Myths About Capitalism

[DrunkenAsparagus]

You must be a very high-up employee of the BCF of some State to have developed that kind of an informed opinion on the subject. What do you do? Because my experience working with this population has shown me that leaving a person who has inadequate education, no ability to think in future-tense, and no support system to their own devices is a very bad idea. They need an example of success to follow. They need time to change their world view and perspective on life. These things happen very slowly and not without failures along the way. Simply throwing money at them doesn't work. The failures of the past are proof of that.

What work programs do you thing exist? What makes you think that these programs set people on a narrow path? Does helping someone get a bachelors degree set them on a narrow path? Does supporting them in getting certification in a trade set them on a narrow path? I'm not sure what could possibly set them on a better path toward success. No, it seems that you are motivated by your preconceived political ideas instead of genuinely looking for ways to improve the lives of people and break the cycle of poverty. All you see is smaller government. All you want is for the rich to have more freedom to hoard the nation’s wealth as you hold onto the hope that you might someday be one of them. Why do people not see that it will never happen? You can’t worm your way in. You have to be born into it. Wouldn’t you rather stand up for something practical like a more equitable distribution of wealth which would benefit us all?

I'm lazy, so here ya go. This man can explain it far better than I can.

YouTube - Milton Friedman's Free to Choose (1980), episode 4 - From Cradle to Grave. part 1

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Extra help can be given to those who are unable to work, but this is a pretty simple welfare system.

YouTube - Negative Income Tax

 

[ecofarm]

The meaning of words changes over time. For example I have a 20 year old mirriam webster dictionary and many words are defined differently in the new edition..

I'm not so sure about words, but some stuff changes.

I have a 1983 Ency Brit that has seven food groups, one of which is "Butter and/or Margarine". Beat that.

 

[Sandokan]

The same thing is true of capitalist societies. The "ruling class" (the wealthy) is always in control. My point is that we need to change that.

The "new class" ( the new wealthy) always ferociously protects its privileges and status, is suspicious of those actions that could weaken its power. The ruling class will defend it to the end. My point is that we need to avoid that.

The article is right, it is the constant anti market, anti capitalist drivel that we get from TV, movies and main stream media that poisons the atmosphere. Capitalism is not without flaws, but is still the best system for economic interaction between free people.

The problem arise when government get control to fix the flaws of Capitalism. Most o the time the unintended results of the government intervention create a result worse than the flaw it intending to fix. Left alone, the free market has built in safeguards that discourage dishonesty and punish it where it hurts the most, the pocketbook.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

I'm not so sure about words, but some stuff changes.

I have a 1983 Ency Brit that has seven food groups, one of which is "Butter and/or Margarine". Beat that.

That doesn't even include slang like "penus butter". Hmm, that belongs in the urban dictionary.:mrgreen:

 

[LaMidRighter]

The "new class" ( the new wealthy) always ferociously protects its privileges and status, is suspicious of those actions that could weaken its power. The ruling class will defend it to the end. My point is that we need to avoid that.

The article is right, it is the constant anti market, anti capitalist drivel that we get from TV, movies and main stream media that poisons the atmosphere. Capitalism is not without flaws, but is still the best system for economic interaction between free people.

The problem arise when government get control to fix the flaws of Capitalism. Most o the time the unintended results of the government intervention create a result worse than the flaw it intending to fix. Left alone, the free market has built in safeguards that discourage dishonesty and punish it where it hurts the most, the pocketbook.

True. I'm an insurance professional (sales) and take my ethics extremely seriously, this hurts me in the short term as I will walk away from any business that puts potential clients in a worse situation or that I cannot be of full use, my colleague pool is around 50/50 towards that line of thinking. Long term however my reputation is building and I am already starting to realize a trust that my industry simply does not have at the moment.

 

[ALIHAYMEG]

I'm lazy, so here ya go. This man can explain it far better than I can.

