(01-20-2014 08:22 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 07:20 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 06:54 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 06:42 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 06:26 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Unfettered capitalism.

Where? Spoken like a true wealth disparity disciple that wants redistribution.

So, you take the examples of the extremely wealthy, greedy opportunists to tar capitalism. Par for the course.

I don't know about him, but unfettered capitalism will advance into something else. It's like when Marx said that socialism ultimately leads into communism.

I won't tar capitalism, but I would say that there are some of the very wealthy that don't mind using their power to keep the disparity. And they have that power.

That power to do what? Make more money than you and I? Of course. They have an expertise, obviously, a skillset, advisors, access and whatever else you want to throw in the basket.

BUT, what they don't have is the power to do is dictate what you can make. Not here, not yet anyway. If you do read the article, set the self-serving navel gazing aside about grocerytrip.com or whatever he's pimping, and read how he achieved that which he had always wanted.

Did he have a hand up by somehow going to Columbia on a Willy Loman parents salary? Perhaps. But he was also given a number of breaks and help along the way by the very people he chastises. He wasn't born into wealth, he worked with no prior knowledge or even a college degree to start, and made whatever money he wanted.

That he became disillusioned would seem more of a guilty complex of one individual than some ringing indictment of people making an honest living in an honest trade.

I don't think you get what I'm saying. Making more money isn't a bad thing at all, but tell me that a lot of them aren't in the government's ear in an attempt to capture the market with their intervention. That's what they can use their power to do: create regulations and other things that can completely cut others out of their industry and take all the jobs with them. That's not capitalism, but it is what it can become and what I'm afraid it will become in our lifetimes.

Making an honest living in an honest trade is very subjective here. You wouldn't be able to find anyone on Wall Street who would call themselves honest.

BTW, do you not think that love of money can be unhealthy?

Can be? Well, I guess it can be. Much like love of Ho-ho's, driving fast or Sherlock marathons or anything by Bon Iver can be unhealty.

But that's not to say what replaces it is any better. In fact, history has borne out pretty clearly by far and away, love of money, greed, capitalism is the best way to bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people.
Over time most things are self-correcting. OR, in the absence of that we do have man-made regulations and avenues to address those that may abuse their 'power". Remember the Microsoft lawsuits? So they were punished, but no one would argue (well some would, no doubt...) that Microsoft hasn't been a net good for the nation and world and that Bill Gates doesn't deserve the money and fame and yes, even the power that has come to him.

Now we will all hope those in these positions use their talents and station to continue to do good, altruistic things. But even if they don't, who cares? It's their money.

We've always had the Gates and Buffets, Rockefeller, Carnegies and Vanderbilts. We've also always had poor people. Neither will change much no matter what governmental policy our governing elite decide to guinea pig on us next.

As has been said countless times on here, we need to get people back to work in decent jobs and quit effing around with stupidity like trying to make a minimum wage job a suitable life's choice for a family. Good jobs, and a lot of the bitching and moaning disappears overnight.

We have to be smarter and much more aggressive in getting back to those things that have worked, in the not so distant past, and getting away (quickly) from these dumb things that haven't worked in the present.

They're only designed to be distractions anyway.

My argument isn't against capitalism. I do believe that the way we're moving isn't very capitalistic and it's partially due to those at the top.

It's also true that we've always had the rich and poor, but the best times in this country have had strong middles, which we don't have anymore.

We need the good jobs back as you say, but how do you expect it to happen? We can never expect to get what we lost back.

(01-20-2014 08:26 PM)maximus Wrote:  Shrink the government to nothing....only leave what was originally intended. You would then see real capitalism and wealth creation of extreme proportions.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

But that can't happen. It's a fantastic thing to want though.

(01-20-2014 09:06 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 08:26 PM)maximus Wrote:  Shrink the government to nothing....only leave what was originally intended. You would then see real capitalism and wealth creation of extreme proportions.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

But that can't happen. It's a fantastic thing to want though.

It will happen either naturally, by a reset....or by people in this country waking the eff up.

Hopefully i will live to see it...for my kids sake.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

(01-20-2014 06:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 06:19 PM)Artifice Wrote:  It is ridiculous to suggest that there are no ill effects of unfettered capitalism. History is replete with horrific examples of such.
The current tract for this unfettered philosophy in this country is new fuedalism. We are well on the path.
There is nothing wrong with an innovator developing new products tech or services that enrich our lives. There is nothing wrong with that person enjoying financial success. But there is a problem when that success is the end all be all justification for any decision; it is not okay to take advantage of people to achieve it. And when your product (eg financial derivatives, or spec futures contracts trading when you will never take delivery, etc) does no discernible good for society, you are taxing society and providing nothing in return, and your actions are therefore morally reprehensible. Trying to rationalize otherwise is the exact point of ridiculous hubris the author was discussing.

Two points.

