Jesus Appalled By Americans?

POSTED BY: Mavourneen
UPDATED: Monday, April 9, 2007 23:32
VIEWED: 11915
PAGE 12 of 15

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Friday, March 30, 2007 6:48 PM

With you so far. It isn't an economic system's responsibility to provide social services. It is not in capitalism's mandate to provide social services. I'm just going by what capitalists say about capitalism.

And the good government can only afford to provide those social services if there is a profitable economy to tax. Capitalism is the most profitable economy Not "profitable", productive. You may notice that governments don't derive most of their income from taxing "profits", they tax income and (in Europe) added value. So the "profitability" of an economy has little to do with its taxability. I understand your point, but you're using wrong terminology and it's causing confusion on your part.

Like the Bill Gates, the Vanderbilts or J.P. Morgan type bare-knuckles? That goes back 150 years or so and we still got capitalism here. What do you consider "long"? Well, first of all you're a little "off" on the years. The economy was still mainly agrarian until about 1880, and wealth distribution reamined about the same from 1760 to about 1880, which is when the big-time robber barons really hit their stride. Capitalism took a major setback in the 1930's. We have just gotten back to the income distribution that was extant before the Great Depression, so I wouldn't say that capitalism has has an extended unmitigated run through that entire length of time. But if you're asking me how long I think capitalism will last, my guess is about another 50 years, maybe less.

Here in the US that would be George W. Bush's socialist government? Or Bush I's? Or Reagan's? First of all, I need to clarify what I've been talking about. I'm afraid I've been using a misnomer too. "Capitalism" as envisioned by Adam Smith doesn't really exist today. There is little competition in any particualr sector, so what we have is really monopolism or corporatism. The more the government stacks the deck in favor of corporations, the closer we get to "fascism". If you just replace where I use the word "capitalism" with "monopolism" you'll get a better view of my meaning. But to specifically address your point: the more closely we follow their policies, the closer we come to collapse. I think we see this already in social disrepair and poverty levels, and I think it will become economically apparent (unless corective action is taken soon) that the USA economy can no longer support the value of the USA dollar.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 30, 2007 10:37 PM

Awww... and just when I thought we were having a nice discussion.

I hope this is just a dinner break for you, and not that I scared you away!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Friday, March 30, 2007 10:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Awww... and just when I thought we were having a nice discussion.

I hope this is just a dinner break for you, and not that I scared you away!

Just off at the gun show for a while. Now is dinner, and then I'll try to straighten out your misconceptions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Saturday, March 31, 2007 12:13 AM

Heh. Have a nice dinner! (We're having pot roast, peas and pickled beets. yesterday we had honey-smoked grilled chicken, green beans with buttered bread crumbs and mashed yam. Tomorrow it'll be tofu and shrimp with hot ginger sauce, tempura-style broccoli and pineapple. Did I mention I'm an OK cook?)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Saturday, March 31, 2007 1:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Heh. Have a nice dinner! (We're having pot roast, peas and pickled beets. yesterday we had honey-smoked grilled chicken, green beans with buttered bread crumbs and mashed yam. Tomorrow it'll be tofu and shrimp with hot ginger sauce, tempura-style broccoli and pineapple. Did I mention I'm an OK cook?)

Yum. Friday night is hors d'oeuvres and cocktails at Chez Geezer - little crab cakes and Boston Sidecars tonight. Tomorrow it's chicken mole with rice and cerveza. Antelope carpaccio in the near future.

Profit, or more precisely net profit, is income less expenses, and is what businesses are taxed on. VAT is generally paid by the purchaser, not the seller, so doesn't really apply to business much.

Now back to the booze.

Later.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Saturday, March 31, 2007 6:34 PM

double yum. I'm bored of my cooking. You're welcome to come to my house for dinner if I can come to yours!

I'm hoping you'll have the time to explain my misconsceptions.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Saturday, March 31, 2007 9:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
double yum. I'm bored of my cooking. You're welcome to come to my house for dinner if I can come to yours!

I'm hoping you'll have the time to explain my misconsceptions.

Already hit on profit vs. income.

It is not in capitalism's mandate to provide social services. I don't see it in any economic system's mandate to provide social services. That is the realm of social or political systems.

