Capitalism; Why is it thought of so highly?

[hexumhawk]

Building off the Keokuk thread; You have all kinds of rust belt towns in the same situation. Capitalism leaves behind communities. There were good jobs that paid a decent wage in Keokuk up to the 70's or 80's. Same with Clinton, Ft. Madison. Cairo IL, Akron OH and many others. Jobs were shipped so the people at the top could make more money.

The capital markets in the US are rigged and corrupt. Members of congress openly practice insider trading.

You also have to take in account capitalism and goods/services are always evolving. Those rust belt towns that are now a little run down were great back when they were needed to produce cars, tires, etc. Times change and peoples needs change. The question is how do those towns and cities adapt to attract new business.

 

[Tom Paris]

You're full of crap.

This endorsement means Rudolph is 100% spot on.

 

[Rudolph]

You also have to take in account capitalism and goods/services are always evolving. Those rust belt towns that are now a little run down were great back when they were needed to produce cars, tires, etc. Times change and peoples needs change. The question is how do those towns and cities adapt to attract new business.

Read Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything.

Also an interesting Ted Talk about thrive vs growth economy.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

If there is a moron it is you. Learn to spell.
Hitler was the leader of Germanys socialist party.

Just cuz they were called National Socialists doesn't mean they were socialists.

The Nazi's threw SDP members into concentration camps...


Throughout the spring and early summer of 1933, the Nazis used the new laws to frighten and intimidate Germans. By May, they forced all trade labor unions to dissolve. Instead, workers could only belong to a Nazi-approved union called the German Labor Front.

Then, in June, Hitler outlawed the Social Democratic Party. The German Nationalist Party, which was part of Hitler’s coalition government, dissolved after its deputies were told to resign or become the next target. By the end of the month, German concentration camps held 27,000 people. By mid-July, the Nazi Party was the only political party allowed in the country. Other organizations were also brought into line. As historian William Sheridan Allen has put it, “Whenever two or three were gathered, the Führer would also be present.”

Outlawing the Opposition

Learn about Hitler’s early measures against "enemies of the state," including the Enabling Act and the first concentration camp at Dachau.

www.facinghistory.org

The SDP members had balls...they're still one of the two major political parties today.


Then, on March 24, 1933, the Reichstag passed what became known as the Enabling Act by a vote of 141 to 94. It “enabled” the chancellor of Germany to punish anyone he considered an “enemy of the state.” The act allowed “laws passed by the government” to override the constitution. Only the 94 Social Democrats voted against the law. Most of the other deputies who opposed it were in hiding, in prison, or in exile.

 

[Tom Paris]

I'd say we need to be flexible....socialism has it's obvious flaws...capitalism has it's flaws.

It's not a "either or" situation. We have socialist aspects to our economy...social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment benefits etc...all those are generally popular.

Just have to find the correct balance...

What we have though is the vilification of both systems depending on your political bent.

This might be my favorite post you've ever typed. Agree totally. Sounds like aspects of democratic socialism which ties both of these things together.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

This might be my favorite post you've ever typed. Agree totally. Sounds like aspects of democratic socialism which ties both of these things together.

If you want some interesting reading on courage look up the history of the SDP in Germany...specifically the Nazi era. Talk about standing by your principles in the face of tyranny.

 

[abby97]

I have a simple response to the original question posed. Capitalism is thought of so highly because it is the best economic reflection of the actual human condition. No human is perfect, no one begins their life journey or ends their journey at the same place. Life offers no guarantees. We make of ourselves what we can based on our opportunities work ethic and perseverance, and yes luck. Nothing is fair in life but we all have the chance to become the best version of ourselves, if we choose to do so.

Capitalism is the closest economic system to actual life. It allows each person the opportunity to become what he or she chooses. Like life, there are no guarantees but there is always hope and possibility. No other economic system offers that.

