the illusion of being free so more people use it.

When the government dictates who much you make why work harder?

If it is hard to fire you, why put forth your best effort?

If the collective is paying for your health care, why not go to the doctor for the most trivial of injuries?

When you spend other people's money you make sillier decisions.

You may have never majored in anthropology if you paid your own money. But since you college is "free" (i.e. paid for by the taxpayer) , why not?

It's inefficient too. When a private business has bad service it goes out of business. When government fails, they use their failure to ask for more money.

The result is paying high taxes for bad service.

I think government should protect life, liberty and property and provide public goods. but they need to avoid cradle to the grave policies and acting like a parent. Too much government makes people dependent and feel entitled to other people's labor.

[Parzival]

(10-05-2016 10:17 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

In this instance you might say "I think that Germany circa 1980 is a good model for a prosperous society". Well guess what. Germany of 1980 led to Germany of 2016.

This sound very logical but actually its not. Because it would mean that the now has a pattern and is predictable. Its a flaw in your brain. We are not logical beings but we are good to think we are.

What does this mean. We are got to spin a pattern and a logic after the actions to make them sound more reasonable. Think from a different angle, when everything from the past did lead to this point now, why can't we predict the future? Its more easy to see patterns after because we say X and Y lead to Z. Still we can't do this for the future.

This surely depends if you have determinism view on the world. This also means we have no free will at all. We can do predictions, some people even try that thinks work out in their favour. There are strong forces for this in the world and maybe in the universe. Still its not like A in the past leads automatic to B in the future or the now.


More to the topic, beside the flaw of Germany in theory and even in many practical part the social market system in Germany works quite well.

[Bluto]

(10-06-2016 05:38 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

You have to keep in mind that unrestrained capitalism automatically leads to socialism over time. Just look at how Google and Apple have become governments of their own and wield far more political power (and socialist influence used to enrich themselves even more) than most countries.

Interesting enough, Apple just got slapped with a 14.5 billion tax evasion penalty by the EU a few weeks back. Likewise Google now has to deal with an Anti-trust case as well. If Apple or Google has so much power, then why would a conglomerate of over-leveraged states with a dearth of social ills go up against them? Normally I would care less what happens to a bunch of two bit mini-states, that cant figure out if the guys who want to destroy their society are serious even after the shooting has started, but if that band of disorganized passive fascists can cause this kind of chaos think of what the damage that other governments can do.(I know that there are quite a few denizens of the EU on here, hopefully the Brexit will put the stake in the heart of the EU for you. The bright side is that you can fix your own house after that is dead.)

I tend to agree that once a business gets big enough they tend to figure out ways for self preservation. This can lead to socialistic tendencies on the companies part. However, every time that they try to do that, they end up dealing with the biggest monopoly of them all. Don't forget that this is 2016, not 1890. These day's, if a large business doesn't pay for an audience they will be targeted. They are more likely to contribute financially to politics is so that they don't get messed with. That is on top of the fact that at any given day, every company is doing something illegal, and only a matter of time until they are caught and actually prosecuted, or a "deal" is made.

Likewise big business have, are, and always will be slaves to popularity. A loss in popularity leads to a loss in revenue. Remember how many companies were so Gun-Ho just after 9-11 here in the states? How many of them are like that how? All big companies are very risk adverse and go with the popular flow at all times. They may talk a big game until it is time to start selling their wares. They may try to shape the prevailing culture, but only if we allow them to. In order for them to weild Government power, they need to be like the DeMedici's of Italy 500 years ago where they were both Government and Commercal titans.