capitalism, by definition, is a stupid and foolish human system
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Monday, January 13, 2025 18:50
VIEWED: 28147
PAGE 14 of 28
so·cial·ism noun \'so-sh?-?li-z?m\
: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies
Now back to my post about Russia. What do you think now, maybe accurate?
si shen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Point out where I posted anything would be owned by the state. Troll.
You ASSUMED that because I made comments about the shortcomings of capitalism - shortcomings economists have known about for over 100 years - that I MUST be anti-American. And you ASSUMED I therefore MUST be pro-Russian. You failed to take in vital information THAT I POSTED. Instead, you used my posts as a forum to flog YOUR OWN BIASES AND AGENDA, and engage in red-baiting. So, let me make a comment about your mental state. The difference between being a propagandized puppet like you and a thinking person is the ability to take in information that doesn't fit with your own biases, and to be able to logically evaluate information - ANY information - coming from ANY source, not just your preferred mouthpieces. These are things you've consistently failed to do. I see you are no different from our favorite RWE buffoon, rappy. I hope you like the company.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What would work better?
Well, as far as banks are concerned, requiring 100% capitalization would be a good start.
Something interesting on economics, focus specifically on the segment about Singapore (section 3).
Quote:
Yesterday, Ha-Joon Chang exposed the shortest economics textbook ever. Today the Cambridge University Economics professor uncovers everything you didn't know about economics (in 13 simple points)...
1. Economics was originally called 'political economy'
Economics is politics and it can never be a science. Yet the dominant neoclassical school of economics succeeded in changing the name of the discipline from the traditional 'political economy' to 'economics' at the turn of the 20th Century. The Neoclassical school wanted economics to become a pure science, shorn of political (and thus ethical) dimensions that involve subjective value judgments. This change was a political move in and of itself.
2. The Nobel Prize in Economics is not a real Nobel Prize
Unlike the original Nobel Prizes (Physics, Chemistry, Physiology, Medicine, Literature and Peace), established by the Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel at the end of the nineteenth century, the economics prize was established by the Swedish central bank (Sveriges Riksbank) in 1968 and is thus officially called the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Members of the Nobel family are known to have criticized the Swedish central bank for giving prizes to free-market economists of whom their ancestor would have disapproved.
3. There is no single economic theory that can explain Singapore's economy
This is what I call the 'Singapore problem'. If you read the standard account of Singapore's economic success in places like the Economist or the Wall Street Journal, you will only hear about Singapore's free trade and welcoming attitude towards foreign investment. You will never hear about how almost all the land in Singapore is owned by the government, while 85% of housing is supplied by the government's housing corporation. 22% of GDP is produced by state-owned enterprises (including Singapore Airlines), when the world average in that respect is only about 9%.
To put it bluntly, there isn't one economic theory that can single-handedly explain Singapore's success; its economy combines extreme features of capitalism and socialism. All theories are partial; reality is complex.
4. Britain and the US invented protectionism, not free trade
Britain had the most protected economy in the capitalist world in the late 18th and the early 19th century. Much of this protection was provided in order to promote British manufacturers against superior foreign competitors in Europe, the Low Countries (what are Belgium and the Netherlands today) in particular.
The US went even further. Taking inspiration from British protectionist policy, Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary of the US (that's the guy on the ten-dollar bill) developed a theory called the 'infant industry argument' - the view that the government of an economically backward nation should protect and nurture its young industries until they 'grow up' and can compete in the world market. Hamilton died in 1804 in a pistol duel, but the US adopted protectionism in the 1820s and remained the most protected economy in the world for most of the next century.
5. Free trade first spread mostly through un-free means
Free trade spread around the world throughout the 19th century. But its spread mostly owed to something that you would not normally associate with the word 'free' -force, or at least the threat of using it. Colonisation was the obvious route to 'unfree free trade', as the colonial masters forced the subjugated countries to open up their trade completely. But even many non-colonized countries were forced to adopt free trade. Through 'gunboat diplomacy', they were forced to sign unequal treaties that deprived them of, amongNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
….1kiki
Point out where I posted anything would be owned by the state. Troll.