 

[Tom Paris]

I have a simple response to the original question posed. Capitalism is thought of so highly because it is the best economic reflection of the actual human condition. No human is perfect, no one begins their life journey or ends their journey at the same place. Life offers no guarantees. We make of ourselves what we can based on our opportunities work ethic and perseverance, and yes luck. Nothing is fair in life but we all have the chance to become the best version of ourselves, if we choose to do so.

Capitalism is the closest economic system to actual life. It allows each person the opportunity to become what he or she chooses. Like life, there are no guarantees but there is always hope and possibility. No other economic system offers that.

 

[abby97]

Shouldn't you be getting your class on the bus for your field trip to the family friendly drag show?

 

[Rudolph]

^^! pwn !!!

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

I pose the same challenge to you. Go find an absolute capitalist country and report back. Good luck finding one though.

This is correct. This country has a habit of making winners and losers via government policy. And it all begins with the lobbyists.

 

[Ree4]

Socialism means government control and allocation of assets. Not compatible with democracy or freedom.

Holy shit google has this thing where you can search the meaning of things. Socialism is where the productive assets are owned collectively by the people and not privately. It does not mean government control.

In a purely socialized economy, the CEO of Exxon for example would not be beholden to shareholders for profits and making the decision to maximize them, but decisions would be made collectively by the employees about what is best for everyone.

No wonder so many of you are afraid of socialism - you have no clue what it actually is.

 

[Ree4]

I'd say we need to be flexible....socialism has it's obvious flaws...capitalism has it's flaws.

It's not a "either or" situation. We have socialist aspects to our economy...social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment benefits etc...all those are generally popular.

Just have to find the correct balance...

What we have though is the vilification of both systems depending on your political bent.

Best post I've seen from a right of center person in this thread. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive. I would say that socialism is much more vilified everywhere and people have no clue what it actually is. It's not when the government "does stuff" as so many seem to believe.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Best post I've seen from a right of center person in this thread. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive.

I think the problem with the perception is this...

Purely "socialist" countries are basically disasters economically. Venezuella...Cuba (I know communist) but you get the idea...

There are NO purely capitalist economies. Every "capitalist" economy has elements of sociialism to varying degrees.

So...anti "socialism" folks have some abject failures to point to but that doesn't appreciate the fact that the "capitalist" economies have "socialist" elements.

Hope that made sense.

 

[TonyTheTiger.1865]

North Korean defector Yeonmi Park has a 🔥🔥 response for the Columbia University students who told her they were oppressed living in America. From the... | By Dan Crenshaw | Facebook

29K views, 1.7K likes, 312 loves, 96 comments, 1K shares, Facebook Watch Videos from Dan Crenshaw: North Korean defector Yeonmi Park has a 🔥🔥 response for the Columbia University students who told...

fb.watch

 

[Rudolph]

Best post I've seen from a right of center person in this thread. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive. I would say that socialism is much more vilified everywhere and people have no clue what it actually is. It's not when the government "does stuff" as so many seem to believe.

You all should thank me for helping him get to that post. Which, I agree, is a good post for ol’ Bin.

 

[Ree4]

I think the problem with the perception is this...

Purely "socialist" countries are basically disasters economically. Venezuella...Cuba (I know communist) but you get the idea...

There are NO purely capitalist economies. Every "capitalist" economy has elements of sociialism to varying degrees.

So...anti "socialism" folks have some abject failures to point to but that doesn't appreciate the fact that the "capitalist" economies have "socialist" elements.

Hope that made sense.

They don't work because the US has not allowed them to work. We've intervened just about everywhere in the world to stop it.

Contrary to what most think, one of the major tenets of socialism is: "From each according to their ability to each according to his contribution" is a principle of distribution considered to be one of the defining features of socialism. It refers to an arrangement whereby individual compensation is representative of one's contribution to the social product in terms of effort, labor and productivity.

Most think this is how capitalism is supposed to work, but it doesn't. Those that own "capital" get the most benefit regardless of how much they contribute. As I'm sure you've all heard the phrase "the rich get richer". That is capitalism.

