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

[davar55]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

I agree. And isn't "helping others to escape those same troubles " synonymous with socialism which a few posts ago you professed not to advocate? (Or did you mean something else when you referred to "nanny socialism"?)

OF COURSE NOT.

People, WHEN FREE, are almost uniformly GENEROUS. When not free, as under any
economic system OTHER than capitalism, generosity becomes self-sacrifice and not
to anyone's benefit or under such circumstance their desire. No one but the criminal
benefits from socialism or communism.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Okay, I'll rephrase the question (to davar55 or to anyone). Aren't significant state-owned resources a necessary prerequisite to ensuring that everyone is able to enjoy economic freedom regardless of their circumstances?

OF COURSE NOT.

Such resources ("significant state-owned") are either confiscatory (force or taxation) or if they exist in
a capitalism situation, obtained voluntarily and held for the purposes the citizens deem appropriate.

In the former case, they do no one good. In the latter, and only in the latter, may they be used for
proper purposes. Helping the disadvantaged can be accomplished with or without such govt
funding, depending on the non-disadvantaged population's value choices.

[Brian-E]

Davar55, while I agree that generosity is widespread amongst people who enjoy freedom, I see it mostly directed at those closest to them, such as immediate family. People who are severely disadvantaged in society in the way we just discussed, and who are not in the fortunate position of having well-off family members, are completely dependent on state support.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by davar55

OF COURSE NOT.

Such resources ("significant state-owned") are either confiscatory (force or taxation) or if they exist in
a capitalism situation, obtained voluntarily and held for the purposes the citizens deem appropriate.

I'm not sure where you're from, if you're not from the US, then this question might be unanswerable by you.

Do you consider the US Income Tax, as defined by the average income tax helpers that show up around the beginning of year, as a good idea or a bad idea? I ask because you say state-owned resources are confiscatory, which appears to be what is happening in the US with the US "income tax."

I put the quotes at the end of the last paragraph because what the Internal Revenue Code actually says and what the IRS snakes claim it says are worlds apart.

Sorry if I'm seen as hijacking the thread, I have my own strong opinions about how things are done.

mod:

Sorry if I'm seen as hijacking the thread, I have my own strong opinions about how things are done.

This is on-topic IMO because collecting taxes is part of our primarily capitalist system and also because part of the reason this thread was split off of another thread was to entertain complaints and plaudits about the systems in and among capitalistic enterprise. Also I added the word snakes for extra voodoo powers of relevance.
Regards,
Ross

[davar55]

Pure Capitalism vs. Income Taxes - that's a punch-'em-out if I ever heard of one.

Round one:
How much government is really necessary, and how do we pay for it.

Round two:
Could government financing ever be completely voluntary.

Umm, this may be going the distance.

(I have my opinions, and ideas, but they're too preliminary.
I'll wait for a later Round.)

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Okay, I'll rephrase the question (to davar55 or to anyone). Aren't significant state-owned resources a necessary prerequisite to ensuring that everyone is able to enjoy economic freedom regardless of their circumstances?

I don't see the need to conflate 'common pool resource' (e.g. water in my drought-stricken state of CA) and 'state ownership'. The chief role of the democratic state in promoting the welfare of all its citizens - which implies restraining the inevitable tendency of wealthy interests to run amok and gobble up everything - is to provide a level economic playing field which fosters entrepreneurship and fair competition. Delusional glibertarians prattle on about 'free markets' implying an absence of government regulation, but the many-thousand-year history of all kinds of markets worldwide has shown without a doubt that the 'freest markets' in the above sense of promoting innovation and better ideas are those which are well-regulated. Not heavily, but well - 2 very different things there. Some may argue that state 'stewardship' (via regulation) is not distinguishable from 'ownership', but I think the wording difference conveys a significantly different take. For instance, Yosemite is a famous national park, but 'the federal government owns Yosemite' implies they can dispose of it as they see fit, including (say) selling it to a foreign government or private entity to pay off a portion of the national debt. No, Yosemite is a common pool resource, belonging to 'the people', and the government's role is to protect said precious resource for the benefit of the people in perpetuity. See the difference?

Now back to government's role in making and regulating markets - In general you don't need oodles of regulation - what you need is straightforward common-sense rules, and - most importantly, and most notably absent in all un-free markets, including the current global cancer of domination by, and loss of democracy and national sovereignty to, the supranational corporates - consistent and transparent enforcement of same. These so-called 'free trade' agreements (TPP, TTIP, etc) currently being negotiated in secret and shoved down people's throats thanks to 'U.S. leadership' have much less to do with free trade than they do with further enriching the megacorps (e.g. Big Pharma and Big Finance) which de facto run Washington DC, and trumping the signatory nations' ability to write what they consider reasonable regulations by way of a corporate-stooge-dominated supranational 'court system' (ISDS), whose decisions cannot be appealed. I've been covering this over in the MET thread, so no need to belabor it here.

