5 ms·

All I've stated thus far is that Capitalism is a stepping stone to something better. That is in itself an argument. You are asserting that capitalism is not an

by tkahn6 16y ago

All I've stated thus far is that Capitalism is a stepping stone to something better. That is in itself an argument. You are asserting that capitalism is not an ideal system but you are not backing up that assertion. The core idea of the free market is religion. What does this mean? And you don't even back up this claim. but we humans operate on incentives. Yes. The entire point of the free market is that people act in their own self interest. I can't semantically parse the rest of your text. Can you try restating it? Capitalism isn't evil, it's a cloak. The promise of success keeps us all herding towards the door of opportunity, but only a few pass almost regardless of intelligence, morals, motivations or intentions. When your insurance refuses coverage, it isn't because there's an evil asshole lurking to ensure you don't get what you deserve. Company A announces incentives for employers for saving the company money. Those who aren't on-board get reviews, get fired. The workers who respond to incentives deny your claim. You're now fucked, to put it lightly. Company A is now full of incentive-driven bias. This is just 1 course of Capitalism. You don't need me to dig up research or some book about societal structure and how it applies to Capitalism. You see it everyday. I don't understand any of this.

loewenskind 16y ago
>That is in itself an argument. You are asserting that capitalism is not an ideal system but you are not backing up that assertion. I'm not sure he was asserting as much as hoping or maybe suggesting. You sound like you're getting close to asserting that it is an ideal system though. Care to back that up? Neither claim could be backed up without trying different systems, but surely you have more optimism than to think what we have now is the best we can ever do.
- tkahn6 16y ago
  Ahhh What we have now is not the best we can do, but what we have isn't capitalism. So to claim that capitalism is the "beneath us as a society" means nothing because it's never been tried here. EDIT: And, if you've read the comments above, it's clear that, by his own admission, tomlin has never studied any economic system.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    I'd be interested to know what would need to happen for us to have a system that meets your definition of "capitalism". As far as I know the purest for that was ever attempted was in Chile under Pinochet. The "Chicago Boys" were given pretty much free reign, they tried to make the system just as Milton Friedman taught them and it was failing pretty spectacularly until they "slid the scale a little more toward socialism", if you will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile
    - tkahn6 16y ago
      Well first of all, it's not my definition of capitalism. It's Adam Smith's. When people think of 'capitalism' they usually think of anarchy and large mega-corporations that destroy the environment and do whatever the hell they want. There is regulation under capitalism. The government exists to protect private property, life, and to prosecute those who commit fraud. The recent financial crisis was primarily caused by millions of homeowners defaulting on their loans. I guess a first step we could take would be to 1) stop teaching kids that home ownership is necessary to be 'American', 2) stop giving out government-financed loans to first-time homeowners (through Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac) and 3) to shift regulation from capping what banks and mutual funds can do to making sure they aren't committing fraud. I'm not an economist but I think it's clear that the fact that the government (under Reagan ironically), made it its mission to put American's in homes. Great. But of course what happened was that many of these people that were initially given loans through this program defaulted on them.
      - loewenskind 16y ago
        >The recent financial crisis was primarily caused by millions of homeowners defaulting on their loans. Uh, that's a pretty simplistic view. The government-financed loans were an enabler, but people were using over-the-counter CDS' to short those loans (i.e. more than one "insurance policy" could exist per loan and it would be hard to even know who all had them unless the loan defaulted), rating agencies get paid by those they rate so they gave artificially good ratings, etc., etc. It was a perfect storm but to put the blame on those "darn irresponsible poor people" is so simplistic as to be absurd. >shift regulation from capping what banks and mutual funds can do to making sure they aren't committing fraud. There are many reason for the regulation on banks and mutual funds. It's not to make the country more socialist, it's to prevent short term focused bankers/fund managers from accidentally destroying the whole economy or pissing away thousands of people's retirement. >The government exists to protect private property, life, and to prosecute those who commit fraud. What about dealing with monopolies? If you believe in free market capitalism then you must know about elasticity of markets. Monopolies artificially destroy elasticity in whatever space they're in. In my opinion what the US government needs to do before anything else is start breaking down monopolies. "Too big to fail" is a big red flag that someone didn't do their job.
- tomlin 16y ago
  My point exactly. It seems foolish that all matters of life and systems in general evolve and yet our economic structure must remain the way it is.
tomlin 16y ago
I'm done here. At the heart of it all, you want me to prove that Capitalism isn't the best economic model because you fancy this extremely primitive means of sharing resources. That's fine. You seem rigid and embarrassingly religious when it comes to the idea of market innovation. When you say, You are asserting that capitalism is not an ideal system but you are not backing up that assertion., you're essentially saying that evolution in markets/systems doesn't exist. You want me to prove that evolution exists. Research and opinion is almost always temporary; as our world changes everyday, so does the research. Have ideas, not beliefs and allow them to evolve.
- tkahn6 16y ago
  At the heart of it all, you want me to prove that Capitalism isn't the best economic model because you fancy this extremely primitive means of sharing resources. That's fine. My god. Are you aware that you are the one with a near-religious anti-capitalist opinion? Just read the statement above. You're already convinced of the inviability of capitalism and so no argument will convince you otherwise. You're an idiot. Not because we disagree about whether capitalism is a viable economic system or not, but because you continue to argue with me over it and by your own admission you are ignorant and continue to remain ignorant about these matters. Your opinions about economics are purely emotional and based on hearsay. I have never said whether or not I think pure capitalism is the ideal economic system. My point all along has been that for you to say it is "beneath us as a society" is an empty statement because you haven't studied this at all. "We need something better." How can you say that when you don't even understand a single economic school of thought? I'm done too. This is really frustrating. I don't care if you agree or disagree with me about the viability of pure capitalism, but I can't even have an intelligent discussion with you.