The principle has its roots in the way that capitalism manages its affairs. That is, each is rewarded according to how much he produces. Remuneration increases as the amount of labor contributed increases. However capitalism can lead to a situation where the means of production are owned by a small minority who do not produce, but rather live off the labor of others. Socialism is said to remedy this by putting the means of production in common hands and rewarding individuals according to their contributions.

To each according to his contribution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ree4]

You all should thank me for helping him get to that post. Which, I agree, is a good post for ol’ Bin.

Absolutely, it's refreshing to see somebody with an open mind that is genuinely interested in listening to other points of view instead of regurgitating talking points like many others have done.

 

[TonyTheTiger.1865]

Definition os Socialism: Source Merriam- Webster.com

• Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
• A system of society or group living in which there is no private property.
• A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
• A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
• Any of various social systems based on shared or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

It isn't me that doesn't understand what it is, it is a lot of the people on this board.
Many of you confuse social programs with socialism.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

I think the problem with the perception is this...

Purely "socialist" countries are basically disasters economically. Venezuella...Cuba (I know communist) but you get the idea...

There are NO purely capitalist economies. Every "capitalist" economy has elements of sociialism to varying degrees.

So...anti "socialism" folks have some abject failures to point to but that doesn't appreciate the fact that the "capitalist" economies have "socialist" elements.

Hope that made sense.

This is usually where this debate goes sideways.
There are zero examples of "pure" economic systems in the world and it's history. What you are rightly pointing out as corrupt and dangerous governments are examples of single-party authoritarian states, which can happen under the guise of any economic philosophy.

It's probably why so many conservatives have suddenly become so confused by what used to be a consensus about Hilter and the Nazi party.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

proponents also cite such periods as the Middle Ages as examples of the long-term historical viability of distributism.

We also call that period the Dark Ages, because of the sustained lack of progress compared to the Roman period and the Renaissance.

That has more to do with political instability than anything.

 

[TC Nole OX]

And mixed systems that can fluidly incorporate aspects of each to address changing circumstances trump any one system. But all the stupid fear mongering keeps pushing towards a more and more extreme version of capitalism.

This is what always cracks me up about the MAGA concept. It harkens back to, generally, middle of last century. When the version of capitalism was much, much, much, much less extreme. When economies were much more local. And the entire system was more sustainable, afforded more people a more stable situation, and more able to withstand stressors to the system.

Want to know the end of the political spectrum actually interested in working the system back to some new version of that? Liberals/leftists. But they’re called marxists and socialists and communists. It’s so maddeningly stupid.

People are so ass-backwards stupid.

They want the whiteness and the segregation of the 1950s. They care about few, if any, other specifics of that time.

 

[seminole97]

I don't talk about wealth divide. I talk about concentration.

The genesis remains the same.
If you make something and I make nothing, where does the wealth begin to concentrate?
Is it a 'flaw' in capitalism, or just reality observed?
Is the 'problem' that you made something, or is the 'problem' that I made nothing?

If you make boiled peanuts to sell on the roadside and someone else organizes thousands of people to design, build and operate re-useable space rockets, guess which one is more valuable to society, and where the wealth will concentrate.

Extreme concentration of wealth is always, and I mean always, a problem.

Only if you view the pie of wealth as fixed, wherein my accumulation of wealth necessarily means your loss.

Most of what I think you would identify as extreme wealth is just ownership of massive capital equipment supplying the needs of millions of people. It didn't exist before, it wasn't taken from someone else.

Seriously, just consider the laws of nature. Our current economic system is in direct conflict with basic laws of nature. Finite resources, ecosystem diversity & interdependence, to name the two I generally reference.

The finite resources that compose your phone have, if separated into their constituent elements and piled on your desk, what value? You'd probably pay someone to take away the mess!
But apply accrued human knowledge and creativity to those few ounces of elements and you can have something worth over a thousand dollars to some people.
Are we limited by the finite world, or actually only limited by what understanding we gain and apply to the finite world?

