• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Misunderstanding Capitalism

Liberty One

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
53
Reaction score
9
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The other day I was watching a YouTube video discussing a TV show. They claimed the show was anti-capitalism because it showed the government tricking/forcing some local people out of their land in order to hand it over to a company who would presumably strip mine it. That's not capitalism. Capitalism would be the company offering money for the land, and if the locals reject the offer, then that's the end of the story.

It seems people associate capitalism with any economic activity and with any private individual or firm making a profit. This is not so. Capitalism is simply when property is held and controlled in private hands. If I start a charity, solicit donations and then use the money to buy food and medicine for the poor, that's capitalism. If I own a piece of land and I make it a nature preserve, that's capitalism.

I often see criticisms of capitalism regarding crimes committed by wealthy people or firms to advance their interests. That's not capitalism, that's just a crime. If a company decides to cut costs so they can lower their prices below the competition that's capitalism. If a company decides to burn down the factory of their competition, that's a crime.

The latest academic trend is to say that slavery is somehow a part of capitalism. They talk about how slaves were considered "property" and were bought and sold and used to make the slave owner a profit. These superficial terms give the impression that slavery is akin to a free market firm doing business, but this is the opposite of the truth. The ultimate in private property is ownership of your own person. You cannot alienate (transfer control of) your body, so no one other than you can own yourself. Thus slavery is a violation of private property rights and not at all compatible with capitalism.

What other ways is capitalism mischaracterized?
 
The other day I was watching a YouTube video discussing a TV show. They claimed the show was anti-capitalism because it showed the government tricking/forcing some local people out of their land in order to hand it over to a company who would presumably strip mine it. That's not capitalism. Capitalism would be the company offering money for the land, and if the locals reject the offer, then that's the end of the story.

It seems people associate capitalism with any economic activity and with any private individual or firm making a profit. This is not so. Capitalism is simply when property is held and controlled in private hands. If I start a charity, solicit donations and then use the money to buy food and medicine for the poor, that's capitalism. If I own a piece of land and I make it a nature preserve, that's capitalism.

I often see criticisms of capitalism regarding crimes committed by wealthy people or firms to advance their interests. That's not capitalism, that's just a crime. If a company decides to cut costs so they can lower their prices below the competition that's capitalism. If a company decides to burn down the factory of their competition, that's a crime.

The latest academic trend is to say that slavery is somehow a part of capitalism. They talk about how slaves were considered "property" and were bought and sold and used to make the slave owner a profit. These superficial terms give the impression that slavery is akin to a free market firm doing business, but this is the opposite of the truth. The ultimate in private property is ownership of your own person. You cannot alienate (transfer control of) your body, so no one other than you can own yourself. Thus slavery is a violation of private property rights and not at all compatible with capitalism.

What other ways is capitalism mischaracterized?
You don't think there are businesses today that aren't happy paying wages their employees can't live on?

Wages are a direct bottom line impact. Raise wages, profits decrease. Capitalism
 
What other ways is capitalism mischaracterized?

When giant corporations capture government regulators in order to harm their smaller competitors. We saw it first hand during the lockdowns, when only big box stores were allowed to stay open, and with the eviction moratorium which crushed smaller landlords.
 
You don't think there are businesses today that aren't happy paying wages their employees can't live on?

Who tf cares? If you believe you are underpaid, then quit go work somewhere else. If no other business will pay you more, then the company you are working for is providing you with your best option.
 
Who tf cares? If you believe you are underpaid, then quit go work somewhere else. If no other business will pay you more, then the company you are working for is providing you with your best option.
You're not talking about capitalism. Businesses that use the government to subsidize their wages (let's start with Walmart and McDonalds) are not capitalist, they're fascist.
 
You don't think there are businesses today that aren't happy paying wages their employees can't live on?

Wages are a direct bottom line impact. Raise wages, profits decrease. Capitalism
The profit motive works both ways--employees seek to maximize their wages.
 
