Can Capitalism Be Improved?

[ataraxia]

I think the unreasonably unfair high taxation of the rich will do little or nothing to slow the problematic greed of poor people wanting the rich to be forced to share their wealth with them.

So if anyone says there should be taxation to protect, say orphaned children, you will say these orphaned children are greedy and should learn to work harder and be smarter next time instead of being jealous of the lady who is getting her 10th nose job and boob job because she has nothing else to do with her time?

Does anyone who hit hard times do so because they are just stupid and lazy? Does anyone who becomes rich do so because they are just so smart and hardworking?

 

[Luckyone]

It's not an insult to say your standard is ridiculous. It's a critique of your position.

If you think that there are no meaningful regulations, then your standards for what constitutes one are ridiculous.

Well then educate me and tell me what meaningful regulations there are. You are still criticizing without giving me the guidelines for what is there now and what is ridiculous. You have now done it twice.

I know he said it. I doubt him, yes.

In the same statement, he said he doesn't do anything in particular to lower his tax burden (seeking shelters, deferments, breaks, etc.), and I just plain straight-up don't believe that, so yeah, I'm saying he's lying.

I happen to have a high regard for Buffett, not only his ability but his principles in which lying is not part of his make-up. I believe Buffet is exactly the kind of a role model every other super wealthy person should adhere to. He gives millions and even billions to worthy causes and never looks to publicize it, meaning he is doing it from the heart and not from a business mind.

Well, as I said above, limits on capitalism which are based on the idea that someone makes too much money relative to someone else are inappropriate.

This does suggest that you are not in favor of any controls on Capitalism and that is worrisome because as I said in my first post, anything in extreme brings bad consequences starting with the fact that extremes in money making is normally based on greed and greed corrupts as it takes over all other factors, such as ethics, principles, morals and humanity. A person can have as an objective in life to be wealthy and that is fine. Nonetheless, unlimited wealth without any kind of ethical limits encompasses a lack of a moral compass.

Let me ask you a question: Do you support the adage of "the ends don't justify the means?"

 

[ataraxia]

That's not an argument to authority.

I see. OK, so it's the same KIND of argument: argument of allowing moral emotions and sense of justice to be allowed to intervene in the free market. Always a bad idea?

 

[Mach]

A monopoly distorts. Preventing monopoly prevents the distortion a monopoly would create. Thus, it's an appropriate regulation.

That doesn't look correct. By definition, market distortion is considered to be government intervention. In the case you describe, monopoly is presumed to be a natural occurrence in free markets, and through government intervention, we distort the market to make harmful monopolies less likely, or to regulate some of their more negative effects away. Monopolies are frowned upon when they take advantage of the market power afforded by the monopoly in abusive ways...too much power in too few hands, a common theme in human societies. But not all monopolies are abusive, and not all need to be broken up, some just regulated, and some left alone.

If normal free market profit seeking monopolies are considered distortion, then that would mean all market action is a "distortion", which would make it moot.

They just maximize total profit though, why is that so bad? I mean, all companies do that? Generally we expect competition...competition is valued because it means that power is less pooled. You have competition driving innovation, and keeping prices in check, if it's healthy competition. The system can just break if a monopoly gets big enough, and acts bad enough.

They key here is that all sources of power are kept in some amount of check, by other sources of power. They have to be in a sense, competitive, else, they may join together and be *even more harmful*.

I think the OP is correct, we have an entire population that has very partisan and very historically suspect ideas about our economy, and it would be nice if we could all be a bit more enlightened about it, and reap the rewards it would bring. If a monopoly naturally loses out to competition, no intervention is needed. Even knowing a lot of the basics, I still have huge gaps and misunderstandings. It's incredibly complicated...so people like to fall back on idealistic sound bites like "free markets are good, government is bad".

 

[ataraxia]

No, individuals are not a system.




If alleviating short-term pain leads to worse pain down the road, is it really "moral"?

I don't know. 10 years out, it seems like the bailout did OK. If we have another recession, it won't be because there were structural problems from the last recession which never got fixed. It will be for new reasons.

Never mind the whole idea of liberty.

Only the jungle is completely natural and allows everyone complete liberty and freedom. Should that be our model, so that any regulation or human law is considered an infringement on that freedom and liberty?

