Can capitalism exist without govt

[iamoenaj]

Originally Posted by bonehand [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Pure capitalism is only relevant within the domain of economics, thus has no influence of governmental rule.

The problem with society today is that those who are in positions of power in the governments of the world, not just the US, are being greatly influenced by the needs of the corporations and funded by corporations. Thus, in todays society, it is an essential part of governance that the needs of the corporations be met first before the needs of the people. This then implies that there could be no governemnt in many nations without capitalism...however, if one pays attention to the US political system, the realization that this is a broken form of governance.

You're really missing the point. Your implication falls a tad short. A reason, along with others, for why big corporations are kept afloat or assisted by the government (you and I, if you pay your taxes), is because people are no longer self-reliant. Money systems/bartering is no longer localized (unless you live in Berkshire, Mass). Food you consume in one day can come from all the continents of the world..well maybe not one of them. Your life is supported by water you didn't have to retrieve, food you didn't have to grow, and electricity that runs your entire life, clothes you didn't have to make..and the list goes on and on. Corporations do most of the work, in which there is TONS, to produce the products you consume.


Capitalism exists at its best when not controlled by strict regulatory policies. It heavily depends on the fluctuating supply and demand cycle and competition to produce a better and cheaper product. This though, can create some ethical issues, and has, which is why there is an existing bureaucratic burden imposed on e v e r y t h i n g.


*edit* I just realized I argued my point on capitalism existing without governance with the current US system in mind. You have to have some sort of authority/regulatory body. Take Jabba the Hutt for example...yeah, I went there.

[tmoneynegro]

Well the poll is fucked up because I accidentally labeled it

"Can capitalism exist with govt"

instead of

"Can capitalism exist without govt"

So god knows what people are actually voting for

[Corrodith]

As soon as you have taxation, you no longer have pure capitalism. Capitalism and government are really mutually exclusive.

As far as these questions of currency, banking (fractional vs. full reserve), contract law etc., these things CAN be handled in the free market.

Dispute resolution organizations would be third parties signed on to any contract where each party in the contract wanted insurance of enforcement of the contract. There could be many competing organizations of this sort, ensuring that the most reputable, fair standards for contract dispute resolution.

Fractional reserve vs. full reserve, etc - Why does there have to be just one answer? You can have multiple banks and currencies competing against each other.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by iamoenaj [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Capitalism exists at its best when not controlled by strict regulatory policies. It heavily depends on the fluctuating supply and demand cycle and competition to produce a better and cheaper product.

Spoken like a true republican! Unfortunately, since either A) the wool is over your eyes or B) you have a rather large investment in sheep, you fail to see that without regulation, a "supply" and "demand" economy quickly turns into a "withhold" and "speculate" economy. Still using modern US as an example, let's look at oil: we have plenty of crude, but the price of gasoline stays high? Why?

A) Manufacturers limit refinement so that they can create false-shortages and drive the prices up.
B) Investors create an OPEC scare saying there's going to be conflict tomorrow/next week/next year, and they drive prices up.

And after all of that, they yell, "Don't tax me, bro!"

Conglomerates need to be outlawed. Futures need to be outlawed. Without regulation at every level, the 1% will control every part of your economy and government as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Businesses do NOT pass savings on to consumers. They do NOT create more jobs with their wealth. They privitise their profits and pass the cost along to everybody else.

[iamoenaj]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Spoken like a true republican! Unfortunately, since either A) the wool is over your eyes or B) you have a rather large investment in sheep, you fail to see that without regulation, a "supply" and "demand" economy quickly turns into a "withhold" and "speculate" economy. Still using modern US as an example, let's look at oil: we have plenty of crude, but the price of gasoline stays high? Why?

A) Manufacturers limit refinement so that they can create false-shortages and drive the prices up.
B) Investors create an OPEC scare saying there's going to be conflict tomorrow/next week/next year, and they drive prices up.

And after all of that, they yell, "Don't tax me, bro!"

Conglomerates need to be outlawed. Futures need to be outlawed. Without regulation at every level, the 1% will control every part of your economy and government as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Businesses do NOT pass savings on to consumers. They do NOT create more jobs with their wealth. They privitise their profits and pass the cost along to everybody else.

It's kind of funny how you didn't include that last few sentences of mine so that you could make this argument.

I did say there needs to be some sort of governing body. Not one that gives handouts to make people dependent on your 1%, but one that regulates unfair practices and disputes. That's it.

And once again your arguments that corporations pass their profits to the shareholders and give all the costs to the consumers..lol. Really? Stop buying their product or service if you believe that...boom.

If you're weak, you won't survive. Your way of thinking makes a good humanitarian case, but I think it's obvious to see where that has led us. The US has grown weak with less critical thinkers and ambitious people. Nobody is held accountable for their actions now. That is the problem that results from your argument of heavy regulation and policy. There is no risk but a safe little bed for you to live your life of mediocrity on.

Oh, and I'm not Republican. Like that is a put down to be affiliated with one of the two major parties? Start thinking for yourself.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by iamoenaj [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Stop buying their product or service if you believe that...boom.

What a sham. You HAVE to have gasoline to work. You HAVE to have a house for shelter. You HAVE to use a phone for the most basic communication over any amount of distance longer than right in front of you.

