Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Capitalism
> Chickenwingz wrote:
> blah blah blah (just summarizing 
)
Yo ain't no thing it's me MaSoNiCbRoS / DarkMason - My family needs a good attacker like you in Milky Way (3437) let me know if you are interested!
Kemp: Do you deny that capitalism does not desire a state of being for society where everyone is free, equal and lacking in poverty? That goods and services are exchanged in a way such that each member gives what they can and recieves what they need? If not you need to have a discussion with Flint not me, I have accepted that argument for capitalism. Now do you accept that the goal of socialism or communism is the same state of being for society? One where all people are free, equal and lacking in poverty? I am not talking about if the theories can support a path to this state, merely that this was the end-state as put forward in these theories. If not then we need to have a discussion on Marx, Engles and others and what they wrote.
Now we look at if either works in the cold light of reality, and they truth is that neither works, as both are open to corruption, greed and generally failings of Human Nature. Thus if neither is correct, and without a better theory, it seems to me that the best option is to try and meld the two processes together with the ultimate goal in mind. This of course does require two polar opposities to work together, something that has become increasingly un-workable as the years have flowed. This is prehaps another example of the failing of Human Nature to enlighten Human Kind. We are a greedy, selfish, ignorant race sometimes, and until people like you, Mr Kemp, stop trying to pretend that only you could possibly know the true answers to the human problem and we work together to fix the problems, then unfortuntly we are probably doomed to continue our current downward spiral...
Oh also you are an ignorant no-brain hill billy 
> DarkMason wrote:
> > Chickenwingz wrote:
> blah blah blah (just summarizing )
Yo ain't no thing it's me MaSoNiCbRoS / DarkMason - My family needs a good attacker like you in Milky Way (3437) let me know if you are interested!
sorry dude, playing in PW atm and don't want to leave them with no attacker 
.
Sorry for the late response! wasn't paying attention myself this time :\.
> Einstein wrote:
> well you know what you wrote
well my point was more that in a capitalism it oftenly results in smaller companies not being able to survive because the bigger companies with the lower prices get all the customers. The bigger companies are able to buy better locations (as they have more money), and if this is not the case they still have their lower prices and "accessories" like huge parking places, which the smaller companies can't afford. Especially in the US (don't tell me this isn't true, i've been to the US a lot) people will travel long distances by car for cheaper things (popularity of costco & walmart) or better parking (so they have to walk less). So, it's only logical that they go to the bigger supermarkets.
> To adress the point someone made about government subsidies being bad for small companies:
I do not think this is true. Maybe in a Socialist state like the Soviet union was where there only were big companies. But do you know what subsidies are for? To help companies survive. Bigger companies don't need help to survive, as they're oftenly able to keep their prices low enough to attract huge numbers of costumers. Small companies can't do that, so need subsidies to survive. So in my opinion the subsidies are positive for small companies.
again sorry for the late response :\.
I drive up to 600 miles a day, though last few months are bad luck ones (my truck dropped a valve Friday night). My last two months I averaged a mere 6000 miles a month (sad but true).
I would have had a nice 2500 mile run in 6 days if this damned engine had not broken down. My grand total is around 130,000 miles I think.
Location can trump size in my experience through the nation. Trump it often even.
Additionally since in a semi-capitalist country small companies outnumber large, they tend to have more opportunities for location.
Subsidies support businesses that cannot compete. I piss on subsidies.I made a thread about them... I think...
Anyhow if taxes are low more companies can form. I can start a truck/trailer wash that will have location, but the coming tax storm would destroy me for trying to meet a need at a cheap price in a location no one is at yet.
Now some other proof of govt crap interfering with capitalism.
In theory I could make a small office, a gantry, and build a building later as profits allow. Low cost to start, low risk therefore, and fully functional.
However typically the government requires exemptions to not make a building. They make safe structures require even more safe stuff in broad stupid building code requirements based upon a one soze fits all format.
I could take the starting cost and open 5, including in less traffic areas if I could build the cheaper, fully safe, fully functional building instead (yes weather can shut me down at times, but it would tend to reduce daily operations to null when I could not operate anyways
It's not as much location trumping size. It's low-price trumping location. People here in the Netherlands would even drive to Germany for cheaper goods.
Other example: people driving long distances for better paid jobs. They could take a job that isn't paid as well close to them, but they take a job that is farther way but pays more instead. Why? Because people like to save (in the case of the supermarkets) or earn (in case of the jobs) more money.
Do you think the locations would be cheap, if everyone could start their own company? I think that'd force location prices up a lot. The laws of Supply and Demand, basic things in how the market works. So only the bigger companies are able to still get the locations, as they are the only ones who have enough money to afford the locations.
subsidies could help here by offering the smaller companies a chance to start up by giving them money for the location (for instance). These companies might prove really succesful, but otherwise wouldn't have had the chance to proof themselves.
> Einstein wrote:
> Obama has done 3 of 4 things Pelosi says is on his first term agenda. How did he not have time?
Answer that, and you self refute your whole post.
Pelosi is a retard.
And if Obama has 4 things to mainly get done on his first term agenda, then obviously we chose poorly. You should have so many things on your agenda that you don't finish when you're done. Basically, he is doing what he should be doing, but he doesn't have very good foresight. Simple. And not refuted. You should know Flint, big things done now affect the future. The question is what did Obama do? We know what FDR did and his legacy reflects that, being the only president with 3 full terms and voted in for a 4th. But Obama? We have yet to see the effect his legacy will have.
Sigh I had a huge and powerful post, but my phone puked it 
It's empirically demonstrated in the standard of living of states which protect some of the freedoms of their people, Justinian I. And the ones with more freedoms tend to be more prosperous. The fact that I have a principled and logical reason for its justification (not that there's a need to justify it--it's a ground state in nature--but to easily refute the supposed justifications for slavery which the left endorse) is no "last refuge." It's over your head, is what it is. America's founders referenced "God given" rights because they are beyond the government to infringe upon--any such infringement is unjustifiable. They're not "rights" as chosen by what is economically feasible to allow within a socialist nanny state any particular year. They're something that all individuals are born with and charge their government with protecting. It is a government's job to protect these rights; these are not "rights" gifted to a people by their socialist nanny state.
That's the thing about freedom, You_Fool. You're free to be a bum all your life is that's what you want. And I don't buy any argument that someone else should be impoverished all their life to feed and house your bum ass.
You presume that neither works where capitalism suits me just fine. You presume that, because "capitalism doesn't work" in your view, this justifies a nanny state leeching from everyone to care for inept bums. And I disagree.
As for the "ultimate goal," that was Stalin's justification for killing millions. After all, with the "ultimate goal" as the ends, which you're using as justification for government control, you can justify anything.
>> This of course does require two polar opposities to work together, something that has become increasingly un-workable as the years have flowed. This is prehaps another example of the failing of Human Nature to enlighten Human Kind. <<
It has become increasingly unaffordable as progressives have intentionally overspent as a means of creating crises as a means of obtaining more power. This isn't the stuff of conspiracy theories: they've written their plans clearly and communicated them for nearly a century.
>>We are a greedy, selfish, ignorant race sometimes, and until people like you, Mr Kemp, stop trying to pretend that only you could possibly know the true answers to the human problem and we work together to fix the problems, then unfortuntly we are probably doomed to continue our current downward spiral...<<
We can easily afford a social safety net like welfare to ensure that everyone, even without family support, has a chance at reaching their potential in life and even a second chance. And we can do it much more efficiently than we currently do; it is apathy on the part of voters currently preventing this. If anybody cared to prevent and reduce fraud and waste in the structure and guidelines of the system they could do it. It's not that it can't be done; it's that nobody [in power], literally, cares to. You must realize this, so you call me arrogant, implying that I'm somehow arrogant for making the claim that socialism not only doesn't work, but is immoral. You make ad hominem attacks against me for taking a moral stand for mankind's freedom from slavery, all in the name of your moral stand on the "human problem."