Well, first of all you're a little "off" on the years. The economy was still mainly agrarian until about 1880, and wealth distribution reamined about the same from 1760 to about 1880, which is when the big-time robber barons really hit their stride.
127 vs. 'around 150' doesn't seem that far off. Consider that Standard Oil was founded in 1870, J.P. Morgan started railroad empire building in the 1860s, Andrew Carnegie was into steel in the 1870s.

Capitalism took a major setback in the 1930's. We have just gotten back to the income distribution that was extant before the Great Depression, so I wouldn't say that capitalism has has an extended unmitigated run through that entire length of time.
A bit more government control during the FDR administration, but the capitalists still owned the companies.

But if you're asking me how long I think capitalism will last, my guess is about another 50 years, maybe less.Hope not. No one seems to have an alternative.

First of all, I need to clarify what I've been talking about. I'm afraid I've been using a misnomer too. "Capitalism" as envisioned by Adam Smith doesn't really exist today. There is little competition in any particualr sector, so what we have is really monopolism or corporatism. The more the government stacks the deck in favor of corporations, the closer we get to "fascism". If you just replace where I use the word "capitalism" with "monopolism" you'll get a better view of my meaning.

NOT FAIR!!!

This is even worse than redefining charity to fit your preconceptions.

But anyway. I don't see the country moving so far to "fascism" that we'll have to worry about it. We're probably at the end of a right-wing swing now, and I'd suspect we'll get a liberal congress and administration in the 2008 elections. Controls will go back on business and the threat of 'monopolism' will recede as regular old capitalism returns to the center.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Monday, April 2, 2007 4:44 PM

This was "timed out"

SIGNYM

Monday, April 2, 2007 4:48 PM

This was in case you didn't get it the first time.

SIGNYM

Monday, April 2, 2007 4:52 PM

Already hit on profit vs. income. Your position was that capitalism was the most "profitable" form of economy, which makes government social programs easier. My rejoinder was that you mean "poductive", not profitable, because governments don't tax "profits". I failed to make my point fully clear. It's true that businesses are taxed on "profit", but governments don't derive most of their income from business taxes on "profits". At the Federal level $1 trillion in income taxes from individuals and about $200 billion in income taxes from corporations. and that's not counting sales and real estate taxes at the local level. In other words, government taxation doesn't depend on "profitability" as much as it depends on the total amount of money in circulation and the rate at which it changes hands.

I think what you mean to say is that capitalism has a genius for making work more productive. I think tha snwer to that is mainly yes but partly no. I'll get to that some other time.

It is not in capitalism's mandate to provide social services. I don't see it in any economic system's mandate to provide social services. That is the realm of social or political systems. In earlier days religion, economy, and society were lumped together, and you can find the concept of "noblesse oblige" in Hammurabi's code, in Athens, and Medieval ages in the knight's code of honor. It wasn't always practiced, but capitalism is the first economic system that takes and avowed stand for self-interest and against charity.

A bit more government control during the FDR administration, but the capitalists still owned the companies. And still do. However, what you'r allowed to do with that ownership varies with the tmper of the times. If your rights as owner are highly restricted, then "ownership" takes on a different meaning.

Hope not. No one seems to have an alternative. I think there are lots of alternatives out there, you just don't see them. For example, most people think of Taiwan and Singapore as "capitalist" countries, but in fact about half the industries in Taiwan are government -owned, and Singapore is considered a "socialist miracle". In fact, Tawians and Singapore are more socialist than Venezuela. You won't find these stats splashed in big letters in corporately-owned publications tho, or in the official CIA descriptions.

www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=204
4

NOT FAIR!!! This is even worse than redefining charity to fit your preconceptions. First of all, I didn't redefine "charity" (helping the poor) I just looked at the underlying assumptions more closely that most people are comfortable with.

Yes, AFA redefining capitalism to monopolism... it's such a given to me that I tend to use the words interchangeably, but I shouldn't. The fact is that when people say "capitalism" they have all kinds of things in mind- anything from Adam Smith's version (which probably never existed) to monopolism to the bare-bones definition of "private ownership of the means of production". The main issue with capitalsim is that it inevitably reverts to monopolism because that is the most profitable form of business.

Well, lots more things to do today. TTUL

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE