T Nation

Sustainable Capitalism


#1

It's not to be referred to as socialism any longer it is to be called: Sustainable Capitalism.

Please update your vocabulary comrades and do not refer to the evil socialism word again. The newspeak words must be used as the people will soon tire of "Hope and Change".


#2

And ironically is not sustainable…


#3

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
And ironically is not sustainable…[/quote]

Yes, true free capitalism will adapt to circumstances and is therefore sustainable. This is not.


#4

Give me a fucking break.


#5

psst. Hey guys, wake up. 19th century, robber barons. That’s free capitalism. It didn’t work. Mind boggling there are so many people who claim to want to return to that.


#6

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
psst. Hey guys, wake up. 19th century, robber barons. That’s free capitalism. It didn’t work. Mind boggling there are so many people who claim to want to return to that.[/quote]

Well, the Chinese know the alternative.


#7

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
psst. Hey guys, wake up. 19th century, robber barons. That’s free capitalism. It didn’t work. Mind boggling there are so many people who claim to want to return to that.[/quote]

You mistake who the robber barons are. They are the ruling class not the business owners. Sometimes they get in bed with each other and the result is corporatism.

“Capitalism or market economy is that system of social cooperation and division of labor that is based on private ownership of the means of production.”

A free market is merely what allows capitalism to work. If the market isn’t completely free there is no capitalism. It is a form of socialism. There can only be two choices: capitalism or socialism.

We have never had free market capitalism in this country so we can not say it doesn’t work. The problem you witness in the 19th century was a failure of government not of the market. The government failed to protect property rights and in some instances even instituted legislation to make it easier for certain businesses to do it.

The market does not act therefore it cannot fail – nor does it aggress against individual rights. The market is merely a reflection of the many infinite choices made by individuals and interferences of government and other such coercion. In other words, it is only individuals acting in the market that “fail”, the market cannot fail.


#8

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
psst. Hey guys, wake up. 19th century, robber barons. That’s free capitalism. It didn’t work. Mind boggling there are so many people who claim to want to return to that.

You mistake who the robber barons are. They are the ruling class not the business owners. Sometimes they get in bed with each other and the result is corporatism.

“Capitalism or market economy is that system of social cooperation and division of labor that is based on private ownership of the means of production.”

A free market is merely what allows capitalism to work. If the market isn’t completely free there is no capitalism. It is a form of socialism. There can only be two choices: capitalism or socialism.

We have never had free market capitalism in this country so we can not say it doesn’t work. The problem you witness in the 19th century was a failure of government not of the market. The government failed to protect property rights and in some instances even instituted legislation to make it easier for certain businesses to do it.

The market does not act therefore it cannot fail – nor does it aggress against individual rights. The market is merely a reflection of the many infinite choices made by individuals and interferences of government and other such coercion. In other words, it is only individuals acting in the market that “fail”, the market cannot fail.[/quote]

The classic answer would be that you sound like a socialist that claims that socialism has never failed because it has never been truly put in place.


#9

[quote]orion wrote:The classic answer would be that you sound like a socialist that claims that socialism has never failed because it has never been truly put in place.

[/quote]

Exactly. LIFTICVSMAXIMVS, you and your buddies are pretty good at avoiding actual discussion and focusing on semantics and other non-issues. The point was, whatever you want to call it, what you want was tried, and it failed.


#10

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:The classic answer would be that you sound like a socialist that claims that socialism has never failed because it has never been truly put in place.

Exactly. LIFTICVSMAXIMVS, you and your buddies are pretty good at avoiding actual discussion and focusing on semantics and other non-issues. The point was, whatever you want to call it, what you want was tried, and it failed.
[/quote]

What failed? The only problems I see in the US economy were caused by an unholy relationship between the government and a handful of crooks.


#11

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:The classic answer would be that you sound like a socialist that claims that socialism has never failed because it has never been truly put in place.

Exactly. LIFTICVSMAXIMVS, you and your buddies are pretty good at avoiding actual discussion and focusing on semantics and other non-issues. The point was, whatever you want to call it, what you want was tried, and it failed.
[/quote]

I think you misinterpreted Orions point.

