• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Myths About Capitalism

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Of course. The idea is to regulate that which is provably necessary using facts only. Most regulations that are problematic come from emotional or rhetorical twisting, those are the ones that must go.
Can you give us any examples?
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Of course. The idea is to regulate that which is provably necessary using facts only. Most regulations that are problematic come from emotional or rhetorical twisting, those are the ones that must go.

Most regulations exist because of the practices of big corporations and the financial sector, and those were put into place after it was proven necessary to do so. In my opinion, there still aren't enough regulations in regards to those players in our economy.

The regulations due to public hysteria or the practices of smaller business are fewer by comparison.

If America wants to move closer towards the free market and further away from crony capitalism, corruption, and mega corporate control over government, then big business will need to be controled. I know that seems oxymoronic, but it would only involve limiting a relatively small number of players in order to enhance the business freedoms of many, many other businesses.
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
a better subject might be the myth OF capitalism.

we sit like children at the knee of granpa as he tells us fascinating fabrications. except that grandpa did it for our edification not simply to keep us ignorant and servile.

geo.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Most regulations exist because of the practices of big corporations and the financial sector, and those were put into place after it was proven necessary to do so. In my opinion, there still aren't enough regulations in regards to those players in our economy.

The regulations due to public hysteria or the practices of smaller business are fewer by comparison.
Completely false. Micromanaging in financials for example; The only things that really need to be regulated are fraud, and other illicit behaviors. However just about every form you fill out to make a transaction comes from an unnecessary regulatory expansion. These things range from acceptable legality in loan rates, grace periods, mandatory coverages, and other onerous regulations. None of which reign in corporate activity or do the consumer a service.
If America wants to move closer towards the free market and further away from crony capitalism, corruption, and mega corporate control over government, then big business will need to be controled. I know that seems oxymoronic, but it would only involve limiting a relatively small number of players in order to enhance the business freedoms of many, many other businesses.
You cannot solve corporatism with more unnecessary regulatory expansion.....only insure it.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Completely false. Micromanaging in financials for example; The only things that really need to be regulated are fraud, and other illicit behaviors. However just about every form you fill out to make a transaction comes from an unnecessary regulatory expansion. These things range from acceptable legality in loan rates, grace periods, mandatory coverages, and other onerous regulations. None of which reign in corporate activity or do the consumer a service.
You cannot solve corporatism with more unnecessary regulatory expansion.....only insure it.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I'm not a libertarian so I don't share these views on governance.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I'm not a libertarian so I don't share these views on governance.
Well, you do have some good points on undue influence from corporations, can't argue against that. What I can say as my caviotte is that people should add "some" when they speak of corporate influence as there are many different corporations, corporate models etc. For instance an s.corp won't have the influence of a larger entity and even then large umbrellas may have cancerous holdings that are responsible for most of the malicious behaviors. As well, overregulation tends to favor corporations as they have the infrastructure and size to absorb the additional costs further pushing smaller competitors out of the marketplace which ultimately hurts the average consumer.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Can you give us any examples?
It would be hard to focus because of the numerous regs for every industry but I'd be happy to give it a shot. For instance provide me with a couple of industries and I'll try to remember the more sinister ones I can think of. I'll say....think to the auto industry; Cars have to pass minimum safety requirements which I have no problem with, afterall people should have a reasonable expectation of safety but it is contradicted by CAFE standards, we want power, are mandated safety(tends to come with weight), but certain people also want all vehicles to have a target minimum consumption limit and we can't have things all ways; realistically these three factors get in the way of each other more often than not.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
It would be hard to focus because of the numerous regs for every industry but I'd be happy to give it a shot. For instance provide me with a couple of industries and I'll try to remember the more sinister ones I can think of. I'll say....think to the auto industry; Cars have to pass minimum safety requirements which I have no problem with, afterall people should have a reasonable expectation of safety but it is contradicted by CAFE standards, we want power, are mandated safety(tends to come with weight), but certain people also want all vehicles to have a target minimum consumption limit and we can't have things all ways; realistically these three factors get in the way of each other more often than not.
Agreed, however I havent seen any auto standards requirements that are impossible to meet. In fact many of them have already been met and surpassed by other car manufacturers, many of which (I am given the impression) have far more strict standards.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Agreed, however I havent seen any auto standards requirements that are impossible to meet. In fact many of them have already been met and surpassed by other car manufacturers, many of which (I am given the impression) have far more strict standards.
Note I'm not saying these things are impossible to meet, where they come to be problems are when there is no reasonable time frame in which they would be attainable. For instance there are constantly improvements in auto tech that allow for more power with less fuel, this will allow for more weight to an extent which leads to a safer frame, but it can only go so far. As well, many of the things that become mandatory equipment such as the soon to be implemented CPU controlled throttle spring have their own drawbacks as we have seen in the Toyota case. Basically the regulations are an unnatural way of facilitating things that the market will swing to eventually anyway.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Note I'm not saying these things are impossible to meet, where they come to be problems are when there is no reasonable time frame in which they would be attainable.
IIRC, the 2018 target is to have every car commercially available to get 35mpg or better. I dont see how that's an unreasonable timeframe, again considering that this is standard operating procedure elsewhere.