You realize of course that this is a 30 year old video that isn't even pertinent to the way things work today. Link me to something from this decade and I might place some stock in it. 30 year old biases don't interest me.

 

[The_Penguin]

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.

Well, based on most crashes and tests, both of you are wrong . In a crash you have a massive exchange of energy. The question isn't who has the bigger car, but how that energy is dissipated and what happens to the occupant. You can easily make a small sporty car very safe (some of the luxury roadsters are proof of this and the safety technology is trickling down.) Your car will be totalled, but you can walk away. Which is why you can find a Civic that does a damn good job of saving you in a crash.

IIHS-HLDI: Honda Civic 4-door

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

You realize of course that this is a 30 year old video that isn't even pertinent to the way things work today. Link me to something from this decade and I might place some stock in it. 30 year old biases don't interest me.

I'm aware that the welfare system has gone through many changes, but the point still stands. Welfare destroys a lot of initiative and independence for the poor.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Well, based on most crashes and tests, both of you are wrong . In a crash you have a massive exchange of energy. The question isn't who has the bigger car, but how that energy is dissipated and what happens to the occupant. You can easily make a small sporty car very safe (some of the luxury roadsters are proof of this and the safety technology is trickling down.) Your car will be totalled, but you can walk away. Which is why you can find a Civic that does a damn good job of saving you in a crash.

IIHS-HLDI: Honda Civic 4-door

I'm aware of displacement zones, but they are a substitute for a good solid frame. If you channeled that same energy through a sturdier frame not only would the occupants be protected, but you could save the vehicle as well. This does not happen in an econobox, my two cents.

 

[zimmer]

However, there is a need for some regulation to keep the greed in check; otherwise some people will take advantage of others.

May I dispel your myths with the following: Free to Choose series by Milton Friedman.
1980 & 1990 versions.
IdeaChannel.tv

The Hompegae.
Free To Choose Network

A more insightful case hasn't been produced for public consumption.

John Stossel, for those who crap on him, at least had the courage to realize the errors of his ways.
FORA.tv - Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity
Good vid. Explains part of why he changed.

I thought "Change" was a good thing?

.

 

[ALIHAYMEG]

I'm aware that the welfare system has gone through many changes, but the point still stands. Welfare destroys a lot of initiative and independence for the poor.

There is never any initiative to destroy. Like many other fortunate people who are encouraged to succeed and given an example of success to follow, you assume that everyone is so fortunate. I suppose your solution is to let children starve in order to punish or motivate their parents to, all of a sudden, become successful earners. That's a great idea! Not.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

I'm aware that the welfare system has gone through many changes, but the point still stands. Welfare destroys a lot of initiative and independence for the poor.

Do trust funds destroy initiative and independence for the rich silver spooners?

 

[Areopagitican]

Do trust funds destroy initiative and independence for the rich silver spooners?

Of course! That's why they're called silver spooners.

 

[The_Penguin]

I'm aware of displacement zones, but they are a substitute for a good solid frame. If you channeled that same energy through a sturdier frame not only would the occupants be protected, but you could save the vehicle as well. This does not happen in an econobox, my two cents.

Except there's no scientific evidence suggesting bigger car/frame translates into a safer vehicle. It's a psychological bonus. You have a bigger car, therefore you think you are stronger than others (especially if they have a smaller vehicle.) Can you find a safe SUV and an unsafe compact? Yes. But you can find the exact opposite to be true as well.

Is Bigger Safer? It Ain't Necessarily So

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Do trust funds destroy initiative and independence for the rich silver spooners?

Yeah; I find them just as annoying as anyone's else, but at least that money isn't forcibly taken from someone else.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

There is never any initiative to destroy.

No one said that it was intentional.

Like many other fortunate people who are encouraged to succeed and given an example of success to follow, you assume that everyone is so fortunate. I suppose your solution is to let children starve in order to punish or motivate their parents to, all of a sudden, become successful earners. That's a great idea! Not.