You're not talking about capitalism. Businesses that use the government to subsidize their wages (let's start with Walmart and McDonalds) are not capitalist, they're fascist.
A business is neither capitalist or fascist. It's a profit-seeking enterprise. The legal system it operates under is what we are talking about and the degree to which it respects private property rights.
 
The other day I was watching a YouTube video discussing a TV show. They claimed the show was anti-capitalism because it showed the government tricking/forcing some local people out of their land in order to hand it over to a company who would presumably strip mine it. That's not capitalism. Capitalism would be the company offering money for the land, and if the locals reject the offer, then that's the end of the story.

It seems people associate capitalism with any economic activity and with any private individual or firm making a profit. This is not so. Capitalism is simply when property is held and controlled in private hands. If I start a charity, solicit donations and then use the money to buy food and medicine for the poor, that's capitalism. If I own a piece of land and I make it a nature preserve, that's capitalism.

I often see criticisms of capitalism regarding crimes committed by wealthy people or firms to advance their interests. That's not capitalism, that's just a crime. If a company decides to cut costs so they can lower their prices below the competition that's capitalism. If a company decides to burn down the factory of their competition, that's a crime.

The latest academic trend is to say that slavery is somehow a part of capitalism. They talk about how slaves were considered "property" and were bought and sold and used to make the slave owner a profit. These superficial terms give the impression that slavery is akin to a free market firm doing business, but this is the opposite of the truth. The ultimate in private property is ownership of your own person. You cannot alienate (transfer control of) your body, so no one other than you can own yourself. Thus slavery is a violation of private property rights and not at all compatible with capitalism.

What other ways is capitalism mischaracterized?
If unregulated, that IS capitalism...or the result of it not being sufficiently limited.
It inevitably trends towards controlling the government if allowed, since controlling the environment it's in helps it get higher profits and prevent competition.

The way I view capitalism, it's about unrelenting competition, with no quarter given or holds barred.
You have to emplace rules to prevent the worst excesses of that drive, or it'll get out of hand and be the one in control.
 
The profit motive works both ways--employees seek to maximize their wages.
And in a time where we are beginning to see the pendulum swing back to favor the workers...businesses are screaming like stuck pigs.
 
A business is neither capitalist or fascist. It's a profit-seeking enterprise. The legal system it operates under is what we are talking about and the degree to which it respects private property rights.
Capitalism and fascism are both economic systems as well as political systems.

"In terms of economics, fascism incorporates elements of both capitalism and socialism. Fascist economists advocate for self-sufficiency and individual profit, but promote government subsidies of corporations."
 
If unregulated, that IS capitalism...or the result of it not being sufficiently limited.
It inevitably trends towards controlling the government if allowed, since controlling the environment it's in helps it get higher profits and prevent competition.

The way I view capitalism, it's about unrelenting competition, with no quarter given or holds barred.
You have to emplace rules to prevent the worst excesses of that drive, or it'll get out of hand and be the one in control.
This is what I was talking about. Capitalism is simply about protecting private property rights. It can't "trend towards controlling the government." Capitalism is not the wealthy or powerful firms that try to control the government. Say that instead. The wealthy and powerful have always had a hand in controlling the state, regardless of what the economic system is. Capitalism has nothing to do with that.

And your statement about the "excesses" of competition seems to be, once again, talking about something other than capitalism. Are you talking about crimes? Are you talking about fraud? Those things are illegal under a system of private property protections. So what exactly do you mean?
 
If unregulated, that IS capitalism...or the result of it not being sufficiently limited.
It inevitably trends towards controlling the government if allowed, since controlling the environment it's in helps it get higher profits and prevent competition.

The way I view capitalism, it's about unrelenting competition, with no quarter given or holds barred.
You have to emplace rules to prevent the worst excesses of that drive, or it'll get out of hand and be the one in control.

Ok, right now we have a unregulated weed market in NYC:


Explain what kind of bad outcomes will happen because it has no political rules. Be specific.
 
Capitalism and fascism are both economic systems as well as political systems.
I think this is another misunderstanding of capitalism. It's not a political system at all. You can have a democracy, oligarchy or even an authoritarian dictator and have a capitalist economy. All that's required is the protection of private property rights.
 