For instance there are constantly improvements in auto tech that allow for more power with less fuel, this will allow for more weight to an extent which leads to a safer frame, but it can only go so far. As well, many of the things that become mandatory equipment such as the soon to be implemented CPU controlled throttle spring have their own drawbacks as we have seen in the Toyota case. Basically the regulations are an unnatural way of facilitating things that the market will swing to eventually anyway.
Part of that problem is the market is only WILLING to do so much and when it MUST respond to a situation, it is unwilling to do so. In the case of vehicles, I'm sure most companies are twenty years ahead of what they're selling on the market. Companies would rather be one step ahead of the competition for twenty years rather than twenty steps ahead one year. Yes, the market WILL get there, but by the time it does the cost of fuel will be so high due to scarcity that no one will buy vehicles anyways.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
IIRC, the 2018 target is to have every car commercially available to get 35mpg or better. I dont see how that's an unreasonable timeframe, again considering that this is standard operating procedure elsewhere.
Physics, technology, and demand. Americans tend to demand heavier cars as they hug the road better, as well the additional size when paired with the right materials like steel or carbon fiber add weight, however in a crash they are much safer than your typical light cars. 35mpg therefore would necessarily lead to lighter materials which may not be of much use in a collision.

Part of that problem is the market is only WILLING to do so much and when it MUST respond to a situation, it is unwilling to do so. In the case of vehicles, I'm sure most companies are twenty years ahead of what they're selling on the market. Companies would rather be one step ahead of the competition for twenty years rather than twenty steps ahead one year. Yes, the market WILL get there, but by the time it does the cost of fuel will be so high due to scarcity that no one will buy vehicles anyways.
Then we should wait for the market to get there and allow the companies to research in the meantime, we do not need politicians mandating things far out of their scope of power and with little working knowledge of anything beyond how to get elected.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Physics, technology, and demand. Americans tend to demand heavier cars as they hug the road better, as well the additional size when paired with the right materials like steel or carbon fiber add weight, however in a crash they are much safer than your typical light cars. 35mpg therefore would necessarily lead to lighter materials which may not be of much use in a collision.
Lighter cars actually tend to do BETTER in your average collision because they dont crush in, they tend to "bounce" (for lack of a better term) the car is totaled but the driver and passengers are usually ok. Also, your average consumer doesnt need a car that hugs the road, freeways are not NASCAR.

Then we should wait for the market to get there and allow the companies to research in the meantime, we do not need politicians mandating things far out of their scope of power and with little working knowledge of anything beyond how to get elected.
The problem is by the time the market gets there, it may already be too late. IE: Rushing the testing and approval process for epidemic vaccines. Yes the process was circumvented but there was seen to be a greater need to have a product in hand that could help people.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,118
Reaction score
35,238
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It would be hard to focus because of the numerous regs for every industry but I'd be happy to give it a shot. For instance provide me with a couple of industries and I'll try to remember the more sinister ones I can think of. I'll say....think to the auto industry; Cars have to pass minimum safety requirements which I have no problem with, afterall people should have a reasonable expectation of safety but it is contradicted by CAFE standards, we want power, are mandated safety(tends to come with weight), but certain people also want all vehicles to have a target minimum consumption limit and we can't have things all ways; realistically these three factors get in the way of each other more often than not.

I drive a 2007 Honda Civic and it might very well be the greatest car built by man. :D
 

mmmike1977

New member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
8
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Lighter cars actually tend to do BETTER in your average collision because they dont crush in, they tend to "bounce" (for lack of a better term) the car is totaled but the driver and passengers are usually ok.