The only spiral we're doomed to repeat is ignorant human beings caving to the demands of the greedy for power over them. That is the injustice history has demonstrated in every civilization, which you completely ignore. You call me ignorant and a "hill billy" because you have no argument to defend your position, only nonsense.
Your attribution of the "failings" of capitalism are all backwards, so your conclusions are that more government control of human life is desirable. You ignore all of the criticisms of this hasty conclusion--you consider no alternatives that could better the lives of many without going full-out quasi socialist. You've made up your mind and you're going to give us your conclusions and lofty goals and call me names--skipping the part where we show your attributions of capitalism failing to be the result of intentional progressive tactics of overloading the system which have been well documented (by themselves, no less) for many decades.
---
>>Bigger companies don't need help to survive, as they're oftenly able to keep their prices low enough to attract huge numbers of costumers. Small companies can't do that, so need subsidies to survive. So in my opinion the subsidies are positive for small companies.<<
Bigger companies have the lawyers to ensure that they get all the subsidies they can and the lobbyists to get those subsidies directed to them by a corrupt Washington. In practice, smaller companies are hurt more by the regulatory agencies and big government which gives out those subsidies. Who has the biggest interest in getting on the boards of and running those regulatory agencies and agencies dealing with subsidies monies? The heads of large corporations in any field. And run those agencies is exactly what they do.
---
Yeah, Bad Mr Frosty. We have no idea what massive unsustainable spending will result in. It's certainly not something we can look all over the world for examples of!
Kemp,
I am not doubting that there is a correlation between freedom and economic prosperity. I am doubting that the rights are God given or that people are born to them. That is what you need to empirically justify. And the evidence suggests that rights are given or taken at the leisure of those with power. How else do you explain historical examples of slavery?
Kemp, at no point am I putting forward a 'nanny' state, and I do not believe that this is the best representation of a blend of socialist and libertarian (as pure capitalist) view points. You are correct in that freedoms do need to be protected, enhanced and expanded as such that they do not restrict any other persons freedoms. You are right that over-handedness in regards to regulations and laws do inhibit the growth of the society, and that what is generally refered to as a 'nanny state' is generally undesirable. However I see nothing in your posts which justifies a fully capitalistic state, you argue for one that is free of regulations and enshrines freedom and personal rights, however this is not capitalism.
In fact capitalism works when it is left to what it is intended, the running of the economy/marketplace and not the running of the society, which is where socialism needs to be applied more (though not in the way that brings restricting laws and regulations.) Socialism should be more a means to ensure that society is looked after within the free-market system, that people do not fall between the cracks, that the marketplace is provided with new talent and that people are looked after when they are no longer able to work due to age or sickness.
Also, just as a side point my ad hominem was only tacked on to my post in response to your own ad hominem attacks on me, so ;p your mother dresses you funny.
In other thoughts, using Stalin's justification is not at all what my arguments are about... In fact it is exactly the opposite about waht my post is about. It is not that any process is ok if we justify it by the 'greater good' but that given we all want to be in the same place, a perfect society, then we should look for the best way to get there.... killing millions is quite obviously not the right way to go about it, that said enslaving millions in low-wage factory jobs is also not the way to go, which is what unabated capitalism got us...
primae noctis
Nobody is arguing for "unabated" capitalism. You are contrasting your preferences to it anyway because to compare it to a capitalist state with social welfare programs leaves you with no arguments for socialism.
It is not a given that we all want to be in the same place. I do not believe you can mandate a "perfect society" and I believe that attempts to attain the power and control to create such a fictional utopia always result in great injustice. It is not my desire to create a perfect society. Do you have a perfect society in mind when you go to work or interact with your family? I certainly don't. And I don't trust any man with the power or control to push their view of a "perfect society" on me or anybody else.