This is what I was talking about. Capitalism is simply about protecting private property rights. It can't "trend towards controlling the government." Capitalism is not the wealthy or powerful firms that try to control the government. Say that instead. The wealthy and powerful have always had a hand in controlling the state, regardless of what the economic system is. Capitalism has nothing to do with that.

And your statement about the "excesses" of competition seems to be, once again, talking about something other than capitalism. Are you talking about crimes? Are you talking about fraud? Those things are illegal under a system of private property protections. So what exactly do you mean?
I mean that organizations striving for more wealth and power within capitalism will try to capture the government in part or in whole, then rewrite the laws so they have an advantage, even to the point of removing those private property protections.
You could argue that this isn't capitalism, but it's what entities operating within what I've experienced as capitalism will do.

The only things stopping them from doing so are:
Vigilant enforcement of rules, which can be co-opted as it has been in many places by influencing the government to underfund or even defund rule enforcement.
Ethics or morals self-enforced by the organizations in question, which only lasts so long as the individuals in positions of control require it.
 
The other day I was watching a YouTube video discussing a TV show. They claimed the show was anti-capitalism because it showed the government tricking/forcing some local people out of their land in order to hand it over to a company who would presumably strip mine it. That's not capitalism. Capitalism would be the company offering money for the land, and if the locals reject the offer, then that's the end of the story.

It seems people associate capitalism with any economic activity and with any private individual or firm making a profit. This is not so. Capitalism is simply when property is held and controlled in private hands. If I start a charity, solicit donations and then use the money to buy food and medicine for the poor, that's capitalism. If I own a piece of land and I make it a nature preserve, that's capitalism.

I often see criticisms of capitalism regarding crimes committed by wealthy people or firms to advance their interests. That's not capitalism, that's just a crime. If a company decides to cut costs so they can lower their prices below the competition that's capitalism. If a company decides to burn down the factory of their competition, that's a crime.

The latest academic trend is to say that slavery is somehow a part of capitalism. They talk about how slaves were considered "property" and were bought and sold and used to make the slave owner a profit. These superficial terms give the impression that slavery is akin to a free market firm doing business, but this is the opposite of the truth. The ultimate in private property is ownership of your own person. You cannot alienate (transfer control of) your body, so no one other than you can own yourself. Thus slavery is a violation of private property rights and not at all compatible with capitalism.

What other ways is capitalism mischaracterized?



Well, I suggest you are comparing "classic capitalism" against "modern" or "convenient capitalism".

Because of your second scenario where one says "no", there is never an end then. How many true western tales have we in our history where miners and ranchers force settlers off their lands. The paid politicians to do it for them once "civilization" arrived.

Just as there is no 'true' capitalism, there is no true 'enterprise' so long as a man's honor can be bought. And what we've seen in America the last ten years is that not only honor be bought, but it's cheap.
 
Ok, right now we have a unregulated weed market in NYC:


Explain what kind of bad outcomes will happen because it has no political rules. Be specific.
It's probably harder to cause problems due to the nature of the product being sold.

But perhaps...selling lower quality product as higher quality, or putting additives into it that cause issues?
In theory, if it gets really competitive, violently attacking your competition and destroying their facilities or product, even staff.

And yes, I know that's illegal - but I was counting ALL laws as part of the regulation.

I fully believe that if an organization captured enough of the government, they'd eventually make it legal for them to literally kill the competition.
 
How many true western tales have we in our history where miners and ranchers force settlers off their lands. The paid politicians to do it for them once "civilization" arrived.
That's called corruption, which has nothing to do with a system of protecting private property rights. This is another example of misunderstanding capitalism.
 
You're not talking about capitalism. Businesses that use the government to subsidize their wages (let's start with Walmart and McDonalds) are not capitalist, they're fascist.

Walmart’s U.S. average hourly wage is now $16.40



Paying an entry level worker $16.40 is "fascist"?

What is the correct hourly wage for a job that requires no education or experience?
 