A heavier car has more inertia, resistance to a change in motion, than a lighter vehicle. Therefore in the event of a crash the lighter vehicle will have a greater change in motion relative to the heavier vehicle; the less the change in motion, the safer.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I drive a 2007 Honda Civic and it might very well be the greatest car built by man. :D
Honda's are dependable, still I like something with a little more room and much more power.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Lighter cars actually tend to do BETTER in your average collision because they dont crush in, they tend to "bounce" (for lack of a better term) the car is totaled but the driver and passengers are usually ok. Also, your average consumer doesnt need a car that hugs the road, freeways are not NASCAR.
No, lighter cars tend to crush in more, so they have built in zones to channel inertia but that does not help when hit by a bigger vehicle like a semi, a truck, or even something immobile like a telephone pole or wall. Heavier always wins. For example, would you rather trust your life to a Smart car or a Humvee? As well "hugging the road" is not just preferable in high speed situations, it helps during less than optimal driving conditions, unexpected changes in speed such as emergency braking or lane shift due to a cut off, curvy roads, etc. Control is always a nice thing.

The problem is by the time the market gets there, it may already be too late. IE: Rushing the testing and approval process for epidemic vaccines. Yes the process was circumvented but there was seen to be a greater need to have a product in hand that could help people.
Again, this is a proclamation based on opinion and emotion, where is the demonstrable factual need. And remember "we want now" is not fact, especially when the "we" is a small percentage of the market.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What I can say as my caviotte is that people should add "some" when they speak of corporate influence as there are many different corporations, corporate models etc. For instance an s.corp won't have the influence of a larger entity and even then large umbrellas may have cancerous holdings that are responsible for most of the malicious behaviors. As well, overregulation tends to favor corporations as they have the infrastructure and size to absorb the additional costs further pushing smaller competitors out of the marketplace which ultimately hurts the average consumer.

The majority of corporations are the same. They seek growth and profit. Maybe they start out virtuous in the beginning, but once they become huge they inevitably disconnect from the real needs of society. Consumerism and corporatism go hand in hand for this reason. They don't fulfill actual needs, just created needs that aren't necessary for survival. Any small business given the chance to grow into a big corporation will behave the same. At the larger scale level, they all behave identically. The perceived differences and public opinion all comes down to which corporations have the best PR.

I understand your views on regulations. I think it also comes down to what types of regulations we are talking about. For instance, no corporation should have the right to irrevocably contaminate public water that is also used for drinking. They would if they could, and in some areas they actually can. Big corporations are not community organizations like they claim they are. When profit is number one they can't possibly care about people, and when their revenue is equal to that of countries, the voting public must move to insulate their government from corruption.

Huge corporations are symbolic of the human hording instinct gone wild. There is little that is beneficial to the long-term survival of humanity inherent in these mega companies. They are destroying the earth and social well being of billions.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
No, lighter cars tend to crush in more, so they have built in zones to channel inertia but that does not help when hit by a bigger vehicle like a semi, a truck, or even something immobile like a telephone pole or wall. Heavier always wins. For example, would you rather trust your life to a Smart car or a Humvee?
Smart car gets highest score in crash tests - Autos- msnbc.com It depends on the accident.

As well "hugging the road" is not just preferable in high speed situations, it helps during less than optimal driving conditions, unexpected changes in speed such as emergency braking or lane shift due to a cut off, curvy roads, etc. Control is always a nice thing.
Snow tires/chains plus safe driving will reduce your risk factor for accident by a serious margin. And it would seem that a heavier car on slicker roads would cause more problems due to inertia.

Again, this is a proclamation based on opinion and emotion, where is the demonstrable factual need. And remember "we want now" is not fact, especially when the "we" is a small percentage of the market.
I have already demonstrated examples where market forces were rushed to meet the needs of a problematic situation
 

Sandokan

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
4,032
Reaction score
489
Location
Los Angels, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
What the American left want is to import the European style socialist model to America.
What is causing the catastrophic levels of debt in Greece, Spain and Italy, or for that
matter in California? Is it greedy capitalists? Or is it greedy government?

The socialist idea apparently is to give capitalists a new name "public servants", and monopoly control of the tax system, so they can now operate for the "common good," and make life "fairer" for all of us. It has failed in practice everywhere it has been tried. The "progressive" in reality should be called "regressive."
 

