when polititians help kapitalists its krony kapitalism aka mercantilism. there are always winners and losers but when the government selects the winners as opposed to unbiased competition, thats a problem.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
New Jersey the communist state
- Thread starter steveox
- Start date
when polititians help kapitalists its krony kapitalism aka mercantilism. there are always winners and losers but when the government selects the winners as opposed to unbiased competition, thats a problem.
Werbung:
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
And?... Does that mean you are unwilling to address the points I make or answer my questions?
Cronyism is not allowed under Capitalism. The mixed market you support not only allows cronyism, it encourages it.
Government has a monopoly on the legal use of force, as such, only government can legally use that force to take what one person has rightfully earned and redistribute it into the hands of someone who did not earn it. Government is the perpetrator, not an innocent victim. Cronyism can only exist where government has the ability to interfere with the market.
Competition leads to having winners and losers... a concept you seem to think is abhorrent.
Why is it a "problem" to have winners and losers? What is the alternative to having winners and losers, guaranteed mediocrity?
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Sure... But you have to spell it correctly, KKKapitalism... You know, like RepubliKKKan, or KKKonservative.
Not so much... While the portion about giveaways to special interests is accurate, economic protectionism is an integral part of Mercantilism and both parties have abandoned that particular method of economic suicide. Perhaps Crony Collectivism...
thats the human nature he alludes to. too many people find mediocrity unacceptable
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Mediocre Conversation in the Collectivist Utopia of Next Thursday:
John: Mediocre day Tom!
Tom: Mediocre day to you as well John!
John: How is the family?
Tom: Mediocre, and yours?
John: Mediocre as well.
Tom: Sure is mediocre weather we're having.
John: Mediocre indeed. How's work?
Tom: Oh, about the same as you I suppose... A mediocre job, for a mediocre days work, and a mediocre salary.
John: Yes my friend, it fills my heart with mediocrity to know that not one single person gets any more than anyone else - no matter what.
Tom: My heart is filled with mediocrity as well. We have truly become the mediocre city on a hill our founders had envisioned.
John: Yeah, eliminating all forms of competition that resulted in having winners and losers was the most mediocre idea anyone ever had.
Tom: It sure was. Well John, it's been most mediocre chatting with you but I have to go, have a mediocre day!
John: Hail Satan!
Tom: Hail Satan!
GenSen
ca, I will answer your questions but it is difficult if you insist on different definitions.For example you say in answer to my statement.
"Crony Capitalism was a phase i used in reference to the Richard B Freeman article on my website,I was quoting. It is real to me and I agree it should not be part of real Capitalism."" Cronyism is not allowed under Capitalism. The mixed market you support not only allows cronyism, it encourages it." This is not my defition.Have you even read Freeman who invented the term."You then misspell it to try to make it sound something else. All economic system have winners and losers. I do not like this but we have to accept this. Socialism tries to modify this by helping the losers. you obviously see no problem with the huge numbers of losers in unrestrain capitalism. As Freeman points out even if you do not accept the moral arguement creating so many losers will make capitalism inefficient by removing all incentives from the majority. It will eventually lead to its downfall.
yes there are people who run their own businesses and those who work for them
by taking the fruits of the labor of the successful
been a while since we've seen anything close to capitalism here but yes, there are fewer people with drive and ambition than without
socialism removes all incentive period. as to downfall, I offer you Greece.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
I was waiting for someone to say that. Right on!
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Bingo again!
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Sorry it is largely a capitalist document. Additionally, it largely protects the freedom to manage one's own property which is consistent with capitalism and inconsistent with socialism.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
How does it "help" the losers?
by giving them the fruits of the winner's labor in any number of ways.
they are then so inspired by the apparent generosity that they become industrious and successful in theior own right so that they too can have the fruits of theor labor seized to be given to other losers. and so the spiral of prosperity grows and expands like a tornado of equality. oh wait, switch that all around and it becomes the swirling of prosperity down the great economic toilet..
Dogtower gave a sacastic answer. However he is right in the first part. Socialism does try to increase the number of winners. By given education and other benefits to the unemployed it does encourage them to give better jobs and become winners. Even in Australia you do not give unemployment benefits unless you are actively looking for a job or are educating yourself. If you look at Freeman work you will see complete equality removes incentive. However too much inequality also removes incentive.
Dogtower tried to give a sacastic answer. However he is right in the first part. Socialism tries to make more winners by giving the poor and unemployed education and other helps. Even in Australia you can not get unemployment benefits unless you are looking for a job or educating yourself. In Freeman experiment he show that while thee is no incentive if everyone is equally , there is also lit5le incentive if the society is too unequal
Werbung:
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, tax it. What you propose doing is taxing winners to subsidize losers. Dog was correct in his last part as well, you will have fewer and fewer winners and ever greater numbers of losers until the entire system collapses in on itself.
What is the "incentive" and where does it come from? Neither you nor Freeman have actually stated it explicitly but you both seem to implicitly suggest that the "incentive" we all have is to reach some level of economic equality with those at the top. If that's the case, then it's absurd. The real incentive within all of us is Selfishness, a desire to improve one's own self, and no level of inequality could ever erase that incentive.