It's probably harder to cause problems due to the nature of the product being sold.

But perhaps...selling lower quality product as higher quality, or putting additives into it that cause issues?
In theory, if it gets really competitive, violently attacking your competition and destroying their facilities or product, even staff.

And yes, I know that's illegal - but I was counting ALL laws as part of the regulation.

I fully believe that if an organization captured enough of the government, they'd eventually make it legal for them to literally kill the competition.


We've seen some near examples of that. One being the first wave of Japanese products to hit American shores. There were barriers legal and non, as well as scare tactics etc.

No, there is no "natural economy", sooner or later regulations become a necessity because man is a selfish, greedy dishonest pig who has no qualms about destroying nature for a few $. They sold hoola hoops for $5! They cost 3.5cents to make.
 
That's called corruption, which has nothing to do with a system of protecting private property rights. This is another example of misunderstanding capitalism.


It has EVERYTHING to do with human nature and the state of man and why your theories are out of date, thin, and proven a failure BECAUSE of man's greed.

Your theories do not allow for criminals let alone common greed. Which we know is rampant.

So they don't work. And that's why.

No matter how you rephrase something, simplistic bullshit is still simplistic bullshit.
 
The other day I was watching a YouTube video discussing a TV show. They claimed the show was anti-capitalism because it showed the government tricking/forcing some local people out of their land in order to hand it over to a company who would presumably strip mine it. That's not capitalism. Capitalism would be the company offering money for the land, and if the locals reject the offer, then that's the end of the story.

It seems people associate capitalism with any economic activity and with any private individual or firm making a profit. This is not so. Capitalism is simply when property is held and controlled in private hands. If I start a charity, solicit donations and then use the money to buy food and medicine for the poor, that's capitalism. If I own a piece of land and I make it a nature preserve, that's capitalism.

I often see criticisms of capitalism regarding crimes committed by wealthy people or firms to advance their interests. That's not capitalism, that's just a crime. If a company decides to cut costs so they can lower their prices below the competition that's capitalism. If a company decides to burn down the factory of their competition, that's a crime.

The latest academic trend is to say that slavery is somehow a part of capitalism. They talk about how slaves were considered "property" and were bought and sold and used to make the slave owner a profit. These superficial terms give the impression that slavery is akin to a free market firm doing business, but this is the opposite of the truth. The ultimate in private property is ownership of your own person. You cannot alienate (transfer control of) your body, so no one other than you can own yourself. Thus slavery is a violation of private property rights and not at all compatible with capitalism.

What other ways is capitalism mischaracterized?
Its not free market capitalism but its still capitalism.
 
Walmart’s U.S. average hourly wage is now $16.40



Paying an entry level worker $16.40 is "fascist"?

What is the correct hourly wage for a job that requires no education or experience?
Minimum wage should be sufficient to maintain a basic standard of living in the area.
So in places with high housing costs, $16.40/hr might not be high enough.
 
Minimum wage should be sufficient to maintain a basic standard of living in the area.
So in places with high housing costs, $16.40/hr might not be high enough.

Why does a job that is easily attainable by a 16 year old need to provide a basic standard of living? I'm all for people being able to live and live comfortably but people as a society need to understand that if all jobs pay a standard of living wage then only jobs that are of that value will be offered and people will have to use self checkouts and push their own shopping buggies from the parking lot.
 
Minimum wage should be sufficient to maintain a basic standard of living in the area.
So in places with high housing costs, $16.40/hr might not be high enough.


And Santa Claus should upgrade its wardrobe.

I live in a place with enormous housing costs. A basic sitting room suite in the worst part of town will cost you about $975 to $1,200 a month. No one has been able to pay the minimum wage for thirty years. You can't hire a person to shovel your walk for less than $35 an hour. I don't know the minimum wage but the lowest cost cleaning service pays their people "22 an hour.

Wage legislation hurts slow growth comunities and is meaningless in the most desired. Economic determine the amount. If you're relying on government to keep wages down, that's fascism.
 
Back
Top Bottom