 

[Harshaw]

I see. OK, so it's the same KIND of argument: argument of allowing moral emotions and sense of justice to be allowed to intervene in the free market. Always a bad idea?

No. A false appeal to authority is citing some person, and on that basis, claiming it must be true, or that someone must agree. That's what you did with Adam Smith.

 

[Luckyone]

I think the unreasonably unfair high taxation of the rich will do little or nothing to slow the problematic greed of poor people wanting the rich to be forced to share their wealth with them.

So the people that were once poor but are now wealthy, should they be criticized for having had greed to begin with? If they should, then how can you criticize the greed of those wanting to be rich and how can you not say that the rich are greedy?

By the way, the word "greed" does not apply here, for the simple reason that it only applies to those that already have everything they need, not to those that are poor and have nothing.

 

[Harshaw]

That doesn't look correct. By definition, market distortion is considered to be government intervention. In the case you describe, monopoly is presumed to be a natural occurrence in free markets, and through government intervention

A monopoly distorts by making the market nearly unfree.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Can Capitalism Be Improved?

Keeping in mind that we dont do capitalism anymore... we corrupted it......it could have been improved but sadly there was not much interest in that.

Now it is too late for reform, we are unavoidably headed for a great crash that will completely reorder global politics and the global economy.

 

[ataraxia]

OK. What are your parameters?

That's a complicated question. But as a broad guideline, I like the Nordic model. It seems to be doing quite well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

 

[Harshaw]

I don't know. 10 years out, it seems like the bailout did OK.

As I said before, we have no way to know what would have happened without it.

If we have another recession, it won't be because there were structural problems from the last recession which never got fixed. It will be for new reasons.

No way to know that, either.

Only the jungle is completely natural and allows everyone complete liberty and freedom. Should that be our model, so that any regulation or human law is considered an infringement on that freedom and liberty?

That is not what I said, nor was that the context in which I said it.

When are you going to tell me what YOUR parameters are?

How much regulation is too much, and on what principle do you decide that?

It really is time for you to put up.

 

[ataraxia]

A monopoly distorts by making the market nearly unfree.

But it's an inevitable outcome of the free market. So in that way, it shows the inherent instability of the system. Capitalism may be like a military fighter jet: they are inherently unstable, and that's what makes them so maneuverable. But without tight computer generated regulation which does second-to-second monitoring and adjustments, they wouldn't even be able to fly.

 

[Harshaw]

Well then educate me and tell me what meaningful regulations there are. You are still criticizing without giving me the guidelines for what is there now and what is ridiculous. You have now done it twice.



I happen to have a high regard for Buffett, not only his ability but his principles in which lying is not part of his make-up. I believe Buffet is exactly the kind of a role model every other super wealthy person should adhere to. He gives millions and even billions to worthy causes and never looks to publicize it, meaning he is doing it from the heart and not from a business mind.




This does suggest that you are not in favor of any controls on Capitalism and that is worrisome because as I said in my first post, anything in extreme brings bad consequences starting with the fact that extremes in money making is normally based on greed and greed corrupts as it takes over all other factors, such as ethics, principles, morals and humanity. A person can have as an objective in life to be wealthy and that is fine. Nonetheless, unlimited wealth without any kind of ethical limits encompasses a lack of a moral compass.

Let me ask you a question: Do you support the adage of "the ends don't justify the means?"

No it doesn't. This post is nonsense.

 

[Harshaw]

But it's an inevitable outcome of the free market. So in that way, it shows the inherent instability of the system. Capitalism may be like a military fighter jet: they are inherently unstable, and that's what makes them so maneuverable. But without tight computer generated regulation which does second-to-second monitoring and adjustments, they wouldn't even be able to fly.

Did I not say that regulating or preventing a monopoly was an appropriate thing to do?

 

[Harshaw]

That's a complicated question. But as a broad guideline, I like the Nordic model. It seems to be doing quite well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

How much is too much, and how do you decide that?

 

[Luckyone]

I think the unreasonably unfair high taxation of the rich will do little or nothing to slow the problematic greed of poor people wanting the rich to be forced to share their wealth with them.

By the way marke, for the sake of being honest, I continue to respond to your posts because you are so way out of focus/so way out of using common sense that you are actually ridiculously funny in a crazy kind of way. I keep scratching my head and asking myself "how can anyone be so wrong think that they are right?" You are truly a classic case of an oxymoron.