If you thought that wealth was fixed by finite reality, and not by the application of understanding and effort, I get how you'd think one person with a lot of wealth has it necessarily at the expense of anyone with less. But that isn't how wealth actually works.

Maybe because I'm spiritual but not religions I can easily, and without emotion, look at anything critically. I worship nothing and nobody.

Me too.
Ain't we special?

Those of you who get super bent out of shape when capitalism is discussed like this, well I find you to be really, really weird. But, then, I have to remember what you're likely being fed. There are a lot of people out there feeding your algorithms with ideas that support a worship mentality. When criticisms of capitalism knee-jerk fears of socialism or communism, well that's drawing on the same anti-pragmatic crap that the god/devil duality, leading to weird either/or arguments like you tend to make.

My fear of communism started after seeing the Berlin Wall and the crosses.
I guess you could say Khrushchev fed me that. So if you want to blame someone, blame him.

I wanted to understand how the German people, world renowned as brilliant and industrious, could thrive under one set of conditions and so visibly struggle under another.

At its root, the differences were between societies constructed on compulsion vs. freedom - bureaucratic diktat vs personal choice.
That's why I'm always wary of the people offering bureaucracy and diktats as the 'solution' to the problems they perceive.

 

[anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r]

We are not a purely capitalist economy….that’s fact. For one example, there would not be regulations against a restaurant serving I’ll-prepared food…The market would take care of ensuring food safety because enough people would get sick or die and others would stop eating there, thus they would go out of business….preventing more illness. Now in this example I think we got it right, as some government regulation is smart and necessary.

On the TARP/bailouts….I do think they probably should have let some big banks fail in 08….just like I believe Trump’s government should have let some of the airlines go under in 2020….they spent the last decade spending record profits on share buybacks to drive the stock price….and then the rainy day came and the savings account was empty….not smart business…and they should have paid for it…

Don’t even get me started on Citizens United…

 

[Rudolph]

The genesis remains the same.
If you make something and I make nothing, where does the wealth begin to concentrate?
Is it a 'flaw' in capitalism, or just reality observed?
Is the 'problem' that you made something, or is the 'problem' that I made nothing?

If you make boiled peanuts to sell on the roadside and someone else organizes thousands of people to design, build and operate re-useable space rockets, guess which one is more valuable to society, and where the wealth will concentrate.



Only if you view the pie of wealth as fixed, wherein my accumulation of wealth necessarily means your loss.

Most of what I think you would identify as extreme wealth is just ownership of massive capital equipment supplying the needs of millions of people. It didn't exist before, it wasn't taken from someone else.



The finite resources that compose your phone have, if separated into their constituent elements and piled on your desk, what value? You'd probably pay someone to take away the mess!
But apply accrued human knowledge and creativity to those few ounces of elements and you can have something worth over a thousand dollars to some people.
Are we limited by the finite world, or actually only limited by what understanding we gain and apply to the finite world?

If you thought that wealth was fixed by finite reality, and not by the application of understanding and effort, I get how you'd think one person with a lot of wealth has it necessarily at the expense of anyone with less. But that isn't how wealth actually works.



Me too.
Ain't we special?



My fear of communism started after seeing the Berlin Wall and the crosses.
I guess you could say Khrushchev fed me that. So if you want to blame someone, blame him.

I wanted to understand how the German people, world renowned as brilliant and industrious, could thrive under one set of conditions and so visibly struggle under another.

At its root, the differences were between societies constructed on compulsion vs. freedom - bureaucratic diktat vs personal choice.
That's why I'm always wary of the people offering bureaucracy and diktats as the 'solution' to the problems they perceive.

Dude, just stop with this Ben Shapiro nonsense. You’re not trying to understand my point either as I’m making it or as I’m alluding to how history makes it for me. You’re just looking for ways to twist and turn words into new meanings to form an oppositional argument.

Im not interested in playing that game.

