Capitalism Doesn't Work... So What Would?

[Billy T]

Again quad's correct. Unless you know someone with several 10+ million dollar homes you don't know any of the rich who need to be taxed more.

"... A surge in wealth from technology stock sales and initial public offerings is spilling into the Silicon Valley real estate market as newly rich workers bid up home values in suburban cities south of San Francisco. The median price of single-family houses sold in Palo Alto, home of Facebook Inc., climbed 20 percent in May from a year earlier to $1.63 million ..." from: http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aE723mrDeCHE&pos=10

As there are few below a million dollars, the average is pulled up by the much higher priced homes, so is probably at least 5 million dollars.

And BTW many of the most wealthy are too experienced to be investing in job creation in the stagnate USA. - They are building factories in China, etc where labor is much cheaper, profit margins higher, and now many well educated and skilled workers instead of invest in the USA OR are at least arranging to move part of their US factories production there. GWB's tax relief for the very rich is still acting to export US jobs instead of being collected to reduce the US's growing debt.

I.e. that tax reduction was EXACTLY the wrong thing to do. Made the recession worse, cost US jobs, increased US debt (directly and by lower taxes on lost and lower salaries as average wages fell.) etc.
Ergo, doing the opposite or at least reversing it is EXACTLY the right thing to do (for the US but not for China).

 

[Regular0ldguy]

But when you limit your target to those "super rich", the dollars just aren't there based on the numbers above.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

And if you target them successfully, they will go buy their own country and that will be IT.

 

[pjdude1219]

Hey, I'm loving this wiki thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire

Here's how the rich are getting richer: INFLATION

Historical worth

Depending on how it is calculated, a million US dollars in 1900 is equivalent to 2006 US dollars of [9]
$24,766,584.77 using the Consumer price index,
$21,224,697.05 using the GDP deflator,
$114,128,571.43 using the unskilled wage,
$162,813,054.25 using the nominal GDP per capita,
$641,531,874.47 using the relative share of GDP,
Thus one would need to have a little over twenty million dollars today to have the purchasing power of a US millionaire in 1900, or more than a hundred million dollars to have the same impact on the US economy.

too bad you aparnently suck at math though. sorry when the rich's income is increase at a rate 100 times that of infaltion inflation has jack shit to do with it.

 

[joepistole]

And if you target them successfully, they will go buy their own country and that will be IT.

LOL, I suppose that island comes fully equiped with an economy that would support their life style?

 

[keith1]

LOL, I suppose that island comes fully equiped with an economy that would support their life style?

But not an army big enough to defend them from the U.S. army. They have to support the system or change the system (unlikely).

--Two people can make beer for themselves.
--200 people have complexed into having trustworthy monks, for cost and quality control.
--2000+ people have competitive alternatives and sources. These sources can organize to control and set profits high.

Today our problem is different. The world is has reached the cut-off point in many unrelated traditional aspects:

--Diminishing fuel sources, spelling higher costs
--Diminishing land availability,spelling higher costs
--Diminishing funds, to hide and delay complete system failure until a future time of prosperity can resolve.

It all points to outer space technologies and space mining operations.
There is no further advancement possible in Earth surface economic rendering.

 

[Billy T]

... It all points to outer space technologies and space mining operations. ...

There is only one thing (He3) that conceivably could be economically brought to earth from the moon* (nothing from more distant points). I.e. with less cost than collecting or making it on earth but at present there is no use for it. (Need second or third generation fusion reactors to be working before He3 has a significant use on earth.)

* BTW, although some think there is He3 from sun in surface moon dust, I am almost sure there is very little.

 

[John T. Galt]

How (in what manner) about (nearly;approximately) a (first in a sequence or group) system (a set or arrangements of things so related or connected as to form a unity) where (in or what place) people (all persons of a racial, cultural, religious, or linguistic group) are (the plural and second person singular) free (not under the control of some other person or arbitrary power).

*All definitions courtesy of a Webster's Dictionary (owned by JTG)

*This post is scientifically accurate as all words have been used in their proper manner and usage.

*This post was written by one person who developed the thought himself and was honest and truthful tothe context of the post.

*This post is my opinion and does not need your approval to be written as my opinion.

 

[John T. Galt]

Inflation, corruption, the number of poor and homeless, excessive wealth, corporate infiltration into government and vise-versa, the current economic meltdown, etc...


How much more obvious proof do we need that capitalism does not work before we change the system. Instead of amending and patching up this fundamentally flawed system, making it ever more confusing and complicated, isn't it a better idea to take the best parts of capitalism(ie. incentive for competition and growth) and design a whole new system which takes advantage of what we learned from the past hundred or so years?

I do believe that capitalism may have been a necessary transitional system. But now we are ready for something better for everyone. We need dramatic change. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that a mix between the best parts of capitalism and communism would be something to consider. If you had a chance to design a society from the ground up, how would it work?

There is of course one huge problem with your assertions. You presume that inflation is a product of capitalism. You presume that corruption is a product of capitalism. You presume that the number of poor and homeless are products of capitalism. You presume that excessive wealth is a product of capitalism. You presume that the corporate infiltration of government and vice versa are products of capitalism. Finally, you presume that the current economic meltdown is a product of capitalism.

