what are we talking about when we talk about Capitalism (not quite R.Carver) - Page 37

blip · 2015-10-23, 21:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

How do you define the alternative to capitalism?

This of course depends on: How do you define capitalism?

ewmayer · 2015-10-24, 01:00

Re. the dueling-definition games, my bottom line is based on the famous aphorism of Aristotle: "We are what we repeatedly do." So when leading advocates of so-called Free Trade end up giving us treaties like NAFTA or the in-the-final-phase-of-top-secret-negotiations TPP and TTIP, which propose to abdicate the sovereignty of the signatory nations and allow stateless multinational corporations to sue them over 'lost future profits' for, say, passing domestic environmental or or worker-protection laws and mandate that such disputes be decided by a stateless supranational kangaroo court stacked with corporatists, then I say if that's what you mean by Free Trade, it's destroying the world in order to massively enrich a tiny clique of 'looter elites'.

Pertinent to this shining success that is 'Free Trade' as it's actually been practiced by its advocates for the past 30-40 years:

Failure of Globalization and the Fourth Estate | naked capitalism

blip · 2015-10-24, 06:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

So all of Capitalism's and free markets' detractors,
how do you define the alternative?

The world is not only black and white: Social Market Economy

kladner · 2015-10-24, 07:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by blip

The world is not only black and white: Social Market Economy

Thanks for the very informative link.

davar55 · 2015-10-27, 13:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by blip

The world is not only black and white: Social Market Economy

No, the world IS black and white. If you mix food (capitalism) with poison (socialism)
you get the mixed welfare economy, which is still (diluter) poison.

blip · 2015-10-27, 14:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

No, the world IS black and white. If you mix food (capitalism) with poison (socialism)
you get the mixed welfare economy, which is still (diluter) poison.

Don't confuse social with socialistic.

Batalov · 2015-10-27, 16:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

No, the world IS black and white.

And there you have it. You yourself found the problem that stymies you in your perception of the world.

This is not an assessment - this is merely an observation which is aimed to help you.

kladner · 2015-10-27, 19:09

A graphic novelization of the revolutionary life and legacy of “Red Rosa” Luxemburg
By Kate Evans

jasong · 2015-10-28, 04:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

No, the world IS black and white. If you mix food (capitalism) with poison (socialism)
you get the mixed welfare economy, which is still (diluter) poison.

A few pages back, you said people should follow the golden rule, but do you even remember the golden rule?

Do to others as you would have them do to you. So if you approve of capitalism, the idea of competitive markets, how does that tie into the golden rule?

I'm not advocating socialism in widespread form, but that's simply because I don't trust society. Capitalism doesn't work because it's better, it works because it allows for the reality that people will tend to be bastards when given the opportunity.

If the whole planet followed the golden rule, then the planet would be either socialist or communist because people would truly see others needs as equal to their own. Again, I'm not advocating for those types of governments, just trying to get you to understand socialism isn't evil and capitalism isn't people being awesome.

LaurV · 2015-10-28, 05:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

No, the world IS black and white. If you mix food (capitalism) with poison (socialism)
you get the mixed welfare economy, which is still (diluter) poison.

Yeah, we know, "if you put a drop of wine in a barrel of sewage water, you get a barrel of sewage water; if you put a drop of sewage water in a barrel of wine, you get a barrel of sewage water". But that is Murphy. Life is a bit different...

blip · 2015-10-28, 05:59

Just forget about socialism, that's a dead horse.

The key question is, whether economics dominate politics or vice versa. IMHO, the political system always has to define the rules economics have to adhere to, not the other way round. Economics does not care about morale, social standards, inequalities, etc. Political decisionmaking has to drive lawmaking, which then defines the fence for all other systems in society. The economical system has to comply with that and play within its playground. Obviously, sometimes some players in the economical world do not like that, but hey, that's the way it is. Screaming "unfair" (read: "socialism") reminds me of small kids.

2015-10-27, 19:09	#404
kladner "Kieren" Jul 2011 In My Own Galaxy! 2·3·1,693 Posts	The Radical Life of Rosa Luxemburg A graphic novelization of the revolutionary life and legacy of “Red Rosa” Luxemburg By Kate Evans

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Vehicles that talk amongst themselves	retina	Science & Technology	74	2020-01-06 08:26
Let's talk about the weather	gd_barnes	No Prime Left Behind	30	2011-07-28 22:41
Talk on gpuLucas at GPGPU-4 Workshop in March	Andrew Thall	GPU Computing	6	2011-02-03 14:46
Non-Prime95 clients talking to PrimeNet... can it be done?	GP2	PrimeNet	12	2003-11-30 17:34

2015-10-24, 01:00	#398
ewmayer ∂²ω=0 Sep 2002 República de California 26577₈ Posts	Re. the dueling-definition games, my bottom line is based on the famous aphorism of Aristotle: "We are what we repeatedly do." So when leading advocates of so-called Free Trade end up giving us treaties like NAFTA or the in-the-final-phase-of-top-secret-negotiations TPP and TTIP, which propose to abdicate the sovereignty of the signatory nations and allow stateless multinational corporations to sue them over 'lost future profits' for, say, passing domestic environmental or or worker-protection laws and mandate that such disputes be decided by a stateless supranational kangaroo court stacked with corporatists, then I say if that's what you mean by Free Trade, it's destroying the world in order to massively enrich a tiny clique of 'looter elites'. Pertinent to this shining success that is 'Free Trade' as it's actually been practiced by its advocates for the past 30-40 years: Failure of Globalization and the Fourth Estate \| naked capitalism

2015-10-28, 05:59	#407
blip Jan 2014 92₁₆ Posts	Just forget about socialism, that's a dead horse. The key question is, whether economics dominate politics or vice versa. IMHO, the political system always has to define the rules economics have to adhere to, not the other way round. Economics does not care about morale, social standards, inequalities, etc. Political decisionmaking has to drive lawmaking, which then defines the fence for all other systems in society. The economical system has to comply with that and play within its playground. Obviously, sometimes some players in the economical world do not like that, but hey, that's the way it is. Screaming "unfair" (read: "socialism") reminds me of small kids.