We need to get rid of the idea of PROFIT.
If you eliminate profit who else is going to run industry?
Quote:
…1kiki
And it's not to say that people who own businesses shouldn't make money. If they manage the business, they should be paid the full value of that management work. If they work producing things in their business, they should get paid the full value of their labor. And if they invested their money, all that investment should be paid back to them with inflation compensation.
You made both these comments in the same statement. How is it you see both these ideas working together? Because you are a moron who is clueless and only wants to bitch, Troll.
si shen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm sorry you lack imagination.
You must think it was capitalists that invented language. Imagined the bowl. Made tools from rock, wood and bone. Harnessed fire. Built rafts. You must think the only reason anyone does anything is to profit from the work of others. I pity your small mind. It must get awfully boring on your little hamster wheel.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Apparently THGRII doesn't know the definition of "profit".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
….signym
To put it bluntly, there isn't one economic theory that can single-handedly explain Singapore's success; its economy combines extreme features of capitalism and socialism. All theories are partial; reality is complex.
All successful democracies practice some socialism. It is a necessary component for a country’s survival. Much of it amounts to theft, such as that which goes to Corporate America.
America’s corporations are major recipients of welfare.
“The federal government spent $92 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to businesses and private- sector corporate entities — expenditures commonly referred to as “corporate welfare” — in fiscal year 2006. The definition of business subsidies used in this report is broader than that used by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, which recently put the costs of direct business subsidies at $57 billion in 2005. For the purposes of this study, “corporate welfare” is defined as any federal spending program that provides payments or unique benefits and advantages to specific companies or industries”.
http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-sta
te-how-federal-government-subsidizes-us-businesses
Quote:
…signym
4. Britain and the US invented protectionism, not free trade.
“The opposition to trade liberalization and the goals of the WTO come from the adjustment problem. Economic adjustment is an ongoing and continuous process in all markets, in all countries, and it comes in many different forms. Any significant change in the underlying conditions of supply and demand will initiate market-driven adjustments. Opposing globalization and the adjustment that goes with it through a strategy of opposing the WTO is, in the end, a rearguard action against structural economic change and a political bid to shift the burden of that change to others and to the economy as a whole. Do away with the WTO, and many governments will succumb to the protectionist influences that the WTO was intended to keep at bay, the chapter states”.
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195166163
.001.0001/acprof-9780195166163-chapter-4
Quote:
Capitalism did best between the 1950s and the 1970s, an era of high regulation and high taxes
Despite what we hear these days about the detrimental economic effects of high taxes and strong government regulation, the advanced capitalist economies grew the fastest between the 1950s and the 1970s, when there were a lot of regulations and high taxes. Between 1950 and 1973, per capita income in Western Europe grew at an astonishing rate of 4.1% per year. Japan grew even faster at 8.1%, starting off the chain of 'economic miracles' in East Asia in the next half a century. Even the US, the slowest-growing economy in the rich world at the time, grew at an unprecedented rate of 2.5%. Per capita income for these economies collectively have since then managed to grow at only 1.8% per year between 1980 and 2010, when they cut taxes for the rich and deregulated their economies.
This is fact our conservative friends should research.
This implies much I what I believe. None of this is your words Signym you posted someone else without comment so I am responding to the text itself.
P.S. There is no future for anyone if we do not go green globally in a big way and stop over taxing our resources.
si shen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I'm sorry you lack imagination.
You must think it was capitalists that invented language. Imagined the bowl. Made tools from rock, wood and bone. Harnessed fire. Built rafts. You must think the only reason anyone does anything is to profit from the work of others. I pity your small mind. It must get awfully boring on your little hamster wheel.
All my posts and you still do not realize I am not a pure capitalist exposes your ignorance.
si shen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Apparently THGRII doesn't know the definition of "profit".
The kind of profit 1kiki is speaking about has been tried and replaced by something better. It's just not to your liking.
si shen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Do you have a point? Or do you enjoy blah blah blah as your entire repertoire?
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME