In Defense of Capitalism & Free Markets

[Gipper]

So goverment REGULATION caused the housing collapse, the banking collapse, the stock market collapse? I think not. De-regulation and corporate Greed in those sectors caused the current economic decline, not the government.

You really have no clue. You get all your news from MSLSD so I guess you don't know any better.

I bet you believe Hoover caused the Great Depression, Joseph McCarthy lied, and Nixon caused the Vietnam War.

 

[GenSeneca]

Do try to get your definitions right.

That is like claiming Socialism and Communism are also just economic systems.

"Capitalism" is conventionally defined along economic terms such as the following:

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Source: Dictionary.com ​

This is an example of a definition by non-essentials. An essential definition of capitalism is a political definition:

Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights.
Source: Capitalism.org​

In order to have an economic system in which "production and distribution are privately or corporately owned", you must have individual rights and specifically property rights. The only way to have an economic system fitting the first definition is to have a political system fitting the second definition. The first is an implication of the second. Because the second, political, definition is fundamental and the cause of the first, it is the more useful definition and is preferable. - SOURCE, Importance of Philosophy

 

[orogenicman]

You really have no clue. You get all your news from MSLSD so I guess you don't know any better.

I bet you believe Hoover caused the Great Depression, Joseph McCarthy lied, and Nixon caused the Vietnam War.

Well, dude, no one was discussing those people, were they? Can't actually respond to my post, eh? That figures.

 

[orogenicman]

You are just regurgitating slogans and talking points inseminated into your brain with no intellectual contraception available to you. Without a doubt, all were caused by market distortions created by the liberal/left.

By all means, Rick. Do tell us what "liberal" government regulation caused those collapses. (this should be good).

 

[orogenicman]

"Capitalism" is conventionally defined along economic terms such as the following:

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Source: Dictionary.com
This is an example of a definition by non-essentials. An essential definition of capitalism is a political definition:

Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights.
Source: Capitalism.org
In order to have an economic system in which "production and distribution are privately or corporately owned", you must have individual rights and specifically property rights. The only way to have an economic system fitting the first definition is to have a political system fitting the second definition. The first is an implication of the second. Because the second, political, definition is fundamental and the cause of the first, it is the more useful definition and is preferable. - SOURCE, Importance of Philosophy

This is almost certainly untrue. Capitalism has taken root in China and they certainly aren't known for respecting individual rights. But then, capitalists themselves aren't all that well known for protecting individual, worker, or societal rights (the only thing that matters in the capitalist system is the bottom line because you have to make the investors happy), so it isn't surprising that it has taken root there.

 

[Gipper]

Well, dude, no one was discussing those people, were they? Can't actually respond to my post, eh? That figures.

But I did respond. I said you have no clue. That is a response and I stand by it.

And did you know Nixon is responsible for the Vietnam War???? and and and Hoover caused the Great Depression and and and Joe McCarthy is a big fat liar....

 

[orogenicman]

But I did respond. I said you have no clue. That is a response and I stand by it.

And did you know Nixon is responsible for the Vietnam War???? and and and Hoover caused the Great Depression and and and Joe McCarthy is a big fat liar....

Well, you got the last part right (there actually weren't evil communists everywhere out to get us). Congratulations.

 

[Rick]

By all means, Rick. Do tell us what "liberal" government regulation caused those collapses. (this should be good).

I'll give short answers - detailed analyses citations will be provided to repair your ignorance on the subject upon request.

Great Depression: The federal reserve, a progressive idea, was created in 1913. It greatly expanded credit in the 1920s with cheap money, causing a huge credit bubble which finally collapsed. Herbert Hoover, whom I'm guessing you don't know created a number of the seminal programs of the New Deal, signed the smoot-hawley tariff law, putting the last nail in the coffin.

S&L: The tax reform act of 1986 created by the democrat congress sank the values of real estate holdings, creating a real estate bust. This immediately put S&L's whose main business is real estate, in a critical financial condition. Further, because of prevailing high interest rates, S&Ls continued to invest in risky real estate projects, because they could then pay depositors the high rates investors could command, since there were other investments offering high rates. Investors would only put their money in such S&Ls because they were backed by the FSLIC (government market distortion) otherwise no sane person would have given them a dime, and they would have collapsed without taking many people with them.

2008 Collapse: Starting in the 1970s, under Carter, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed, in effect requiring banks to make home loans to unqualified minority constituencies of the democrat party. This had a small effect, until it was vastly ramped up under bill clinton, who appointed franklin raines head of fanny mae, with marching orders to offer a secondary market for huge numbers of such loans. With fanny mae and freddy mac doing a landslide business in such loans, investment banks were encouraged to join in. Members of the Bush administration began to see the danger and approached Barney Frank, democrat head of the house banking committee, to rein in fanny mae - Frank brushed them off.

In every case, it was government meddling in markets that otherwise would have quickly self-corrected without disaster.

Not what you heard on msnbc and cnn, huh?

It's funny - every time government creates these disasters, they say "duh...it was capitalism what done it". They do so because they know the country is loaded with legions of uninformed morons who will lap it up.

 

[orogenicman]

I'll give short answers - detailed analyses citations will be provided to repair your ignorance on the subject upon request.

Great Depression: The federal reserve, a progressive idea, was created in 1913. It greatly expanded credit in the 1920s with cheap money, causing a huge credit bubble which finally collapsed. Herbert Hoover, whom I'm guessing you don't know created a number of the seminal programs of the New Deal, signed the smoot-hawley tariff law, putting the last nail in the coffin.