To be sure there will be ups and downs in capitalism, but the usual remedy for it is more capitalism.

inflation has several roots all of which is not necessarily related to capitalism. For an example: state enforced minimum wage raises can be a reason for inflation, state enforced tax hikes can a reason for inflation. At what point does capitalism play a role in state enforced issues, even without a true laissez faire capitalist society. The very root of capitalism is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by INVESTMENTS that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market . This says nothing of government intrusion into private affairs.

Corruption is only a problem in a capitalist society? Really!! No seriously, really!!! Must be because all prior societies to the now defunct original capitalist society were a pure as the wind driven snow.

The argument that the poor and homeless are results of capitalism are asinine. The people responsible for being poor and homeless are those people. In some cases people choose these things. In other cases people refuse to take responsibility for their decisions, so they blame everyone else. How do those things indict capitalism? It doesn't.

How many dictators are excessively wealthy? Of those wealthy dictators how many of them got so by governing a capitalist society.

Corporations infiltrating governments is not a capitalist problem. It is the governs problem. We need to start throwing all politicians out who are for backroom deals and other shady transactions. It happens on both sides of the aisle, no one is more responsible than the other. But this is not an issue of capitalism, it is an issue of corruption within the government.

The current economic crisis is far more a product of government intrusion (and again not part of a capitalist society) than it is a product of capitalism.

 

[ElectricFetus]

A collective of hyper-intelligent AI that controls the economy from mining to manufacturing to design and research, programed to provide all needs requested of it as we humans live the good life like royalty with hordes of robot servants and labors, would in my opinion be the perfect economy. Of course until the day we have hyper-intelligent strong AI that only desires is to serve and satisfy every need and whine we have, we will just have to work and slave like peasants in what we got: a mix-market economy.

 

[joepistole]

There is of course one huge problem with your assertions. You presume that inflation is a product of capitalism. You presume that corruption is a product of capitalism. You presume that the number of poor and homeless are products of capitalism. You presume that excessive wealth is a product of capitalism. You presume that the corporate infiltration of government and vice versa are products of capitalism. Finally, you presume that the current economic meltdown is a product of capitalism.

To be sure there will be ups and downs in capitalism, but the usual remedy for it is more capitalism.

WOW, what a profound lack of understanding of both economics and history. Your claims here mr. galt are not borne out by history nor economics. But then that has never concerned you in the past. So why should you start now?

I suggest you back and read what life was like back in the days of your economic nirvana - the Industrial Revolution. How about the days of the Roman Empire or the Dark Ages? They all had corruption. They all had inflation and depressions. They all had excessive wealth accumulation.

And your claim the cure for economic downturns is more capitalism is frankly jibberish. It makes no sense, especially if you don't understand the problems causing the downturn (e.g. The Great Recession of 2008). The solution to the recent Great Recession was not more "capitalism". Whatever that means. The solution was to restore integrity in the banking system (something that has yet to occur in the EU) and stimulus to restore economic demand and prevent a "death spiral" where economic demand continues to receede.

inflation has several roots all of which is not necessarily related to capitalism. For an example: state enforced minimum wage raises can be a reason for inflation, state enforced tax hikes can a reason for inflation. At what point does capitalism play a role in state enforced issues, even without a true laissez faire capitalist society. The very root of capitalism is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by INVESTMENTS that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market . This says nothing of government intrusion into private affairs.

Again history nor economics bear you out here. And your above examples of inflation reflect a severe lack of knowledge.

Corruption is only a problem in a capitalist society? Really!! No seriously, really!!! Must be because all prior societies to the now defunct original capitalist society were a pure as the wind driven snow.

You are sitting up a strawman mr. galt. That is not what he said.

The argument that the poor and homeless are results of capitalism are asinine. The people responsible for being poor and homeless are those people. In some cases people choose these things. In other cases people refuse to take responsibility for their decisions, so they blame everyone else. How do those things indict capitalism? It doesn't.

Your statements are more asinine mr. galt. Because it totaly ignores that fact that in a capitalist society - especially your capitalist society with no government intervention to protect those on the lower end of the economic scale - wealth begets more wealth. I believe Billy T. has mathematically proven this to you on a couple of occasions.

How many dictators are excessively wealthy? Of those wealthy dictators how many of them got so by governing a capitalist society.

How about the Arab oil producing states? And before them, how about all dictators in South America? How about Italy, Germany, and Japan before them?

Corporations infiltrating governments is not a capitalist problem. It is the governs problem. We need to start throwing all politicians out who are for backroom deals and other shady transactions. It happens on both sides of the aisle, no one is more responsible than the other. But this is not an issue of capitalism, it is an issue of corruption within the government.

The current economic crisis is far more a product of government intrusion (and again not part of a capitalist society) than it is a product of capitalism.

