Confused by (so called) "capitalism"
-
I am confused because... there are many conflicting thing that people call capitalism, they can't all be!
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
A lot of people confuse Libertarism[^] with capitalism. A lot of people confuse communism with socialism. When one is sooooo entrenched in his own definition of his way of life that he loose all sense of reality and more importantly judgement and rationality.
I'd rather be phishing!
-
May people say (to summarize) "capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system" Let say I kind of agree with that statement. Then they go on saying we should abolish tax, promote small government, blah blah, .. here I loose the plot.. This "pro capitalist" people seems to think that capitalism is anarchy. Yet anarchy has never happened and it has never been validated by past success (guess what? tax in the US were higher in the 50s). In a word I think there is a very big fallacy running around people where people attribute past success of A (what I think is capitalism) to B (which is Anarchy, and has obviously no links with past success except for the renaming) and go on promote B (Anarchy) because it is supposedly successful like A (free enterprise, rule of law) this article made everything clear! :) http://progressiveliving.org/economics/capitalism_socialism_communism.htm[^] Further this one elaborate nicely on common confusions.. http://www.nolanchart.com/article4246-socialism-and-capitalism.html[^] Anyhow while I wanted to rename my political affiliation as "socialist capitalist" I think I would have to change (to avoid confusion) into "free entrepreneur rules of law socialist" less ambiguous! Speaking of which is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law (as opposed to the will of despot) and private property and free enterprise (as government ownership)???
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
Super Lloyd wrote:
capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system
Want to try that at home? Capitalism only works on the large scale. Communism only works on the small scale. As to taxes the rest of what you ask; I dunno. P.S. I just finished reading the first of those. I laughed a bit at " (Note the power of motivation centered on equity-building instead of the fear of loss of employment.) " (regarding ESOPs) It can still be a fear of loss of employment; perhaps even moreso because so much more can be lost. Loss of a low-paying job is a smaller loss than loss of a high-paying job. With so few ESOPs, can you really get a job at another? Will you need to relocate? I worked for an employee-owned company for a few years and everyone there seemed frantic about putting every last available penny into the company and worried about what would happen if they lost their jobs. It was ridiculous.
-
A lot of people confuse Libertarism[^] with capitalism. A lot of people confuse communism with socialism. When one is sooooo entrenched in his own definition of his way of life that he loose all sense of reality and more importantly judgement and rationality.
I'd rather be phishing!
Thanks hey! :)
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
-
May people say (to summarize) "capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system" Let say I kind of agree with that statement. Then they go on saying we should abolish tax, promote small government, blah blah, .. here I loose the plot.. This "pro capitalist" people seems to think that capitalism is anarchy. Yet anarchy has never happened and it has never been validated by past success (guess what? tax in the US were higher in the 50s). In a word I think there is a very big fallacy running around people where people attribute past success of A (what I think is capitalism) to B (which is Anarchy, and has obviously no links with past success except for the renaming) and go on promote B (Anarchy) because it is supposedly successful like A (free enterprise, rule of law) this article made everything clear! :) http://progressiveliving.org/economics/capitalism_socialism_communism.htm[^] Further this one elaborate nicely on common confusions.. http://www.nolanchart.com/article4246-socialism-and-capitalism.html[^] Anyhow while I wanted to rename my political affiliation as "socialist capitalist" I think I would have to change (to avoid confusion) into "free entrepreneur rules of law socialist" less ambiguous! Speaking of which is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law (as opposed to the will of despot) and private property and free enterprise (as government ownership)???
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
Super Lloyd wrote:
Confused by (so called) "capitalism"
What's so confusing about
.ToUpper()? ;P /raviMy new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
Super Lloyd wrote:
Confused by (so called) "capitalism"
What's so confusing about
.ToUpper()? ;P /raviMy new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
+5 Ravi !!
-
Super Lloyd wrote:
Confused by (so called) "capitalism"
What's so confusing about
.ToUpper()? ;P /raviMy new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
It's just too liberal in its approach.
-
Super Lloyd wrote:
Confused by (so called) "capitalism"
What's so confusing about
.ToUpper()? ;P /raviMy new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
Good one! ^^
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
-
May people say (to summarize) "capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system" Let say I kind of agree with that statement. Then they go on saying we should abolish tax, promote small government, blah blah, .. here I loose the plot.. This "pro capitalist" people seems to think that capitalism is anarchy. Yet anarchy has never happened and it has never been validated by past success (guess what? tax in the US were higher in the 50s). In a word I think there is a very big fallacy running around people where people attribute past success of A (what I think is capitalism) to B (which is Anarchy, and has obviously no links with past success except for the renaming) and go on promote B (Anarchy) because it is supposedly successful like A (free enterprise, rule of law) this article made everything clear! :) http://progressiveliving.org/economics/capitalism_socialism_communism.htm[^] Further this one elaborate nicely on common confusions.. http://www.nolanchart.com/article4246-socialism-and-capitalism.html[^] Anyhow while I wanted to rename my political affiliation as "socialist capitalist" I think I would have to change (to avoid confusion) into "free entrepreneur rules of law socialist" less ambiguous! Speaking of which is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law (as opposed to the will of despot) and private property and free enterprise (as government ownership)???