I merely called you "crazy" in the sense that, in every day behavior, it would be ridiculous for either of us to wish to push our wills on the other; but that is what you propose doing on a national scale, whereas I argue that it is as unethical and ridiculous on a national scale (much more, in fact) as it would be for either of us to expect to order the other about. We pay our taxes and support a government which is intended to provide national security and run a justice system which treats all men equally. We even pay taxes to support welfare and unemployment and social security (at least, until unsustainable spending renders them broke, inflates our dollar, and we all share poverty equally). But our involvement stops there. Or, it ought to. You're arguing for more control and power over people's lives, which I argue against on both moral and economic grounds. Aside from being disgusting and violating the rights of everyone, such systems have always proven economically wasteful (increasing cost of living, decreasing standard of living) and corrupt. Regions of the Soviet Union tried to get all they could for the smallest contribution they could get away with. The result was low productivity and poverty, which they so admirably shared equally (that is, the lower class shared equally. The ruling class didn't share the suffering.) China sells us toxic products. Whatever they can get away with. When you have no rights but those the ruling class give you, you don't have the right not to poison yourself. You don't have the right to keep what you earn. You don't have a right to protest exploitation of you by the ruling class. You have nothing. If you choose to give up your rights, you give up everything.
My government is currently charged with protecting my rights from people who wish to infringe upon them. Socialism asks me to give up these rights in exchange for whatever (rights and goods) the government sees fit to give me. Maybe you're inept and you see economic benefit in such an exchange of your rights for the promises of politicians against history. Maybe you don't care about the immorality of offering yourself (and your people through the demagoguery of our electoral system, in which a majority benefit from the labors of others, having a voice but offering 0 contribution) into slavery.
Until you meet people who would choose to be slaves, Justinian I, empirically 100% of people agree that slavery is undesirable. You're arguing that there is no right behavior, that any debate of morality is pointless because there is no right or wrong. But you're not volunteering to be a slave. It seems you still take issue with slavery aside from the moral arguments I make against it. They are not the only ones I make.
Kemp,
Slavery may be unanimously undesirable, but that does not make it wrong. As a matter of fact, I oppose slavery because it is less efficient and conducive to technological progress than free labor. It is the arguments of yours that posit objective morality and rights that I am attacking as baseless. Empirically, the only rights you have are the ones written in the law books and that are enforced.
That you are a degenerate void of any morality is not relevant here. You obviously dismiss my values-based logical arguments out of hand. Go live in China where they share your collectivist atheist ideals and report back to us!
That... doesn't actually answer his question. You basically just asserted your prior statement against a logical indictment of your claims.
What question? Justinian I has no values, so obviously the values-based logical arguments mean nothing to him. There's nothing to discuss.
Remind me to read that later Kemp, I am feeling lazy and can't be bothered reading your justification for my view point whilst you seem to think that I hold some completely different view point... You seem to think I am all about government interfering in your life, when I am not... I do not blame you, you have been forced feed a certain definition of socialism which I wish to have changed, as the current definitions do not allow us to grow as a society....
V.Kemp,
I don't value collectivism. I view selfishness as good and altruism as bad. My favorite quote is "no good deed goes unpunished." That said, you still haven't empirically demonstrated that your values are objectively true. Instead you have resorted to name-calling and appeals to a higher authority in the sky, which only illustrates that you have no argument. At least I am honest and say that my values are a useful fiction, but you like to say that yours are objectively true. When I call on you to empirically prove that, you resort to name calling and restate that your values come from above and are objective, which is plainly just circular reasoning.
You seem confused. I haven't made claims of objectivity or argued against you at all. Over and over again I've pointed out that such values-based arguments aren't the only ones I made, because there's nothing to discuss of values-based reasoning that you don't buy into at all. I'm not trying to defend such arguments to you or convince you of them. I never tried to. I'm sorry if I used flowery language to describe you as a valueless heathen as you keep responding as if I'm arguing with you over my position differing from yours. Pardon my sarcasm. I'm not sorry. Get over it.