No it is a government problem, and it is a capitalist problem as well. Because of of the problems associated with corporate intrusion into government is the corporate use of government to create monopolies and oligopolies that retard and prevent open competitive markets. Some corporations benefit and some do not. And in any case the excesses eventually cause social disruption and chaos (e.g. French Revolution) and that is bad for business mr. galt.

And finally, the current economic problem (The Great Recession of 2008) is the result of the lack of government regulation of the financial industry which resulted in widespread fear of a global financial/banking collapse. It had everything to do with a lack of government regulation and oversight. And the solution was not more of the same. The solution was to restore integrity of the banking system (government backing up the banks), and to restore confidence in the markets so that banks could recapitalize. The system would have collapsed had government not intervened in 2008 and 2009.

 

[John T. Galt]

WOW, what a profound lack of understanding of both economics and history. Your claims here mr. galt are not borne out by history nor economics. But then that has never concerned you in the past. So why should you start now?

I suggest you back and read what life was like back in the days of your economic nirvana - the Industrial Revolution. How about the days of the Roman Empire or the Dark Ages? They all had corruption. They all had inflation and depressions. They all had excessive wealth accumulation.

And your claim the cure for economic downturns is more capitalism is frankly jibberish. It makes no sense, especially if you don't understand the problems causing the downturn (e.g. The Great Recession of 2008). The solution to the recent Great Recession was not more "capitalism". Whatever that means. The solution was to restore integrity in the banking system (something that has yet to occur in the EU) and stimulus to restore economic demand and prevent a "death spiral" where economic demand continues to receede.





You are sitting up a strawman mr. galt. That is not what he said.



Your statements are more asinine mr. galt. Because it totaly ignores that fact that in a capitalist society - especially your capitalist society with no government intervention to protect those on the lower end of the economic scale - wealth begets more wealth. I believe Billy T. has mathematically proven this to you on a couple of occasions.


How about the Arab oil producing states? And before them, how about all dictators in South America? How about Italy, Germany, and Japan before them?


No it is a government problem, and it is a capitalist problem as well. Because of of the problems associated with corporate intrusion into government is the corporate use of government to create monopolies and oligopolies that retard and prevent open competitive markets. Some corporations benefit and some do not. And in any case the excesses eventually cause social disruption and chaos (e.g. French Revolution) and that is bad for business mr. galt.

And finally, the current economic problem (The Great Recession of 2008) is the result of the lack of government regulation of the financial industry which resulted in widespread fear of a global financial/banking collapse. It had everything to do with a lack of government regulation and oversight. And the solution was not more of the same. The solution was to restore integrity of the banking system (government backing up the banks), and to restore confidence in the markets so that banks could recapitalize. The system would have collapsed had government not intervened in 2008 and 2009.

WOW, what a profound lack of understanding of both economics and history. Your claims here mr. galt are not borne out by history nor economics. But then that has never concerned you in the past. So why should you start now?

And naturally you are going to set me straight, right? And you will begin by the below statements:

How about the days of the Roman Empire or the Dark Ages? They all had corruption. They all had inflation and depressions. They all had excessive wealth accumulation.

Just reiterating what I said, my point was that corruption isn't restricted to capitalism. It is a human problem. Thanks for reiterating my point.


And your claim the cure for economic downturns is more capitalism is frankly jibberish.

Yes, and that must be why your boy extended the tax cuts. He thought it jibberish as well. You know tax cuts are a capitalist thing.

Again history nor economics bear you out here. And your above examples of inflation reflect a severe lack of knowledge.

How about instead attacking the message, you show how this reflects a severe lack of knowledge? Not that anyone will hold you to doing so, but just give it shot. Afterall, nothing you provide would ever include lies and lack of knowledge, or anything untoward. So please show me.

I am curious to know how a dictionary definition of capitalism and the commentary I wrote with it doesn't bear out history and economics?

Because it totaly ignores that fact that in a capitalist society - especially your capitalist society with no government intervention to protect those on the lower end of the economic scale - wealth begets more wealth.

It is not the responsibilty of everyone else to protect those on the lower end of the economic scale, it is those who are there. Others can provide help for them, but it is unethical to be forced to provide for others on the economic scale.

BTW- Wealth is in the eye of the beholder. Second, wealth begating more wealth is not a bad thing.

These are great argument to those who value socialism and class warfare. I don't. And frankly I don't give a shit whether you like my arguments or not. Mine are based on individualism. Yours are based on altruism. Thats why it is so convenient for you accuse and attack.

How about the Arab oil producing states? And before them, how about all dictators in South America? How about Italy, Germany, and Japan before them?

Either way, you dropped the ball here (though of course you will worm your way out of it).

if you are saying that these countries are capitalist, then you really don't understand capitalism.

If you are saying that other countries have amassed excessive wealth with their dictators, then how is that contrary to what I said?

No it is a government problem, and it is a capitalist problem as well.

This must be why the dictionary definition of capitalism isn't consistent with history or economics. Silly dictionaries words are what joe says they are, and if joe says that capitalism is synonymous with state intervention then that is what it is.

BTW- You are correct on the first half, it is a government problem. But did you really even understand why?