And much of the motivation was there, is taken away.

 

[Sandokan]

What many people don't understand about capitalism, is that as long as the same rules apply and are enforced on all, however few rules there may be, malignant and oppressive monopolies can't exist. They will fall of their own weight.

As soon as they fail to provide a service or product, at a reasonable price, someone else will cut them off at the knees, it's the very nature of the beast.

The only monopoly that can exist in a Free Market Capitalist society is government. They set the rules and there is nobody allowed to cut them off at the knees when they become oppressive.

In the US, the people are the only competition the government has. That is why the government and those who support this government like the left, are so vehemently opposed and so vitriolic toward the Tea Party, because they are keeping them from expanding their malignant and oppressive monopoly.

 

[zimmer]

What many people don't understand about capitalism, is that as long as the same rules apply and are enforced on all, however few rules there may be, malignant and oppressive monopolies can't exist. They will fall of their own weight.

As soon as they fail to provide a service or product, at a reasonable price, someone else will cut them off at the knees, it's the very nature of the beast.

The only monopoly that can exist in a Free Market Capitalist society is government. They set the rules and there is nobody allowed to cut them off at the knees when they become oppressive.

In the US, the people are the only competition the government has. That is why the government and those who support this government like the left, are so vehemently opposed and so vitriolic toward the Tea Party, because they are keeping them from expanding their malignant and oppressive monopoly.

Hear! Hear!:applaud:applaud:applaud

 

[LiberalAvenger]

What many people don't understand about capitalism, is that as long as the same rules apply and are enforced on all, however few rules there may be, malignant and oppressive monopolies can't exist. They will fall of their own weight.

As soon as they fail to provide a service or product, at a reasonable price, someone else will cut them off at the knees, it's the very nature of the beast.

The only monopoly that can exist in a Free Market Capitalist society is government. They set the rules and there is nobody allowed to cut them off at the knees when they become oppressive.

In the US, the people are the only competition the government has. That is why the government and those who support this government like the left, are so vehemently opposed and so vitriolic toward the Tea Party, because they are keeping them from expanding their malignant and oppressive monopoly.

You are talking absolutes, otherwise a form of extremism. Absolute socialism and absolute capitalism are both dubious concepts.

 

[ALIHAYMEG]

No one said that it was intentional.

My point was that these people do not have any initiative to start with. How can you destroy something that doesn't exist? Initiative comes from having an example of success to observe and emulate. Most successful people have had 18+ years to observe and learn how to be successful by looking at their parents. These people have never had that and never will unless someone intervenes to break the cycle. It is your perogative to say that it is fine with you that there are the "haves" and the "have not's". I don't have a problem with there being a division of income for more skilled labour. That makes perfect sense. All I'm saying is that we should be encouraging everyone to be the best that they can be. That can only serve to benefit all of us in the long term. Would someone who has a talent for fixing machines not be more productive as a mechanic than as a welfare recipient? That is what the goal should be, and it has shifted closer to that in recent years. It still needs some tweaking of course, but the alternative is to ignore the problem anf hope that it solves itself. Unfortunately it never does. It only gets worse.

I said

Like many other fortunate people who are encouraged to succeed and given an example of success to follow, you assume that everyone is so fortunate. I suppose your solution is to let children starve in order to punish or motivate their parents to, all of a sudden, become successful earners. That's a great idea! Not.

You said

And much of the motivation was there, is taken away.[/

Are you saying that watching a child starve to death is an appropriate incentive to allow to happen to people who are unemployed? Is it that, or are you hoping that all of the "riff raff" will just die off? Let's be realistic here.

 

[ALIHAYMEG]

What many people don't understand about capitalism, is that as long as the same rules apply and are enforced on all, however few rules there may be, malignant and oppressive monopolies can't exist. They will fall of their own weight.