S&L: The tax reform act of 1986 created by the democrat congress sank the values of real estate holdings, creating a real estate bust. This immediately put S&L's whose main business is real estate, in a critical financial condition. Further, because of prevailing high interest rates, S&Ls continued to invest in risky real estate projects, because they could then pay depositors the high rates investors could command, since there were other investments offering high rates. Investors would only put their money in such S&Ls because they were backed by the FSLIC (government market distortion) otherwise no sane person would have given them a dime, and they would have collapsed without taking many people with them.

2008 Collapse: Starting in the 1970s, under Carter, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed, in effect requiring banks to make home loans to unqualified minority constituencies of the democrat party. This had a small effect, until it was vastly ramped up under bill clinton, who appointed franklin raines head of fanny mae, with marching orders to offer a secondary market for huge numbers of such loans. With fanny mae and freddy mac doing a landslide business in such loans, investment banks were encouraged to join in. Members of the Bush administration began to see the danger and approached Barney Frank, democrat head of the house banking committee, to rein in fanny mae - Frank brushed them off.

In every case, it was government meddling in markets that otherwise would have quickly self-corrected without disaster.

Not what you heard on msnbc and cnn, huh?

It's funny - every time government creates these disasters, they say "duh...it was capitalism what done it". They do so because they know the country is loaded with legions of uninformed morons who will lap it up.

So what you are saying is that it was the efforts by "liberals" to address poverty that caused the finacial collapses. So in effect, you are suggesting that it was the fault of this nation's poor that the economy collapsed, and not the fault of greedy banks and wallstreet finaciers, who, in your view, are apparently the real victims in all this. Got it.

 

[Rick]

So what you are saying is that it was the efforts by "liberals" to address poverty that caused the finacial collapses. So in effect, you are suggesting that it was the fault of this nation's poor that the economy collapsed, and not the fault of greedy banks and wallstreet finaciers, who, in your view, are apparently the real victims in all this. Got it.

Instead of actually analyzing what happened, or (shudder! gasp! horrors!) actually formally studying economics so that they have a CLUE of what they're talking about, liberals prefer to explain away the many economic disasters they've caused by puking up a few demogogue terms like "greedy banks".

I have this recurrent fantasy: libs are rounded up and put in prisons. They are offered a thorough-going college fresman economics course, EVEN by liberals such as Samuelson. They remain in prison until they pass the course with an "A", for which they have to come with something better than a few dated agitprop terms.

 

[orogenicman]

Instead of actually analyzing what happened, or (shudder! gasp! horrors!) actually formally studying economics so that they have a CLUE of what they're talking about, liberals prefer to explain away the many economic disasters they've caused by puking up a few demogogue terms like "greedy banks".

I have this recurrent fantasy: libs are rounded up and put in prisons. They are offered a thorough-going college fresman economics course, EVEN by liberals such as Samuelson. They remain in prison until they pass the course with an "A", for which they have to come with something better than a few dated agitprop terms.

Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

 

[GenSeneca]

This is almost certainly untrue.

Like it or not, Capitalism is a political philosophy.

Capitalism has taken root in China and they certainly aren't known for respecting individual rights.

China is a Communist country with a mixed economy... Neither of which are known for respecting individual rights. Moving to the mixed economy was not the rise of Capitalism, only the decline of Communism.

But then, capitalists themselves aren't all that well known for protecting individual, worker, or societal rights

There is no such thing as "worker" or "societal" rights... Feel free to try and prove that a worker is not an individual, or that society is comprised of something other than individuals. Another option would be that you simply run away from this argument as you did last time.

(the only thing that matters in the capitalist system is the bottom line because you have to make the investors happy)

Protecting individual rights is the focus of a Capitalist system, it is the only moral purpose for government to exist.

 

[orogenicman]

Like it or not, Capitalism is a political philosophy.


China is a Communist country with a mixed economy... Neither of which are known for respecting individual rights. Moving to the mixed economy was not the rise of Capitalism, only the decline of Communism.


There is no such thing as "worker" or "societal" rights... Feel free to try and prove that a worker is not an individual, or that society is comprised of something other than individuals. Another option would be that you simply run away from this argument as you did last time.


Protecting individual rights is the focus of a Capitalist system, it is the only moral purpose for government to exist.

1) Proving yet again that there is merit in mixed economy.

2) tell that to the department of labor, and the congressionally mandated rights given to all American workers, Beter yet, tell that to the founding fathers, who enshrined into the constitution tho se venberable words "we the people". Notice that it doesn't say "me the individual". I well understand your anarchist views, but nowhere in our laws does it say "we, coroporate America".

forgive the spelling. i had shoulder surgery today.

 

[orogenicman]

Instead of actually analyzing what happened, or (shudder! gasp! horrors!) actually formally studying economics so that they have a CLUE of what they're talking about, liberals prefer to explain away the many economic disasters they've caused by puking up a few demogogue terms like "greedy banks".

I have this recurrent fantasy: libs are rounded up and put in prisons. They are offered a thorough-going college fresman economics course, EVEN by liberals such as Samuelson. They remain in prison until they pass the course with an "A", for which they have to come with something better than a few dated agitprop terms.

the banks are not greedy? in what alternate universe?

 

[Rick]

the banks are not greedy? in what alternate universe?

What do you mean - "greedy"? All corporations are required >>BY LAW<< to maximize return for their investors. What would a bank do to become "not greedy"?? Turn down a few good business deals? Demand that depositors accept more than the going rate in interest? What? Your "greedy" screech appeals to the emotions of unschooled, paranoid imbeciles, but is unproveable and even undefined - it's just your mental masturbation.