Also there are no monoplies in the United States, and there is no way you can prove there is.Socialism doesn't allow monoplies unless it is government run. Capitalism may have some, but it is an exception and not the rule. Capitalism by defintion can have monoplies through government intervention, but then contrary to your defintions, it wouldn't be capitalism would it?

The system would have collapsed had government not intervened in 2008 and 2009.

You clearly think it isn't collapsing now even with all the evidence to the contrary. I seriously doubt it would have collasped without government intervention, but I am positive it is with it.

 

[keith1]

There is only one thing (He3) that conceivably could be economically brought to earth from the moon* (nothing from more distant points). I.e. with less cost than collecting or making it on earth but at present there is no use for it. (Need second or third generation fusion reactors to be working before He3 has a significant use on earth.)

* BTW, although some think there is He3 from sun in surface moon dust, I am almost sure there is very little.

Your knowledge pool of asteroid geology is limited. So is mine. But I do read there is much there for profitable extraction. I wasn't inferring to "gravity well escaping projects", save for the initial construction of near-earth orbiting city structures.
You limit yourself, when you don't study a subject at any great depth.

 

[joepistole]

WOW, what a profound lack of understanding of both economics and history. Your claims here mr. galt are not borne out by history nor economics. But then that has never concerned you in the past. So why should you start now? - Joepistole

And naturally you are going to set me straight, right? And you will begin by the below statements:

How about the days of the Roman Empire or the Dark Ages? They all had corruption. They all had inflation and depressions. They all had excessive wealth accumulation.

Just reiterating what I said, my point was that corruption isn't restricted to capitalism. It is a human problem. Thanks for reiterating my point.

I suggest you reread your post.

[
And your claim the cure for economic downturns is more capitalism is frankly jibberish. - Joepistole

Yes, and that must be why your boy extended the tax cuts. He thought it jibberish as well. You know tax cuts are a capitalist thing.

Tax cuts are a Republican thing...not a capitalist thing.

[
Again history nor economics bear you out here. And your above examples of inflation reflect a severe lack of knowledge. - Joepistole

How about instead attacking the message, you show how this reflects a severe lack of knowledge? Not that anyone will hold you to doing so, but just give it shot. Afterall, nothing you provide would ever include lies and lack of knowledge, or anything untoward. So please show me.

Inflation is a monetary event, the examples you used were fiscal events. The difference is like night and day.

I am curious to know how a dictionary definition of capitalism and the commentary I wrote with it doesn't bear out history and economics?

You are setting up another strawman. The issue is not a definition of capitalism. The issue is the other nonsense you wrote.

Because it totaly ignores that fact that in a capitalist society - especially your capitalist society with no government intervention to protect those on the lower end of the economic scale - wealth begets more wealth. - Joepistole

It is not the responsibilty of everyone else to protect those on the lower end of the economic scale, it is those who are there. Others can provide help for them, but it is unethical to be forced to provide for others on the economic scale.

The issue was excessive accumulation of wealth and your claim that it does not happen in capitalism. It does. Now you are saying there is no responsibility to protect lower income people from abuse which is a different arguement.

The fact is that in capitalism weatlh does accumulate at the top. The rich get richer. As previously stated Billy T has previously provided mathematical proof of same.

BTW- Wealth is in the eye of the beholder. Second, wealth begating more wealth is not a bad thing.

These are great argument to those who value socialism and class warfare. I don't. And frankly I don't give a shit whether you like my arguments or not. Mine are based on individualism. Yours are based on altruism. Thats why it is so convenient for you accuse and attack.

Interesting, now you want to change the definition of weatlh...monetary wealth. Yes excessive accumulation of wealth is a problem as previously pointed out. Excessive wealth accumulation eliminates the need for competition. And if you don't have competition, you don't have efficiency of resource allocation which is the primary strength of capitalism.

How about the Arab oil producing states? And before them, how about all dictators in South America? How about Italy, Germany, and Japan before them?

Either way, you dropped the ball here (though of course you will worm your way out of it).

if you are saying that these countries are capitalist, then you really don't understand capitalism.

If you are saying that other countries have amassed excessive wealth with their dictators, then how is that contrary to what I said?

In you defense of capitalism you issued a challenge. I fulfilled it.

No it is a government problem, and it is a capitalist problem as well. - Joepistole

This must be why the dictionary definition of capitalism isn't consistent with history or economics. Silly dictionaries words are what joe says they are, and if joe says that capitalism is synonymous with state intervention then that is what it is.

BTW- You are correct on the first half, it is a government problem. But did you really even understand why?

Creating another strawman mr. galt. I never said capitalism is synonymous with state intervention. I said state intervention is needed to keep a capitalist system running effectively. There is a difference mr. galt. Dictionaries are important.

Also there are no monoplies in the United States, and there is no way you can prove there is.Socialism doesn't allow monoplies unless it is government run. Capitalism may have some, but it is an exception and not the rule. Capitalism by defintion can have monoplies through government intervention, but then contrary to your defintions, it wouldn't be capitalism would it?