I beg to differ. Try finding an alternative to your electric company, water provider, cable provider, gas provider, etc. These are all examples of monopolies operating in our country. That doesn't even begin to touch the many oligopolies that also exist. Check into the "hydraulic fracturing" techniques used by gas companies and tell me that the EPA hasn't been bought off by big business. People are lighting their water on fire inside their homes after "fraqing" has taken place near them. The entire water shed is at risk because of this practice and the EPA insists that it is perfectly safe. Why, because there is more motivation to make money than to do what is best for our country and its inhabitants. That needs to change. The sooner the better. We have both capitalistic and socialistic elements at work in our system. They balance one another out some of the time, but money usually wins out over social justice and the people suffer.

The only monopoly that can exist in a Free Market Capitalist society is government. They set the rules and there is nobody allowed to cut them off at the knees when they become oppressive.

You are almost right, and you are playing right into the hands of the real enemy by believing the propaganda. The real enemy is non-partisan. They are willing to deal with both sides in order to get their way. They have all of the power because they wield the majority of the wealth. There are no regulations or guidelines that they cannot buy their way out of. They are the "ruling class" and they have you right where they want you. Not only can they take advantage of you without recourse, but they also have you convinced that you must defend them and their methodology. Government is just a sock-puppet of the "ruling class".

In the US, the people are the only competition the government has. That is why the government and those who support this government like the left, are so vehemently opposed and so vitriolic toward the Tea Party, because they are keeping them from expanding their malignant and oppressive monopoly.

The people are no competition for the government. You can dunk all the tea bags you want. We are no competition because we are divided. We will all wake up eventually and see who the real enemy is. I just hope it is in time to do something about it.

 

[Deuce]

What many people don't understand about capitalism, is that as long as the same rules apply and are enforced on all, however few rules there may be, malignant and oppressive monopolies can't exist. They will fall of their own weight.

As soon as they fail to provide a service or product, at a reasonable price, someone else will cut them off at the knees, it's the very nature of the beast.

The only monopoly that can exist in a Free Market Capitalist society is government. They set the rules and there is nobody allowed to cut them off at the knees when they become oppressive.

In the US, the people are the only competition the government has. That is why the government and those who support this government like the left, are so vehemently opposed and so vitriolic toward the Tea Party, because they are keeping them from expanding their malignant and oppressive monopoly.

This post is in complete contradiction to history.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

This post is in complete contradiction to history.

No, it isn't.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

My point was that these people do not have any initiative to start with. How can you destroy something that doesn't exist? Initiative comes from having an example of success to observe and emulate. Most successful people have had 18+ years to observe and learn how to be successful by looking at their parents. These people have never had that and never will unless someone intervenes to break the cycle. It is your perogative to say that it is fine with you that there are the "haves" and the "have not's". I don't have a problem with there being a division of income for more skilled labour. That makes perfect sense. All I'm saying is that we should be encouraging everyone to be the best that they can be. That can only serve to benefit all of us in the long term. Would someone who has a talent for fixing machines not be more productive as a mechanic than as a welfare recipient? That is what the goal should be, and it has shifted closer to that in recent years. It still needs some tweaking of course, but the alternative is to ignore the problem anf hope that it solves itself. Unfortunately it never does. It only gets worse.

I said
[/QUOTE]

And what incentive is provided to them by treating them like children? Yes, some are born into more fortunate situations than others, and this makes it easier for them to be successful. That's undeniable. However, the ultimate responsibility lies with the individual.

Are you saying that watching a child starve to death is an appropriate incentive to allow to happen to people who are unemployed? Is it that, or are you hoping that all of the "riff raff" will just die off? Let's be realistic here.

Firstly, I never called for getting rid of all government assistance to the poor. Go see my link on the negative income tax (although I think the $10,000 per person is a bit much from a cost point of view at this time). What I said is that the welfare system essentially pays people to remain on the system, and discourages them from trying to break the cycle.