You are FORCED to use these services or live in the stone age. There's no choice. It's a monopoly and a farce. They use price fixing to keep profits high and don't ever pass savings on to the consumer. This is capitalism.

Originally Posted by Kika Maslyaka [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

On other hand, total government control over economy (socialist planned economy) is what lead to bankruptcy and fall of Soviet Union.

Misconception. It was greedy leaders keeping profit for themselves (with assistance from CIA agents aimed at toppling "communism") that led to the fall of the USSR. Someone needs to remind the Republicans in America that you have to actually feed the poor or they will revolt.

[iamoenaj]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What a sham. You HAVE to have gasoline to work. You HAVE to have a house for shelter. You HAVE to use a phone for the most basic communication over any amount of distance longer than right in front of you.

You are FORCED to use these services or live in the stone age. There's no choice. It's a monopoly and a farce. They use price fixing to keep profits high and don't ever pass savings on to the consumer. This is capitalism.



Misconception. It was greedy leaders keeping profit for themselves (with assistance from CIA agents aimed at toppling "communism") that led to the fall of the USSR. Someone needs to remind the Republicans in America that you have to actually feed the poor or they will revolt.

Nobody is forcing you. You assume the costs by accepting a greater increase to your way of life. You think a majority of the world has access to these services on a daily basis? You expect everything and whine when you can't get it for as cheap as you want.

Ride a bike to work, buy a moped, walk, take city transport. I'm so sorry you can't arrive to work or live without gasoline. You NEED a house? Im going to assume you meant a shelter. Livable and safe is subjective, do what it takes. You HAVE to have a phone? Write a letter. Do I need to say anymore on this?

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by iamoenaj [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

take city transport. I'm so sorry you can't arrive to work or live without gasoline.

America isn't exactly known for it's mass-transit system and any attempts to set one up has been railroaded (lol puns) by anybody who profits from the existing gasoline based system.

Originally Posted by iamoenaj [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You NEED a house? Im going to assume you meant a shelter. Livable and safe is subjective, do what it takes.

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You HAVE to have a house for shelter.

Isn't that what I just said? You can argue semantics are you please, but the word house does not imply a 7-story, gold-trimmed mansion to the common American.

Originally Posted by iamoenaj [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Write a letter.

Who is going to deliver it? Are you supporting that government involvement is needed, too?

[iamoenaj]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

America isn't exactly known for it's mass-transit system and any attempts to set one up has been railroaded (lol puns) by anybody who profits from the existing gasoline based system.




Isn't that what I just said? You can argue semantics are you please, but the word house does not imply a 7-story, gold-trimmed mansion to the common American.



Who is going to deliver it? Are you supporting that government involvement is needed, too?

1. You're clearly missing the point. You're right that mass transit does suck for a lot of cities. Do what it takes to get to work. Traveling for 2 hours a day to get to work on foot sucks, but it can be done.

2. You're going to quote yourself then say you said it?

3. USPS, and yes I am. My argument for less government in regards to economics does not mean government shouldn't exist in any other facet.


I know that I said I'm finished replying to your posts before, but you actually came up with a few things that can be discussed since then. This post, however, just solidifies my argument of your lack of work ethic and general need to be taken care of. Really, go read a book on history and factual information. Not commentary that can be easily digested to control your emotions and thereby actions.



And saying that "be held accountable for your life decisions" is propaganda? rofl man..just rofl. You're a child needing to be taken care of.


*edit* Last sentence said "Do what it takes" instead of "be held accountable for your life decisions"... same thing. Lack of good decisions can be reflected on by your willingness to do what it takes.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by iamoenaj [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And saying that "be held accountable for your life decisions" is propaganda? rofl man..just rofl. You're a child needing to be taken care of.

This is a line championed by the American "Republican" political party to demean and belittle the common worker. The people that parrot this line have no regard for the rights of others. The government's first responsibility is to take care of its people, whether they're poor, sick, old, or incapable of taking care of themselves. That doesn't mean they're lazy or needy.

Go read a book on philanthropy and stop trying to bleed profit out of a stone.

Originally Posted by iamoenaj [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

your lack of work ethic and general need to be taken care of

In the 2000's, I worked for five years for one of the wealthiest companies in the world - a true conglomerate. When I started, they were listed as one of the top companies in the world to work for. I got good ratings on my reviews, several raises and promotions as I watched them slowly cut benefits and raise costs of insurance. Stock options? Gone. Employee stock purchase program? Gone. 401k matching? Cut in half. Hiring was frozen. Morale was shot. They were no longer a top company to work for.

Yet they continued to flaunt record profits.

When the economy tanked, given their already tarnished reputation, they separated themselves from their workers as fast as possible. They moved many positions overseas (including mine) and bought their CEO's contract out for 12 million dollars. They immediately turned around and signed him on as a consultant with a 7 million dollars a year contract. How did that make any sense? This guy tanked the company and the value of its work ethic and he was getting rewarded while the common worker was left high and dry.

After that, I worked as a contractor at another conglomerate for 18 months before they were willing to offer me any kind of benefits.

Yet they continued to flaunt record profits.

How does any of that portray me as lazy or uneducated? This is how they treat their employees. There's no denying it. You're just spreading your own lies to try to make you feel better about your own agenda.