LOL, I don’t suppose you have heard of utilities mr. galt? How many electric suppliers are available to your mr. galt? Utilities are obvious monopolies in The United States. And they are regulated. How about some unregulated monopolies? I don’t suppose you are familiar with the sports monopolies? I guess you don’t know about the monopolies allowed by patents? The fact is there are lots of monopolies in The United States. And there are many more oligopolies. Contrary to your statement mr. galt, there are clearly many monopolies in The United States.

If you think that” capitalism may have some” monopolies, I suggest you do some reading. Why did Congress pass the Sherman Anti-Trust law if monopolies were not a problem? It was passed in 1890 long before the New Deal. As for you claim that “socialism does not allow monopolies unless it is government run” is nonsense too. That is a broad statement that is totally devoid of fact or reason. In the United States we have a blended system and we have utilities which are privately owned monopolies. You have too much black and white thinking here that is not supported with reality.

The system would have collapsed had government not intervened in 2008 and 2009. - Joepistole

You clearly think it isn't collapsing now even with all the evidence to the contrary. I seriously doubt it would have collasped without government intervention, but I am positive it is with it.

A couple of things, the issue was not the current economic state. But the economic state the country was in 2008-2009. The fact is the government intervened and prevented the banking system from collapsing . Any economist and businessman worth his/her salt knows that is the truth of the matter. Your refusal to acknowledge evidence and fact is nothing new.

No it is a government problem, and it is a capitalist problem as well. - Joepistole

This must be why the dictionary definition of capitalism isn't consistent with history or economics. Silly dictionaries words are what joe says they are, and if joe says that capitalism is synonymous with state intervention then that is what it is.

BTW- You are correct on the first half, it is a government problem. But did you really even understand why?

You are not making sense mr. galt. There is a difference between word definition and history. Words are used to describe history…not invent it. And again you are back to using strawman arguments mr. galt. A strawman argument mr. galt is a fallacy

One more thing, you are using my statements in your posts and not attributing them to me. I had to go in here and manual make the attributions. That is lazy at best and at worst it is plagiarism.

 

[John T. Galt]

I suggest you reread your post.



Tax cuts are a Republican thing...not a capitalist thing.


Inflation is a monetary event, the examples you used were fiscal events. The difference is like night and day.


You are setting up another strawman. The issue is not a definition of capitalism. The issue is the other nonsense you wrote.


The issue was excessive accumulation of wealth and your claim that it does not happen in capitalism. It does. Now you are saying there is no responsibility to protect lower income people from abuse which is a different arguement.

The fact is that in capitalism weatlh does accumulate at the top. The rich get richer. As previously stated Billy T has previously provided mathematical proof of same.


Interesting, now you want to change the definition of weatlh...monetary wealth. Yes excessive accumulation of wealth is a problem as previously pointed out. Excessive wealth accumulation eliminates the need for competition. And if you don't have competition, you don't have efficiency of resource allocation which is the primary strength of capitalism.


In you defense of capitalism you issued a challenge. I fulfilled it.


Creating another strawman mr. galt. I never said capitalism is synonymous with state intervention. I said state intervention is needed to keep a capitalist system running effectively. There is a difference mr. galt. Dictionaries are important.

LOL, I don’t suppose you have heard of utilities mr. galt? How many electric suppliers are available to your mr. galt? Utilities are obvious monopolies in The United States. And they are regulated. How about some unregulated monopolies? I don’t suppose you are familiar with the sports monopolies? I guess you don’t know about the monopolies allowed by patents? The fact is there are lots of monopolies in The United States. And there are many more oligopolies. Contrary to your statement mr. galt, there are clearly many monopolies in The United States.

If you think that” capitalism may have some” monopolies, I suggest you do some reading. Why did Congress pass the Sherman Anti-Trust law if monopolies were not a problem? It was passed in 1890 long before the New Deal. As for you claim that “socialism does not allow monopolies unless it is government run” is nonsense too. That is a broad statement that is totally devoid of fact or reason. In the United States we have a blended system and we have utilities which are privately owned monopolies. You have too much black and white thinking here that is not supported with reality.


A couple of things, the issue was not the current economic state. But the economic state the country was in 2008-2009. The fact is the government intervened and prevented the banking system from collapsing . Any economist and businessman worth his/her salt knows that is the truth of the matter. Your refusal to acknowledge evidence and fact is nothing new.



You are not making sense mr. galt. There is a difference between word definition and history. Words are used to describe history…not invent it. And again you are back to using strawman arguments mr. galt. A strawman argument mr. galt is a fallacy

Typical joe, you have to twist and distort what is said so you have a avenue to belittle the argument.

I ain't playing joe. If you want to debate honest, let me know. Other than that go cry to billy t who has your back.

I don't fucking lie nor do I make things up. I don't use strawman argument either joe. Go cry to billy t, he'll support you and your fucking bullshit debating tactics.

 

[joepistole]

Typical joe, you have to twist and distort what is said so you have a avenue to belittle the argument.

I ain't playing joe. If you want to debate honest, let me know. Other than that go cry to billy t who has your back.