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
Capitalism is an economic system. Socialism is a political system. They are not mutually exclusive...in the short run. In the long run, not so much. Communism is the ultimate end-point of socialism, if people decide they want to keep the Socialist system going. It embodies both the economic and political. (Countries are too large to effectively leave the "means of production" in the hands of the workers. On a small scale, it should work just fine.) Yeah, this is a simplistic explanation. Lounge post, not Masters thesis.
-
May people say (to summarize) "capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system" Let say I kind of agree with that statement. Then they go on saying we should abolish tax, promote small government, blah blah, .. here I loose the plot.. This "pro capitalist" people seems to think that capitalism is anarchy. Yet anarchy has never happened and it has never been validated by past success (guess what? tax in the US were higher in the 50s). In a word I think there is a very big fallacy running around people where people attribute past success of A (what I think is capitalism) to B (which is Anarchy, and has obviously no links with past success except for the renaming) and go on promote B (Anarchy) because it is supposedly successful like A (free enterprise, rule of law) this article made everything clear! :) http://progressiveliving.org/economics/capitalism_socialism_communism.htm[^] Further this one elaborate nicely on common confusions.. http://www.nolanchart.com/article4246-socialism-and-capitalism.html[^] Anyhow while I wanted to rename my political affiliation as "socialist capitalist" I think I would have to change (to avoid confusion) into "free entrepreneur rules of law socialist" less ambiguous! Speaking of which is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law (as opposed to the will of despot) and private property and free enterprise (as government ownership)???
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
if(Discussion.ContainsBitwise(DiscussionTypes.Political | Disucssion.Types.Ideological) { Discussion.Move(CP.Forums.SoapBox); return; }
Google CEO, Erich Schmidt: "I keep asking for a product called Serendipity. This product would have access to everything ever written or recorded, know everything the user ever worked on and saved to his or her personal hard drive, and know a whole lot about the user's tastes, friends and predilections." 2004, USA Today interview
-
May people say (to summarize) "capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system" Let say I kind of agree with that statement. Then they go on saying we should abolish tax, promote small government, blah blah, .. here I loose the plot.. This "pro capitalist" people seems to think that capitalism is anarchy. Yet anarchy has never happened and it has never been validated by past success (guess what? tax in the US were higher in the 50s). In a word I think there is a very big fallacy running around people where people attribute past success of A (what I think is capitalism) to B (which is Anarchy, and has obviously no links with past success except for the renaming) and go on promote B (Anarchy) because it is supposedly successful like A (free enterprise, rule of law) this article made everything clear! :) http://progressiveliving.org/economics/capitalism_socialism_communism.htm[^] Further this one elaborate nicely on common confusions.. http://www.nolanchart.com/article4246-socialism-and-capitalism.html[^] Anyhow while I wanted to rename my political affiliation as "socialist capitalist" I think I would have to change (to avoid confusion) into "free entrepreneur rules of law socialist" less ambiguous! Speaking of which is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law (as opposed to the will of despot) and private property and free enterprise (as government ownership)???
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
Super Lloyd wrote:
May people say (to summarize) "capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system"
Let say I kind of agree with that statement.Which is, of course, incomplete as well as incorrect. Which form of capitalism are we talking about? The anglosaxon version, the so-called Reaganomics? Or the Rheinlandic model of capitalism? ..and what did we have "before" capitalism? :)
Super Lloyd wrote:
This "pro capitalist" people seems to think that capitalism is anarchy.
The anglo-saxon form of capitalism resembles indeed anarchy. It's the "right of the strongest", with the amount of capital determining relative strength.