Example: I am not, and if you were ever interested in trying to actually understand my point this would be crystal clear, taking about wealth concentrating to this or that person. I mean, if you read my words with even an iota of interest in anything other than trying to find holes to poke in them, you would never even consider your peanuts to rockets metaphor. It has NOTHING to do with how I am discussing power/wealth concentration.

 

[seminole97]

Example: I am not, and if you were ever interested in trying to actually understand my point this would be crystal clear, taking about wealth concentrating to this or that person.

So where is it concentrating if not in the hands of people (e.g. Bezos, Musk, etc.)?

Illuminati?

 

[Moral]

I have a simple response to the original question posed. Capitalism is thought of so highly because it is the best economic reflection of the actual human condition. No human is perfect, no one begins their life journey or ends their journey at the same place. Life offers no guarantees. We make of ourselves what we can based on our opportunities work ethic and perseverance, and yes luck. Nothing is fair in life but we all have the chance to become the best version of ourselves, if we choose to do so.

Capitalism is the closest economic system to actual life. It allows each person the opportunity to become what he or she chooses. Like life, there are no guarantees but there is always hope and possibility. No other economic system offers that.

Please tell me you started to tear up when you were typing this.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Please tell me you started to tear up when you were typing this.

 

[An Iowa fan]

I have a simple response to the original question posed. Capitalism is thought of so highly because it is the best economic reflection of the actual human condition. No human is perfect, no one begins their life journey or ends their journey at the same place. Life offers no guarantees. We make of ourselves what we can based on our opportunities work ethic and perseverance, and yes luck. Nothing is fair in life but we all have the chance to become the best version of ourselves, if we choose to do so.

Capitalism is the closest economic system to actual life. It allows each person the opportunity to become what he or she chooses. Like life, there are no guarantees but there is always hope and possibility. No other economic system offers that.

This is one of the best posts ever on this site.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

This is one of the best posts ever on this site.

Do you mean that it's one of the best in a serious way? Or is it one of the best in a double reverse HORT funnies way?

 

[Always a Hawkeye]

Do you mean that it's one of the best in a serious way? Or is it one of the best in a double reverse HORT funnies way?

Everything in that post is true and factual.

 

[An Iowa fan]

Do you mean that it's one of the best in a serious way? Or is it one of the best in a double reverse HORT funnies way?

I live my life as that post has stated. Everybody should. Life is not fair but go out and take risks and work hard.

 

[onlyTheObvious]

Thank god for the electoral college after reading this shit.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

I live my life as that post has stated. Everybody should. Life is not fair but go out and take risks and work hard.

Get on with your bad self.

I'm starting to understand why so many here at HORT seem to get defensive when trying to talk about this subject. The concept of capitalism seems to be part of people's perception of themselves and their personality as oppised to a blanket term of a whole range of governmental policies.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Everything in that post is true and factual.

I don't think you know what those words mean.

 

[An Iowa fan]

Jesus, all you guys do is complain and criticize every damn thing.
Get out and enjoy your life for crying out loud.

 

[Colonoscopy]

Get on with your bad self.

I'm starting to understand why so many here at HORT seem to get defensive when trying to talk about this subject. The concept of capitalism seems to be part of people's perception of themselves and their personality as oppised to a blanket term of a whole range of governmental policies.

Right. I view it as a dumb mechanistic thing we allow to operate to X unfettered level in our economy.

But most people wrap so much into it. You can't even have these conversations without unpacking what the hell people have loaded the term up with. (Good bad or in-between)

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Right. I view it as a dumb mechanistic thing we allow to operate to X unfettered level in our economy.

But most people wrap so much into it. You can't even have these conversations without unpacking what the hell people have loaded the term up with. (Good bad or in-between)

I'd like this post more than once if possible.

It's sad and doesn't bode well for the nation's ability to reform in the future if necessary.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Jesus, all you guys do is complain and criticize every damn thing.
Get out and enjoy your life for crying out loud.

Wut?

 

[An Iowa fan]

I try to be a positive person. That attitude doesn’t fit this site at all. Sorry to have bothered you all.