I don't fucking lie nor do I make things up. I don't use strawman argument either joe. Go cry to billy t, he'll support you and your fucking bullshit debating tactics.

Oh yes you do make things up mr. galt. There are plenty examples, even in this thread, you have invented new meanings for long established words.

Two you have been caught using a variety of illogical arguements (e.g. most recent strawman). And when you back is against the wall, you pull out the victim card...everybody picking on you.

And finally the truth is not a distortion.

 

[John T. Galt]

Oh yes you do make things up mr. galt. There are plenty examples, even in this thread, you have invented new meanings for long established words.

Two you have been caught using a variety of illogical arguements (e.g. most recent strawman). And when you back is against the wall, you pull out the victim card...everybody picking on you.

And finally the truth is not a distortion.

Here is a link about the fraudulent Anti Trust act, it s history and the economy surrounding the act.

Its history and it s truth, something of which you have blatantly displayed little understanding of.

http://mises.org/daily/331

Read it and comprehend if you dare!! I do mean actually comprehend joe. If you use it as a reference point, please don't distort the words or twist them, and please definitely use them in context.

In short joe, don't lie.

AntiTrust act was and still is a fraud. It was enacted to allow failure and the link shows it. As I said, read it if you dare.

You are right the truth is not a distortion. However, your distortions are not truth!!

 

[joepistole]

Here is a link about the fraudulent Anti Trust act, it s history and the economy surrounding the act.

Its history and it s truth, something of which you have blatantly displayed little understanding of.

http://mises.org/daily/331

NO it is not history and it is not truth. It is partisan BS marketed to you and those like you.

Read it and comprehend if you dare!! I do mean actually comprehend joe. If you use it as a reference point, please don't distort the words or twist them, and please definitely use them in context.

In short joe, don't lie.

AntiTrust act was and still is a fraud. It was enacted to allow failure and the link shows it. As I said, read it if you dare.

You are right the truth is not a distortion. However, your distortions are not truth!!

LOL, yeah. First let's remember why we are having this discussion. You claimed that monopolies do not form in a capitalist system. And you said that there were no monopolies in The United States today. Both of your claims were proven wrong in a previous post.


I pointed to the Sherman Antitrust Act as proof that monopolies existed in the past before the New Deal. Now you want to change the discussion to make it about the effectiveness of the Sherman Antitrust Act. That is a different discussion.

The truth is the Sherman Antitrust Act is a law and has been the law since 1890. And it broke up the oil trusts/monopolies when it was signed into law. That is the truth mr. galt. Just because the truth does not conform to your convoluted notions or you do not understand it, it does not mean it is anything other than the truth...more illogical thinking on your part mr. galt.

 

[John T. Galt]

NO it is not history and it is not truth. It is partisan BS marketed to you and those like you.


LOL, yeah. First let's remember why we are having this discussion. You claimed that monopolies do not form in a capitalist system. And you said that there were no monopolies in The United States today. Both of your claims were proven wrong in a previous post.


I pointed to the Sherman Antitrust Act as proof that monopolies existed in the past before the New Deal. Now you want to change the discussion to make it about the effectiveness of the Sherman Antitrust Act. That is a different discussion.

The truth is the Sherman Antitrust Act is a law and has been the law since 1890. And it broke up the oil trusts/monopolies when it was signed into law. That is the truth mr. galt. Just because the truth does not conform to your convoluted notions or you do not understand it, it does not mean it is anything other than the truth...more illogical thinking on your part mr. galt.

So you deny that the SATA ever happened, it isn't history? Then how is it that it is referred to by lefties such as yourself as the reason there are no monoplies. Please spare me the utilities argument; if they is a monoply, then it is so because of government not in spite.

We are having this debacle because i was replying to the OP and stating that capitalism is not the cause of all the issues it (OP) listed. You butted in a claimed your usual B.S. about all the inaccuracy those who don't agree with you supposively have.

You then starting twisting the words around, and claimed that I reread my own post for understanding (a typical tactic you use, you can't comprehend the original post so you ask that poster to reread their own with your eyes). The problem is that you are twisting the argument around, so in rereading the original thought you look even worse, but you are too damn dumb to realize it.

I said corruption isn't limited to capitalism. I said that it is a human problem, not necessarily economic one. You proceeded to say that I was ignorant of history by proving my point. That indeed corruption is not limited to capitalism. I thanked you, to which you responsed with another insult and asked me to reread my own post. I did and again thanks for reiterating my point.

You then claimed that inflation was a monetary event and not a fiscal one. In theory, you are correct. But they are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, once again you have lie and distorted the meaning of words and ideas. Don't feel bad, you are one of several thousands including many lefties on this board.

You then wrote that excessive wealth happens in capitalism, as if I wrote it doesn't. I never said it didn't. I simply wrote that excessive wealth has happened outside of capitalism (of which we really aren't a true capitalist society, so I do run the risk of making a play on words here).

Then you claimed that the poor and homeless are abuse. They are conditions not abuse.