Super Lloyd wrote:
Speaking of which is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law
You're mixing politics and economics. I'd say democracy might work, but only if the voters can make an informed decision (not just a vote for popularity) Law itself is always just the list of rules that the ruling group defines. Paper is patient, and laws did not help prevent a financial melt-down.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
if(Discussion.ContainsBitwise(DiscussionTypes.Political | Disucssion.Types.Ideological) { Discussion.Move(CP.Forums.SoapBox); return; }
Google CEO, Erich Schmidt: "I keep asking for a product called Serendipity. This product would have access to everything ever written or recorded, know everything the user ever worked on and saved to his or her personal hard drive, and know a whole lot about the user's tastes, friends and predilections." 2004, USA Today interview
Obligatory style pedantry:
MoveResult result = default(MoveResult);
if ((Discussion.Type & (DiscussionTypes.Political | DiscussionTypes.Ideological)) != 0)
{
result = Discussion.Move(CP.Forums.SoapBox);
}
return result;Software Zen:
delete this; -
May people say (to summarize) "capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system" Let say I kind of agree with that statement. Then they go on saying we should abolish tax, promote small government, blah blah, .. here I loose the plot.. This "pro capitalist" people seems to think that capitalism is anarchy. Yet anarchy has never happened and it has never been validated by past success (guess what? tax in the US were higher in the 50s). In a word I think there is a very big fallacy running around people where people attribute past success of A (what I think is capitalism) to B (which is Anarchy, and has obviously no links with past success except for the renaming) and go on promote B (Anarchy) because it is supposedly successful like A (free enterprise, rule of law) this article made everything clear! :) http://progressiveliving.org/economics/capitalism_socialism_communism.htm[^] Further this one elaborate nicely on common confusions.. http://www.nolanchart.com/article4246-socialism-and-capitalism.html[^] Anyhow while I wanted to rename my political affiliation as "socialist capitalist" I think I would have to change (to avoid confusion) into "free entrepreneur rules of law socialist" less ambiguous! Speaking of which is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law (as opposed to the will of despot) and private property and free enterprise (as government ownership)???
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
Isn't it a fallacy to claim that small government and anarchy are the same thing?
-
Super Lloyd wrote:
May people say (to summarize) "capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system"
Let say I kind of agree with that statement.Which is, of course, incomplete as well as incorrect. Which form of capitalism are we talking about? The anglosaxon version, the so-called Reaganomics? Or the Rheinlandic model of capitalism? ..and what did we have "before" capitalism? :)
Super Lloyd wrote:
This "pro capitalist" people seems to think that capitalism is anarchy.
The anglo-saxon form of capitalism resembles indeed anarchy. It's the "right of the strongest", with the amount of capital determining relative strength.
Super Lloyd wrote:
Speaking of which is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law
You're mixing politics and economics. I'd say democracy might work, but only if the voters can make an informed decision (not just a vote for popularity) Law itself is always just the list of rules that the ruling group defines. Paper is patient, and laws did not help prevent a financial melt-down.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Law itself is always just the list of rules that the ruling group defines. Paper is patient, and laws did not help prevent a financial melt-down.
The rule of laws as opposed to the whim of the powerful. England is a Monarchy, yet the queen can't detain someone for no reason on a whim. On the other hand they do it in the US (detain people on a whim) so they have definitely left the rule of law and started to slide into (slight) dictatorship! :omg:
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Law itself is always just the list of rules that the ruling group defines. Paper is patient, and laws did not help prevent a financial melt-down.
The rule of laws as opposed to the whim of the powerful. England is a Monarchy, yet the queen can't detain someone for no reason on a whim. On the other hand they do it in the US (detain people on a whim) so they have definitely left the rule of law and started to slide into (slight) dictatorship! :omg:
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
Super Lloyd wrote:
The rule of laws as opposed to the whim of the powerful.
The laws are usually dictated by the powerfull.
Super Lloyd wrote:
England is a Monarchy, yet the queen can't detain someone for no reason on a whim.
It's not exactly a monarchy any more. And I'd point to corporations being "the powerfull" these days.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
May people say (to summarize) "capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system" Let say I kind of agree with that statement. Then they go on saying we should abolish tax, promote small government, blah blah, .. here I loose the plot.. This "pro capitalist" people seems to think that capitalism is anarchy. Yet anarchy has never happened and it has never been validated by past success (guess what? tax in the US were higher in the 50s). In a word I think there is a very big fallacy running around people where people attribute past success of A (what I think is capitalism) to B (which is Anarchy, and has obviously no links with past success except for the renaming) and go on promote B (Anarchy) because it is supposedly successful like A (free enterprise, rule of law) this article made everything clear! :) http://progressiveliving.org/economics/capitalism_socialism_communism.htm[^] Further this one elaborate nicely on common confusions.. http://www.nolanchart.com/article4246-socialism-and-capitalism.html[^] Anyhow while I wanted to rename my political affiliation as "socialist capitalist" I think I would have to change (to avoid confusion) into "free entrepreneur rules of law socialist" less ambiguous! Speaking of which is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law (as opposed to the will of despot) and private property and free enterprise (as government ownership)???