 

[ataraxia]

As I said before, we have no way to know what would have happened without it.

You can ask any economist. It's not that uncertain. I don't know about THAT particular recession, but there is no question about how it works for recessions in general.

When are you going to tell me what YOUR parameters are?

How much regulation is too much, and on what principle do you decide that?

It really is time for you to put up.

I think you posted this as I was putting up my last post. But here it is again: I think the Scandinavians are on to something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

 

[Luckyone]

No it doesn't. This post is nonsense.

Well then we agree on something as we both think the other's post is nonsense. Yours just criticizes without explaining what it actually is that you are criticizing or even explaining your position. You are just a born critic with no basis for it. I have not seen what you stand for and that is an impossible way to debate anything.

 

[ataraxia]

How much is too much, and how do you decide that?

A lot of conversation and negotiation. My parameters would remain quite broad. It will depend a lot on the situation at hand.

I know you guys hate Obama. But here is a quote from him relevant to this:

"I am not for big government. I am not for small government. I am for smart government."
-Obama

If people have a visceral, neurotic reaction against any government intervention at any time, just as a matter of emotion and principle, it makes it hard to talk about when to intervene, and when to step back. It's like someone who hates the brake pedal as a matter of principle, thinks we should always step on the gas pedal regardless of the situation at hand. When you tell them it's sometimes helpful to step on the brakes, they might be concerned that if we step on the brakes in one situation, we may never lift our foot off the brakes. They may ask how much is too much, and how do you decide?

This would take away all sense of judgment of the driver, the situation at hand, and what is going on in the external environment, doesn't it? The consequences decide. It would certainly make for very dangerous and dysfunctional driving if you try to just come up with easy formulas. I am concerned that America's visceral fear and neurosis of any intervention in the free market is similar.

 

[Harshaw]

Well then we agree on something as we both think the other's post is nonsense. Yours just criticizes without explaining what it actually is that you are criticizing or even explaining your position. You are just a born critic with no basis for it. I have not seen what you stand for and that is an impossible way to debate anything.

:roll:

 

[Harshaw]

A lot of conversation and negotiation. My parameters would remain quite broad. It will depend a lot on the situation at hand.

I know you guys hate Obama. But here is a quote from him relevant to this:



If people have a visceral, neurotic reaction against any government intervention at any time, just as a matter of emotion and principle, it makes it hard to talk about when to intervene, and when to step back. It's like someone who hates the brake pedal as a matter of principle, thinks we should always step on the gas pedal regardless of the situation at hand. When you tell them it's sometimes helpful to step on the brakes, they might be concerned that if we step on the brakes in one situation, we may never lift our foot off the brakes.

This would take away all sense of judgment of the driver, the situation at hand, and what is going on in the external environment, doesn't it? It would certainly make for very dangerous and dysfunctional driving. I am concerned that America's visceral fear and neurosis of any intervention in the free market is similar.

OK, none of this tells me what principle(s) you would follow. Or would you just follow your gut in every case?

 

[Harshaw]

You can ask any economist. It's not that uncertain. I don't know about THAT particular recession, but there is no question about how it works for recessions in general.

There's no way (currently) to peer into an alternate universe where history happened differently.

There are only guesses.

 

[ataraxia]

There's no way (currently) to peer into an alternate universe where history happened differently.

There are only guesses.

Sure there is. That's what the study of fields like economics, or physics, is about: trying to come up with general principles of how things generally work in certain situations. Here, we are talking about how things generally work in recessions. The world is complicated and unpredictable. But not THAT much.

 

[ataraxia]

OK, none of this tells me what principle(s) you would follow. Or would you just follow your gut in every case?

It's like asking what principles you would follow in trying to decide when to brake, and when to step on the gas pedal.

 

[ataraxia]

There's no way (currently) to peer into an alternate universe where history happened differently.

There are only guesses.

OK, how about this is a general principle: it’s OK for a government to intervene in the free-market to protect the basic human rights and dignity of its citizens, as outlined in the declaration of human rights of 1948: the right to food, clean water, shelter, a basic education, and healthcare?

Anything beyond such basic safety nets, capitalism can rule the day!