Then you claimed that tax cuts are a republican thing, not a capitalist thing. Republican is a party. Capitalism is an economic/social system and is therefore given to policies. Tax cuts are policy, not a party (careful here it would be so easy to slip into another play on words, and we can't have that only joe & pdude are allowed to do that). Proof that tax cuts are policy, even Obummer extended the Bush tax cuts. So apparently tax cuts knows no party.

Then you cried about how little billy offered all this bs about how wealth starts at the top. Well duh, of course where else would it start? As if this is some sort of evil!! One who has the money is the one who can start businesses and therefore create jobs and eventually the entire work force gets wealthier. Maybe not as wealthy as those who risk their money, but certainly more so than they were before. I mean can the guy who is homeless start a business in a state of homelessness? I'm sorry what was that about being illogical? Which by the way is another term you have totally fucked up!

Then you said that "no, it is a government problem, and a capitalist problem as well". So by extension you are saying they are synonymous. And by definition you are factually wrong. Definitionally speaking, capitalism precludes government.

Finally, we get to the issue of monoplies. Hence the whole as of now it didn't happen according to you Sherman Anti Trust Act (referred to earlier as SATA).

A monoply is the exclusive control of a commodity or service in a given market. However, it happens because of competition (this is a word that lefties has never come to grips with).

It goes something like this. Company A sells shoes for $25. Company B starts a shoe business and sells them for $20 dollars. Where are consumers going to go? Company B right? The SATA was not designed to protect competition it was designed to say that Company B is in violation of competition. Why because they sell their shoes for less. That is the extent of the SATA. DiLorenzo clearly showed this fact of history. Prices were low, and some couldn't hang so they cried to the government about it.

That's the SATA in a nutshell.

To the left lowering prices is a monoply, which explains why everything costs do much today. Oh and I know a republican was behind the SATA, but many idiotic things the left loves started with a republican, who I would argue wasn't a true republican by today's standards. I know you'll focus on that and claim more asininity with it. But so what.

 

[joepistole]

So you deny that the SATA ever happened, it isn't history? Then how is it that it is referred to by lefties such as yourself as the reason there are no monoplies. Please spare me the utilities argument; if they is a monoply, then it is so because of government not in spite.

What the hell are you talking about mr. galt? I see you are back to speaking jibberish again.

The fact is you are wrong yet again. You claimed in capitalism there are no monopolies. You were proven to be decidedly wrong. Yeah, "Please spare me the utilities argument; if they is a monoply, then it is so because of government not in spite", the are a monopoly. And it is deceptive at best on your part to ignore the other monopolies I mentioned. The fact is you don't know what you are talking about mr. galt.

We are having this debacle because i was replying to the OP and stating that capitalism is not the cause of all the issues it (OP) listed. You butted in a claimed your usual B.S. about all the inaccuracy those who don't agree with you supposively have.

You then starting twisting the words around, and claimed that I reread my own post for understanding (a typical tactic you use, you can't comprehend the original post so you ask that poster to reread their own with your eyes). The problem is that you are twisting the argument around, so in rereading the original thought you look even worse, but you are too damn dumb to realize it.

Oh my, now back to the ad hominem arguements. You cannot go a paragraph mr. galt before you let loose with the lies or illogical thinking. Facts are our friends mr. galt. The fact is you were spreading misinformation again. I stepped in and corrected your many errors.

I said corruption isn't limited to capitalism. I said that it is a human problem, not necessarily economic one. You proceeded to say that I was ignorant of history by proving my point. That indeed corruption is not limited to capitalism. I thanked you, to which you responsed with another insult and asked me to reread my own post. I did and again thanks for reiterating my point.

No mr. galt. You created a strawman. The post you were responding to never said "capitalism was limited to capitalism". You said that mr. galt.

This is what Matthew said:

"Originally Posted by matthew809
Inflation, corruption, the number of poor and homeless, excessive wealth, corporate infiltration into government and vise-versa, the current economic meltdown, etc..."

And you responded with:

Originally Posted by John T. Galt
Corruption is only a problem in a capitalist society? Really!! No seriously, really!!! Must be because all prior societies to the now defunct original capitalist society were a pure as the wind driven snow.

You misrepresented what Matthew said and set up a strawman mr. galt...one of them lies you keep making mr. galt. And now you are furthering that lie by making up new lies to protect your tail.

You then claimed that inflation was a monetary event and not a fiscal one. In theory, you are correct. But they are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, once again you have lie and distorted the meaning of words and ideas. Don't feel bad, you are one of several thousands including many lefties on this board.

LOL, trying to cover your tail again. I am correct in both theory and fact mr. galt. Inflation is a monetary event and not a fiscal event and that is always the case. Your attempt to link inflation to tax policy is just plain absured mr. galt and has no basis in fact or reason.

And I see you are back to the ad hominem again. Where would you be without your fallacies mr galt?

You then wrote that excessive wealth happens in capitalism, as if I wrote it doesn't. I never said it didn't. I simply wrote that excessive wealth has happened outside of capitalism (of which we really aren't a true capitalist society, so I do run the risk of making a play on words here).