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
The economic model and the political model and the labels they are given are irrelevant. In any system, you will find people that abuse it, and until we, as humanity, mature enough to stop being abusive, all of those systems will eventually degrade into corruption, regardless of how many checks and balances (laws, etc) are put into place, which merely leads to the second condition of a degraded model, that being over-complexity. Marc
-
May people say (to summarize) "capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system" Let say I kind of agree with that statement. Then they go on saying we should abolish tax, promote small government, blah blah, .. here I loose the plot.. This "pro capitalist" people seems to think that capitalism is anarchy. Yet anarchy has never happened and it has never been validated by past success (guess what? tax in the US were higher in the 50s). In a word I think there is a very big fallacy running around people where people attribute past success of A (what I think is capitalism) to B (which is Anarchy, and has obviously no links with past success except for the renaming) and go on promote B (Anarchy) because it is supposedly successful like A (free enterprise, rule of law) this article made everything clear! :) http://progressiveliving.org/economics/capitalism_socialism_communism.htm[^] Further this one elaborate nicely on common confusions.. http://www.nolanchart.com/article4246-socialism-and-capitalism.html[^] Anyhow while I wanted to rename my political affiliation as "socialist capitalist" I think I would have to change (to avoid confusion) into "free entrepreneur rules of law socialist" less ambiguous! Speaking of which is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law (as opposed to the will of despot) and private property and free enterprise (as government ownership)???
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
Your love for law seem rather strange and displaced judging by your inability to follow one simple rule of this board and then you dare to judge other's people opinions. :doh:
-
The economic model and the political model and the labels they are given are irrelevant. In any system, you will find people that abuse it, and until we, as humanity, mature enough to stop being abusive, all of those systems will eventually degrade into corruption, regardless of how many checks and balances (laws, etc) are put into place, which merely leads to the second condition of a degraded model, that being over-complexity. Marc
Sadly, I have to agree. I hardly think that most political systems are by intent, designed to hurt people or prevent people from being successful. It is the despots, the greedy and the selfish who ruin it for everyone else.
It was broke, so I fixed it.
-
May people say (to summarize) "capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system" Let say I kind of agree with that statement. Then they go on saying we should abolish tax, promote small government, blah blah, .. here I loose the plot.. This "pro capitalist" people seems to think that capitalism is anarchy. Yet anarchy has never happened and it has never been validated by past success (guess what? tax in the US were higher in the 50s). In a word I think there is a very big fallacy running around people where people attribute past success of A (what I think is capitalism) to B (which is Anarchy, and has obviously no links with past success except for the renaming) and go on promote B (Anarchy) because it is supposedly successful like A (free enterprise, rule of law) this article made everything clear! :) http://progressiveliving.org/economics/capitalism_socialism_communism.htm[^] Further this one elaborate nicely on common confusions.. http://www.nolanchart.com/article4246-socialism-and-capitalism.html[^] Anyhow while I wanted to rename my political affiliation as "socialist capitalist" I think I would have to change (to avoid confusion) into "free entrepreneur rules of law socialist" less ambiguous! Speaking of which is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law (as opposed to the will of despot) and private property and free enterprise (as government ownership)???
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
You might enjoy Charles Dicken's endictment of the flow of time T0 through T10000 entitled "Great Expectations". I'll certainly take exception to the term "fallacy" too while I'm on point. Except for this satirically subjective slant on communism you provide in it's primitive clay state, not yet seen through the plastic bag in which you've exposed it in the box, it smells like clay, yes. Not capitalism, right. And THAT doesn't smell like clay. So here's the problem. I've got to click on this link. And I'm not going to do that. Because I think you're drunk. But I do think some bug has crawled up your yinyang and you're hopping mad about it. So, Pip, this is a morality play. The whole big life thing. Spoiler alert: the guy who asked you for the file is your father! ;)
-
Super Lloyd wrote:
capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system
Want to try that at home? Capitalism only works on the large scale. Communism only works on the small scale. As to taxes the rest of what you ask; I dunno. P.S. I just finished reading the first of those. I laughed a bit at " (Note the power of motivation centered on equity-building instead of the fear of loss of employment.) " (regarding ESOPs) It can still be a fear of loss of employment; perhaps even moreso because so much more can be lost. Loss of a low-paying job is a smaller loss than loss of a high-paying job. With so few ESOPs, can you really get a job at another? Will you need to relocate? I worked for an employee-owned company for a few years and everyone there seemed frantic about putting every last available penny into the company and worried about what would happen if they lost their jobs. It was ridiculous.
A great way to make money online is with blogging with john chow review check it out.
-
The economic model and the political model and the labels they are given are irrelevant. In any system, you will find people that abuse it, and until we, as humanity, mature enough to stop being abusive, all of those systems will eventually degrade into corruption, regardless of how many checks and balances (laws, etc) are put into place, which merely leads to the second condition of a degraded model, that being over-complexity. Marc
I think I agree with the degradation... Follow by a painful readjustment phase... We can see it in effect in the US already from manufacturing and science super power in the beginning of the century to over indebted, aging infrastructure, weakened economy now... Thankfully we got global competition and awareness now to speed up things. I just hope a renewal will come without war and not too painfully...
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!