You called on me to empirically prove what? Something that cannot be proven empirically, or "proven" at all? Hopefully you see the senselessness of such an attempt and that I wasn't ignoring anything or leaving anything out in not trying to.
Kemp seems unable to actually see the arguments IA and myself are putting forward. IA has always contended that there are no universal rights/values, juist those which have been written by the winning side, which generally means they were 'better' values/rights from a evolutionary point of view. We no longer have slavery because the societies which had slavery were weaker than those without, and as such lost the battles that were presented. There is no higher mandate that slavery is bad, just that the sides advocating slavery have lost.
As for my arguments, as I said you seem to be reading my arguments differently to what I write... maybe this is an issue with my writing ability, in that I have failed to correctly put forward my views on this... My view point is not that government needs to interfer with our lives more, but that idealogy should be put to the side and the best path forward should be found. You examples on a soviet state and china are possibly better arguments against capitalism that socialism. The argument inherant in using such examples is more that socialist societies don't work on their own as each society tends to resort back to a capitalist system, in my mind because of the flaws in Human Nature, namely greed, and the flaw in our environment, namely scarcity of resources.
My ideal state, which is merely a construct I agree, is one in which capitalist ideals are used in the marketplace, whilst socialist ideals are used in maintaining a society, such as education, healthcare and welfare. Laws are based not on religious teachings, but on preserving indivudual freedoms and ensuring such freedoms do not infringe on any other persons freedoms, i.e. Murder is against the law, not because some book has written such but because in murdering you have infringed upon that persons freedom of life (yes i know a rather simple and silly example, but it works well.) Law enforcement would go along with these ideals.
Have I better explained myself Mr Kemp? Or should I continue to call you names in an attempt to argue with you in the only way you seem capable?
I'd just be repeating myself [again] to repeat that IA has just been repeatedly calling me out to debate him on something I have no interest in debating, nor have I tried to debate or dispute a single time in this thread. I jokingly called him a heathen void of morality and you arrogantly claim I'm calling names. As I've said repeatedly, I'm not interested in debating him over my arguments which are not empirical. So he gives them 0 value. I don't care. Let's talk about the other ones if you want? Discussion closed unless you have something to add. Repeatedly responding as if I've once argued over this point is just ignorant.
You're claiming that you're not advocating more government control and that I am not understanding your position, but you want socialized education, healthcare, and welfare. Those things aren't free gifts from God. It takes money, power, and control to control them. In explaining yourself better you continue to deny this. Education, healthcare, and welfare are a huge portion of our economy. Nevermind the fact that healthcare and education suffer tremendously from federal control and welfare often incentivizes unproductive behavior (the point not being that I'm right--the point being that there's no consensus).
You have this ideal in your mind that, if we were all perfect, socialism would be the perfect system. Your statements are all accepting of that assumption. If we were robots, maybe that would be true. But we're not robots. Not close. We're human beings. And we're not perfect. We are what we are. And talking about what would be great for robots is completely irrelevant in a discussion of capitalism and its feasibility. You can continue to claim that I'm missing your point and attacking you ad-hominem, but you're ignoring the content.
Kemp if you want to see a correlation between freedom and prosperity, let's look:
Our country is free, we're WAY deep in debt
China isn't free, they're rich rich rich
Our country has opportunity, we're full of idiots from the geniuses who gave birth to the idiots
China is growing, they're full of cheap labor
Need I go on?
Frosty,
China has increased its economic freedom, and that has correlated with its increased prosperity. In the case of the US, the list of our rights keeps getting shorter. That said, China is a huge bubble about to collapse.
China will not collapse!
By decree of the Central Committee!!!!
Imperial Forum → Politics → Capitalism
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.