Dave, what are your thoughts on the above trade agreements, and what did you think of Hillary's Big Economic Speech yesterday, in which she - where have we heard this song & dance before? - 'took Wall Street to task'?

[only_human]

The Myth of the Ethical Shopper

[kladner]

Originally Posted by only_human

The Myth of the Ethical Shopper

Make it yourself, or go naked? But that begs the question of where and by whom the thread was spun and the cloth woven. Is collective guilt inescapable?

[only_human]

Originally Posted by kladner

Make it yourself, or go naked? But that begs the question of where and by whom the thread was spun and the cloth woven. Is collective guilt inescapable?

Dunno, but big business has a hard time being ethical even when it tries. Middle men and outsourcing lead to a lot of diminished responsibilities and ease of finger pointing. Going local has its own shams of sourcing or efficiency. Sucks to not have a manufacturing base any more. Not many people would be employed for something built today anyway.

p.s.
I'm just saying directing money for a good cause is hard and it is much easier to feel like an activist for responsible directing of money than to actually be one.
The Real Story of the 6 Homes in Haiti: Answering Your Questions

[davar55]

Originally Posted by davar55

Pure Capitalism vs. Income Taxes - that's a punch-'em-out if I ever heard of one.
Round one:
How much government is really necessary, and how do we pay for it.
Round two:
Could government financing ever be completely voluntary.
Umm, this may be going the distance.
(I have my opinions, and ideas, but they're too preliminary.
I'll wait for a later Round.)

Originally Posted by ewmayer

I don't see the need to conflate 'common pool resource' (e.g. water in my drought-stricken state of CA) and 'state ownership'. The chief role of the democratic state in promoting the welfare of all its citizens - which implies restraining the inevitable tendency of wealthy interests to run amok and gobble up everything - is to provide a level economic playing field which fosters entrepreneurship and fair competition. Delusional glibertarians prattle on about 'free markets' implying an absence of government regulation, but the many-thousand-year history of all kinds of markets worldwide has shown without a doubt that the 'freest markets' in the above sense of promoting innovation and better ideas are those which are well-regulated. Not heavily, but well - 2 very different things there. Some may argue that state 'stewardship' (via regulation) is not distinguishable from 'ownership', but I think the wording difference conveys a significantly different take. For instance, Yosemite is a famous national park, but 'the federal government owns Yosemite' implies they can dispose of it as they see fit, including (say) selling it to a foreign government or private entity to pay off a portion of the national debt. No, Yosemite is a common pool resource, belonging to 'the people', and the government's role is to protect said precious resource for the benefit of the people in perpetuity. See the difference?

Now back to government's role in making and regulating markets - In general you don't need oodles of regulation - what you need is straightforward common-sense rules, and - most importantly, and most notably absent in all un-free markets, including the current global cancer of domination by, and loss of democracy and national sovereignty to, the supranational corporates - consistent and transparent enforcement of same. These so-called 'free trade' agreements (TPP, TTIP, etc) currently being negotiated in secret and shoved down people's throats thanks to 'U.S. leadership' have much less to do with free trade than they do with further enriching the megacorps (e.g. Big Pharma and Big Finance) which de facto run Washington DC, and trumping the signatory nations' ability to write what they consider reasonable regulations by way of a corporate-stooge-dominated supranational 'court system' (ISDS), whose decisions cannot be appealed. I've been covering this over in the MET thread, so no need to belabor it here.

Dave, what are your thoughts on the above trade agreements, and what did you think of Hillary's Big Economic Speech yesterday, in which she - where have we heard this song & dance before? - 'took Wall Street to task'?

I believe the free trade agreements pop-up in round eight, Wall Street in round seven, and current political candidate's
speeches not till round eleven. I'm willing to go round one or two or, if you can title round three, then that. But these
details about the moment's economic fights, without basing them on a solid definition base, are just opinion (mine too,
I would admit), perhaps for your other econ thread. It's the basics that are basic, and need to be fleshed out.

[ewmayer]

“Conscious Capitalism” Icon Whole Foods Exploits Prison Labor | Counterpunch

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, whose net worth exceeds $100 million, is a fervent proselytizer on behalf of “conscious capitalism.” A self-described libertarian, Mackey believes the solution to all of the world’s problems is letting corporations run amok, without regulation. He believes this so fervently, in fact, he wrote an entire book extolling the magnanimous virtue of the free market.

At the same time, while preaching the supposedly beneficent gospel of the “conscious capitalism,” Mackey’s company Whole Foods, which has a $13 billion and growing annual revenue, sells overpriced fish, milk, and gourmet cheeses cultivated by inmates in US prisons.

The renowned “green capitalist” organic supermarket chain pays what are effectively indentured servants in the Colorado prison system a mere $1.50 per hour to farm organic tilapia.

To be fair "Mackie the Knife" does specifically say "Conscious Capitalism", as opposed to "Conscientious Capitalism".