Yes pure capitalism works. Ask ron paul.
I don't know Ron Paul, so just show me proof.
Yes pure capitalism works. Ask ron paul.
I can.So...can anybody argue that pure capitalism is not self-destructive?
In capitalism, there are no classes. Also, the accumulation of wealth into smaller and smaller numbers of hands is what happens under socialism, not capitalism.With the accumulation of wealth always going into a smaller and smaller number of hands, doesn't this erode the purchasing power of the working class along with their faith in the capitalist system?
There is regulation in a free market. Free choice. It is the most honest, egalitarian and powerful form of regulation available.Since there is no unregulated capitalist system operating (that I am aware of) I guess it's just theory, but it seems to hold true, and inevitably lead to more regulation in an attempt to reign it in.
I know you weren't arguing for Marxism.btw - I'm not espousing Marx (we know communism doesn't work), just attributing that theory to him because I think it was his and I'm too lazy to research it. He probably stole the theory from someone else, but it seems to hold true, and I would argue that socialism (and regulations) is the result of governments trying to control capitalism in an attempt to prevent it from eating itself.
In capitalism, more profit produces more opportunity to reinvest, which leads to more profit which leads to...in other words the rich get richer. This is not just a saying, but a provable point. In capitalism, wealth is accumulated into a smaller and smaller group of hands. They have no incentive to redistribute their own wealth, other than for tax purposes. In socialism the government attempts to forcibly redistribute some of that wealth so I can't see how that would lead to the accumulation of wealth into fewer hands.
Also, in capitalism there are certainly classes. There are the haves, and the have-nots. With vast wealth accumulated into fewer hands barriers to entry are raised in order for firms or individuals to block competition. This is why we have laws against monopoly's because they lead to inefficiencies.
Officials with G20 security released the following statement to Raw Story and other media outlets:
“Military members supporting the G20 Summit work with local law enforcement authorities but do not have the authority to make arrests. The individuals involved in the 9/24/09 arrest which has appeared online are law enforcement officers from a multi-agency tactical response team assigned to the security operations for the G20. It is not unusual for tactical team members to wear camouflaged fatigues. The type of fatigues the officers wear designates their unit affiliation.
Prior to the arrest, the officers observed this subject vandalizing a local business. Due to the hostile nature of the crowd, officer safety and the safety of the person under arrest, the subject was immediately removed from the area.”
So when you invest, is profit guaranteed? Do no rich people lose fortunes, and do no poor people make it big on the merit of their management, hustle and skills? How do you explain yourself homestyle?In capitalism, more profit produces more opportunity to reinvest, which leads to more profit which leads to...in other words the rich get richer.
It is a cliche. There is no proof of this being a consequence of capitalism. It is a consequence of fascism / corporatism / state capitalism, but it has nothing to do with free market capitalism. I would need some explanation of how profits are assured in a competitive system.This is not just a saying, but a provable point.
That is not capitalism. We're talking about two different things. We don't have capitalism. All appeals to what you see now, is not an argument against capitalism, it is an argument for capitalism.In capitalism, wealth is accumulated into a smaller and smaller group of hands.
Sure they do. They invest and create jobs, they consume the wealth they have accumulated. The government doesn't grow the economy with taxes, investors grow it with capital deployment. Taxes are a disincentive to produce, profit is an incentive to invest.They have no incentive to redistribute their own wealth, other than for tax purposes.
Because the power to redistribute never leads to egalitarian distribution. What happened in Russia? Oligarchy. What has happened in the west? Domination by multi-national corporations.In socialism the government attempts to forcibly redistribute some of that wealth so I can't see how that would lead to the accumulation of wealth into fewer hands.
Again, this is not capitalism. Regulation is a barrier to entry. It raises the entry costs to compete, and protect the established interests. This is why so many corporations and their lobbyists write the regulation for their industry. Even Marx understood that the state was used by these people to consolidate and protect their own power.Also, in capitalism there are certainly classes. There are the haves, and the have-nots. With vast wealth accumulated into fewer hands barriers to entry are raised in order for firms or individuals to block competition.
No, the state has always created monopolies through regulation and licensing. The first monopolies were grants by the King to be the exclusive provider to the kingdom for some particular good or service.This is why we have laws against monopoly's because they lead to inefficiencies.
This is really poor economic reasoning.In unregulated capitalism we would have monopolies controlling all markets as the richest would run at a loss in order to force their competition out of business.
No one has proven that it exists. Only asserted it. Based on fallacious reasoning in my opinion.Got that right. Nobody has adequately defended the destruction of capitalism by capitalist entities.
Do you know how many times I have heard this strawman?Guerilla, your arguments are Utopian and fail to take into account human nature.
No, the reason why communism doesn't work, is because it is not logically consistent.That was the same mistake made by Marx and his homies and why Communism never worked.
This is an extension of the strawman. You're asserting without proof.It looks great in a textbook, but doesn't work that way in practice.
Guerilla, your arguments are Utopian and fail to take into account human nature.
Oh c'mon now, no one is going to believe you started thinking.I think of him as the Libertarian Taliban.
A Talibertarian.
I'm pretty sure most people assumed it was to see if anyone was still paying attention after NickyGate.I'm sure many of you were wondering why I made this thread to begin with.