The system LIFTY is advocating has never been put in place. Just like pure marxism in the form it was originally intended has never been put in place. We don’t tend to excuse the failure of marxism based on the fact that it has never been properly implemented.


#12

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:The classic answer would be that you sound like a socialist that claims that socialism has never failed because it has never been truly put in place.

Exactly. LIFTICVSMAXIMVS, you and your buddies are pretty good at avoiding actual discussion and focusing on semantics and other non-issues. The point was, whatever you want to call it, what you want was tried, and it failed.
[/quote]

The market exists as a consequence of people making choices about the use of scarce means to attain preferred ends. Capitalism is merely a market economy that allows the most efficient use of property.

Capitalism hasn’t failed and cannot fail. It is individual business and government that “fail”. When business “fails” it goes away and is replaced by something else more urgently preferred – that is called a correction.

Socialism, by contrast, does not allow for the calculations necessary to make those types of corrections and thus it ALWAYS fails.

Why would you want to allow the market to work that way?


#13

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
We don’t tend to excuse the failure of marxism based on the fact that it has never been properly implemented.
[/quote]

Good point, and I would also argue that “proper” implementation of marxism requires some wholly unacceptable levels of tyranny; and to contrast, capitalism requires the supreme opposite of tyranny to be most effective.


#14

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:The classic answer would be that you sound like a socialist that claims that socialism has never failed because it has never been truly put in place.

Exactly. LIFTICVSMAXIMVS, you and your buddies are pretty good at avoiding actual discussion and focusing on semantics and other non-issues. The point was, whatever you want to call it, what you want was tried, and it failed.
[/quote]

The most well-respected economists in history disagree with you. You should try reading them. Or just keep talking out of your ass.


#15

When are people going to learn that well functioning markets require a fair set of ground rules, equally applied, so that participants can make informed decisions and have trust that they won’t be cheated.

Sadly, this means appropriate laws and regulations.

As long as not over done or over restrictive these don’t impede trade, but instead improve it. All you have to do is let supply and demand naturally determine prices in an environment where there is a level playing field.

The rest is pretty much bullshit.


#16

[quote]vroom wrote:
When are people going to learn that well functioning markets require a fair set of ground rules, equally applied, so that participants can make informed decisions and have trust that they won’t be cheated.

Sadly, this means appropriate laws and regulations.

As long as not over done or over restrictive these don’t impede trade, but instead improve it. All you have to do is let supply and demand naturally determine prices in an environment where there is a level playing field.

The rest is pretty much bullshit.[/quote]

Laws? How about no fraud or violence, just voluntary exchange? Pretty level to me.


#17

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Laws? How about no fraud or violence, just voluntary exchange? Pretty level to me.[/quote]

Sure, that’s a start.


#18

[quote]vroom wrote:
When are people going to learn that well functioning markets require a fair set of ground rules, equally applied, so that participants can make informed decisions and have trust that they won’t be cheated.

Sadly, this means appropriate laws and regulations.

As long as not over done or over restrictive these don’t impede trade, but instead improve it. All you have to do is let supply and demand naturally determine prices in an environment where there is a level playing field.

The rest is pretty much bullshit.[/quote]

This is all about removing the market from the equation. This is the big hand of government forcing us to switch energy sources among other things.


#19

[quote]vroom wrote:
When are people going to learn that well functioning markets require a fair set of ground rules, equally applied, so that participants can make informed decisions and have trust that they won’t be cheated.

Sadly, this means appropriate laws and regulations.

As long as not over done or over restrictive these don’t impede trade, but instead improve it. All you have to do is let supply and demand naturally determine prices in an environment where there is a level playing field.

The rest is pretty much bullshit.[/quote]

this is nowhere near what we have now.


#20

[quote]vroom wrote:
When are people going to learn that well functioning markets require a fair set of ground rules, equally applied, so that participants can make informed decisions and have trust that they won’t be cheated.
[/quote]

Gee, I don´t know, in modern times Adam Smith, and in ancient Rome around 200 BS?

When will you stop building strawmen?