by tkahn6 16y ago

loewenskind 16y ago

>That is in itself an argument. You are asserting that capitalism is not an ideal system but you are not backing up that assertion. I'm not sure he was asserting as much as hoping or maybe suggesting. You sound like you're getting close to asserting that it is an ideal system though. Care to back that up? Neither claim could be backed up without trying different systems, but surely you have more optimism than to think what we have now is the best we can ever do.

tkahn6 16y ago
Ahhh What we have now is not the best we can do, but what we have isn't capitalism. So to claim that capitalism is the "beneath us as a society" means nothing because it's never been tried here. EDIT: And, if you've read the comments above, it's clear that, by his own admission, tomlin has never studied any economic system.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  I'd be interested to know what would need to happen for us to have a system that meets your definition of "capitalism". As far as I know the purest for that was ever attempted was in Chile under Pinochet. The "Chicago Boys" were given pretty much free reign, they tried to make the system just as Milton Friedman taught them and it was failing pretty spectacularly until they "slid the scale a little more toward socialism", if you will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile
  - tkahn6 16y ago
    Well first of all, it's not my definition of capitalism. It's Adam Smith's. When people think of 'capitalism' they usually think of anarchy and large mega-corporations that destroy the environment and do whatever the hell they want. There is regulation under capitalism. The government exists to protect private property, life, and to prosecute those who commit fraud. The recent financial crisis was primarily caused by millions of homeowners defaulting on their loans. I guess a first step we could take would be to 1) stop teaching kids that home ownership is necessary to be 'American', 2) stop giving out government-financed loans to first-time homeowners (through Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac) and 3) to shift regulation from capping what banks and mutual funds can do to making sure they aren't committing fraud. I'm not an economist but I think it's clear that the fact that the government (under Reagan ironically), made it its mission to put American's in homes. Great. But of course what happened was that many of these people that were initially given loans through this program defaulted on them.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      >The recent financial crisis was primarily caused by millions of homeowners defaulting on their loans. Uh, that's a pretty simplistic view. The government-financed loans were an enabler, but people were using over-the-counter CDS' to short those loans (i.e. more than one "insurance policy" could exist per loan and it would be hard to even know who all had them unless the loan defaulted), rating agencies get paid by those they rate so they gave artificially good ratings, etc., etc. It was a perfect storm but to put the blame on those "darn irresponsible poor people" is so simplistic as to be absurd. >shift regulation from capping what banks and mutual funds can do to making sure they aren't committing fraud. There are many reason for the regulation on banks and mutual funds. It's not to make the country more socialist, it's to prevent short term focused bankers/fund managers from accidentally destroying the whole economy or pissing away thousands of people's retirement. >The government exists to protect private property, life, and to prosecute those who commit fraud. What about dealing with monopolies? If you believe in free market capitalism then you must know about elasticity of markets. Monopolies artificially destroy elasticity in whatever space they're in. In my opinion what the US government needs to do before anything else is start breaking down monopolies. "Too big to fail" is a big red flag that someone didn't do their job.
tomlin 16y ago
My point exactly. It seems foolish that all matters of life and systems in general evolve and yet our economic structure must remain the way it is.

tomlin 16y ago

I'm done here. At the heart of it all, you want me to prove that Capitalism isn't the best economic model because you fancy this extremely primitive means of sharing resources. That's fine. You seem rigid and embarrassingly religious when it comes to the idea of market innovation. When you say, You are asserting that capitalism is not an ideal system but you are not backing up that assertion., you're essentially saying that evolution in markets/systems doesn't exist. You want me to prove that evolution exists. Research and opinion is almost always temporary; as our world changes everyday, so does the research. Have ideas, not beliefs and allow them to evolve.

tkahn6 16y ago
At the heart of it all, you want me to prove that Capitalism isn't the best economic model because you fancy this extremely primitive means of sharing resources. That's fine. My god. Are you aware that you are the one with a near-religious anti-capitalist opinion? Just read the statement above. You're already convinced of the inviability of capitalism and so no argument will convince you otherwise. You're an idiot. Not because we disagree about whether capitalism is a viable economic system or not, but because you continue to argue with me over it and by your own admission you are ignorant and continue to remain ignorant about these matters. Your opinions about economics are purely emotional and based on hearsay. I have never said whether or not I think pure capitalism is the ideal economic system. My point all along has been that for you to say it is "beneath us as a society" is an empty statement because you haven't studied this at all. "We need something better." How can you say that when you don't even understand a single economic school of thought? I'm done too. This is really frustrating. I don't care if you agree or disagree with me about the viability of pure capitalism, but I can't even have an intelligent discussion with you.