This is what you wrote mr. galt.

"The argument that the poor and homeless are results of capitalism are asinine. The people responsible for being poor and homeless are those people. In some cases people choose these things. In other cases people refuse to take responsibility for their decisions, so they blame everyone else. How do those things indict capitalism? It doesn't." - Galt (Response to Matthew)

"Your statements are more asinine mr. galt. Because it totaly ignores that fact that in a capitalist society - especially your capitalist society with no government intervention to protect those on the lower end of the economic scale - wealth begets more wealth. I believe Billy T. has mathematically proven this to you on a couple of occasions." - Joepistole

"BTW- Wealth is in the eye of the beholder. Second, wealth begating more wealth is not a bad thing." - Galt (Response to Joepistole noting excessive wealth accumulation as a capitalist problem)

"How many dictators are excessively wealthy? Of those wealthy dictators how many of them got so by governing a capitalist society." - Galt.

And in response I provided you with a list of dictators who got rich by governing a capitalist society. The fact is excessive wealth accumulation outside of capitalism is not the issue mr. galt. The discussion was about capitalism.

Then you claimed that the poor and homeless are abuse. They are conditions not abuse.

No I never made that claim mr galt. This is you inventing stuff yet again either intentionally or because you are confused. I never said anything about homeless people. Because it was not relevant to the discussion. The discussion was about wealth distribution. I pointed out that excessive wealth redistribution which occurs in capitalism retards competition and ultimately adversely affects resource allocation which is the strength of capitalism.

Then you claimed that tax cuts are a republican thing, not a capitalist thing. Republican is a party. Capitalism is an economic/social system and is therefore given to policies. Tax cuts are policy, not a party (careful here it would be so easy to slip into another play on words, and we can't have that only joe & pdude are allowed to do that). Proof that tax cuts are policy, even Obummer extended the Bush tax cuts. So apparently tax cuts knows no party.

You are talking jibberish again mr. galt. Tax policy is a Republican thing. And tax policy has nothing to do with capitalism.

Then you cried about how little billy offered all this bs about how wealth starts at the top. Well duh, of course where else would it start? As if this is some sort of evil!! One who has the money is the one who can start businesses and therefore create jobs and eventually the entire work force gets wealthier. Maybe not as wealthy as those who risk their money, but certainly more so than they were before. I mean can the guy who is homeless start a business in a state of homelessness? I'm sorry what was that about being illogical? Which by the way is another term you have totally fucked up!

Creating another strawman mr. galt. That is not what I said. That is what you wanted me to say so you could to into the standard limbaugh response. Further it is not important where wealth starts. What is important is that capital moves freely and frequently throught the economy. Wealth sitting in banks does nothing to improve competiton or the overall health of and economy.

And I pointed out to you that Billy T has repeatedly prove that excessive wealth accumulation is what occurs in a capitalist society without governmet intervention.

And oh boy, more ad hominem. I would be impressed if you could write more than a few paragraphs without some sort of illogical thinking mr. galt.

Then you said that "no, it is a government problem, and a capitalist problem as well". So by extension you are saying they are synonymous. And by definition you are factually wrong. Definitionally speaking, capitalism precludes government.

LOL, no galt. This is what you said galt:

"Originally Posted by John T. Galt
Corporations infiltrating governments is not a capitalist problem. It is the governs problem. We need to start throwing all politicians out who are for backroom deals and other shady transactions. It happens on both sides of the aisle, no one is more responsible than the other. But this is not an issue of capitalism, it is an issue of corruption within the government."

You are off in your own little world again mr. galt.

Finally, we get to the issue of monoplies. Hence the whole as of now it didn't happen according to you Sherman Anti Trust Act (referred to earlier as SATA).

A monoply is the exclusive control of a commodity or service in a given market. However, it happens because of competition (this is a word that lefties has never come to grips with).

It goes something like this. Company A sells shoes for $25. Company B starts a shoe business and sells them for $20 dollars. Where are consumers going to go? Company B right? The SATA was not designed to protect competition it was designed to say that Company B is in violation of competition. Why because they sell their shoes for less. That is the extent of the SATA. DiLorenzo clearly showed this fact of history. Prices were low, and some couldn't hang so they cried to the government about it.

That's the SATA in a nutshell.

To the left lowering prices is a monoply, which explains why everything costs do much today. Oh and I know a republican was behind the SATA, but many idiotic things the left loves started with a republican, who I would argue wasn't a true republican by today's standards. I know you'll focus on that and claim more asininity with it. But so what.

You never cease to amuse mr. galt. The original issue here was your claim that monopolies do not occcur in capitalist systems and your claim that monopolies do not exist in The United States today. The facts are mr. galt that your claim was yet another in a long line of claims that you have made that are just false as evidenced by the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Now you want to change the discussion to divert attention from the fact that you just added another to the long list of your factual errors. If you want to discuss another topic (e.g. the effectiveness of Sherman Antitrust Act), then start another thread. The fact is that you claimed monopolies do not exist in The United States or in capitalistic systems. And the fact is you have yet again been proven to be in error.