Regicollis

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
318
Reaction score
163
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
What the American left want is to import the European style socialist model to America.
What is causing the catastrophic levels of debt in Greece, Spain and Italy, or for that
matter in California? Is it greedy capitalists? Or is it greedy government?

The public level of debt is roughly the same (around 80 % of GDP) in most European countries as it is in the United States with Sweden and Denmark being far below that number . These countries manage to have functioning welfare systems without incurring more debt than the US. It seems American's are not getting enough services for their tax dollars compared to Europeans.

The socialist idea apparently is to give capitalists a new name "public servants", and monopoly control of the tax system, so they can now operate for the "common good," and make life "fairer" for all of us. It has failed in practice everywhere it has been tried. The "progressive" in reality should be called "regressive."

I don't think you understand anything about socialism. Go read up on your school textbooks before you post nonsense like socialists wanting to completely hand over control of the state to capitalists.

The social democratic model employed in Europe is a success. It has proven able not only to generate wealth but also to make sure that this wealth is spread out more evenly so that quality of life has been increased for all. Things like available health care and education, unemployment benefits, pensions, childcare and the like has greatly increased the quality of life in Europe. It has also created safe and well-ordered societies where people tend to trust each other more than other places. Although they always like to bitch and moan about taxes and regulations even the capitalists has recognised the economic benefits of things like having a well-educated population, working health care and little social tension. Thus European countris rank high on indices like The Ease of Doing Business Index.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What the American left want is to import the European style socialist model to America.
What is causing the catastrophic levels of debt in Greece, Spain and Italy, or for that
matter in California? Is it greedy capitalists? Or is it greedy government?

The socialist idea apparently is to give capitalists a new name "public servants", and monopoly control of the tax system, so they can now operate for the "common good," and make life "fairer" for all of us. It has failed in practice everywhere it has been tried. The "progressive" in reality should be called "regressive."

Corporate social welfare gets an easy pass through congress. It's called socializing the risk, but privatizing the profits.

Greedy business with its hands in government pockets is to blame.
 

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Corporate social welfare gets an easy pass through congress. It's called socializing the risk, but privatizing the profits.

Greedy business with its hands in government pockets is to blame.

To blame for what? Progressive social welfare dominates our budget and spends several orders of magnitude greater dollars than corporate social welfare. How do you actually define corporate social welfare? What are some examples of corporate social welfare?
 

alms

Banned
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
157
Reaction score
51
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I would argue that such a rule is crucial to functioning of capitalism, but is being undermined in the current day. Activities like day trading or the entire credit-swap debacle don't provide any useful value at all, yet still command huge sums of money. Long term investment in solid products has been replaced my sacrificing everything in order to make the quarterly reports. CEO's can run a company into the ground and still make a huge personal profit for failure. Manufacturing is outsourced, and degrees in engineering are being replaced by business majors. People have figured out how to game the system to get money beyond the value they add to the system. The point isn't to claim that capitalism is some evil way to screw people, but point out mistakes so they can be fixed and the system be improved.

rathi,

Anyone can make bald assertions. Please explain how day trading and insurance on credit don't provide any useful value. Be sure to explain why anyone (let alone thousands of businesspeople) would bother engaging in something that provides nothing useful.
 

alms

Banned
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
157
Reaction score
51
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
My main beef with capitalism right now is corporate monopolies, corporate lobbying of government in the millions of dollars, and corporate personhood. If those three things could be rectified, then I think we'd make huge progress.

Orion,

But those things have nothing to do with free-market capitalism (except, perhaps, corporate personhood). Indeed, they are antithetical to properly functioning capitalism.

And what corporate monopolies are you referring to?
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Smart car gets highest score in crash tests - Autos- msnbc.com It depends on the accident.

Snow tires/chains plus safe driving will reduce your risk factor for accident by a serious margin. And it would seem that a heavier car on slicker roads would cause more problems due to inertia.
I guess if a smart car and go-cart or econo-box got into an accident you'd have a point. But anything heavier than a golf cart will go right through a Smart car. As well, yes heavier cars build more inertia, but if you factor in torque and bigger displacement when driving the drag from a bigger engine can slow you down nicely.

I have already demonstrated examples where market forces were rushed to meet the needs of a problematic situation
No you haven't, all you have done is given your opinion that "market forces may not be quick enough" to do what you personally see is a problem without saying what the problem is or proving that any problem exists with real data, proclaiming an opinion is your right but asking for laws to be improperly implemented because of an opinion is not.
 
Top Bottom