One, greed is not a function of capitalism. Greed is universal. Everyone is greedy to some extent. The bond and derivative traders, corporate CEO's, government bureaucrats, Russian commissars, people wanting to earn $15/hour for doing $7/hour worth of work, welfare cheats, baseball players taking steroids, Bernie Madoff, every one of them (and everybody else too) is driven by greed. Milton Friedman made that point very eloquently in the viral video with Phil Donahue. Where capitalism does better than other systems is that capitalism acknowledges that greed exists. For communism or socialism to work, greed has to go away. But greed doesn't go away, so those systems don't work. Capitalism at least allows greed to exist, and good capitalism uses greed to send the right signals to peole to get them to work for the good of all.

Two, there is no such thing as unfettered capitalism except in theory. What we have is nothing remotely close to unfettered capitalism, and never has been. History is not replete with ill effects of unfettered capitalism because unfettered capitalism has never existed in history. As for new feudalism, the essential tenet of feudalism was that every bit of economic production belonged to the crown, and it was the crown's exclusive right (given directly from God) to determine how that wealth got divided. That doesn't sound much like unfettered capitalism. As for products doing no discernible good to society, I agree with you conceptually there. But how did we get there? Those situations don't exist except in the context of a highly regulated and regimented industry. They certainly don't exist in unfettered capitalism. So you are blaming something that does not exist for problems that would be the exact antithesis of it, if it did exist.

Well said. Capitalism has created more prosperity for more people than any system ever conceived on earth. Are there those that fall victim to it by their ambition and greed?....sure. Can pitfalls occur in capitalism?...sure. These instances are though the exception not the rule.

(01-20-2014 06:46 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  My point is that which Owl 69etc said much better than myself.

(01-20-2014 06:31 PM)Artifice Wrote:  Read the article and contribute to the conversation. Otherwise you are just wasting bandwidth.

Nice dodge there. Didn't answer my Q. which was where is this unfettered capitalism you speak of?

Read the article and comment on the author's point or you are just wasting bandwidth. Your reply ignored the story and was loaded with fallacies including thd red herring you led off with. Make an ivestment in participating and I will likely reply.

(01-20-2014 06:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 06:40 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  What requirements of unfettered capitalism have never been fulfilled?

Unfettering, for one.

The micro levlel ( derivatives trader) that the author described was s perfect example of unfettered. Read the story please. Also I said new feudalism. There are differences.

(01-20-2014 07:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It really isn't. Greed isn't part of the pure capitalist equation. Capitalism in its purest form is the fair and equitable exchange of goods and services for the benefit of those involved. Greed, and screwing people, isn't part of that pure system; it's our twisted societies' addition.

Disagree. You can blame human nature but youre splitting hairs. It is the vehicle to the end game which replaces the adam smith motheory of competition with anticompetition...

(01-20-2014 07:40 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 06:19 PM)Artifice Wrote:  It is ridiculous to suggest that there are no ill effects of unfettered capitalism. History is replete with horrific examples of such.

The current tract for this unfettered philosophy in this country is new fuedalism. We are well on the path.

There is nothing wrong with an innovator developing new products tech or services that enrich our lives. There is nothing wrong with that person enjoying financial success. But there is a problem when that success is the end all be all justification for any decision; it is not okay to take advantage of people to achieve it. And when your product (eg financial derivatives, or spec futures contracts trading when you will never take delivery, etc) does no discernible good for society, you are taxing society and providing nothing in return, and your actions are therefore morally reprehensible. Trying to rationalize otherwise is the exact point of ridiculous hubris the author was discussing.

What?

I create things all the time and never take advantage of a single person. I make less money than I should but do it for the love.

Who did I take advantage of?

The author did no such thing. And I expressly stated there is nothing wrong with an example such as this. Try to read thoroughly for comprehension.

(01-20-2014 06:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 06:40 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  What requirements of unfettered capitalism have never been fulfilled?

Unfettering, for one.

That there has never been a pure example of this doesn't mean we can't extrapolate useful data from those examples which come closer to it. We've never had a true communist society either, they've all been totalitarian regimes with lip service to communism, doesn't mean there isn't information to be garnered from those societies.

Capitalism is a great driving force for invention, and used properly can be a massive tool in raising the living standards worldwide. Just don't act like there isn't clear evidence that as we move towards what could be described as realistically 'unfettered capitalism', there is evidence that the whole of society suffers. Far more evidence than that of modern democratic socialism found in the majority of Western Nations, at least.

It's clear that ideally there lies a balance towards socialism and capitalism, the only question is the relatively minute disagreements on where that balance should be struck.

Quote:But in the end, it was actually my absurdly wealthy bosses who helped me see the limitations of unlimited wealth. I was in a meeting with one of them, and a few other traders, and they were talking about the new hedge-fund regulations. Most everyone on Wall Street thought they were a bad idea. “But isn’t it better for the system as a whole?” I asked. The room went quiet, and my boss shot me a withering look. I remember his saying, “I don’t have the brain capacity to think about the system as a whole. All I’m concerned with is how this affects our company.”


I felt as if I’d been punched in the gut. He was afraid of losing money, despite all that he had.

Quote:From that moment on, I started to see Wall Street with new eyes. I noticed the vitriol that traders directed at the government for limiting bonuses after the crash. I heard the fury in their voices at the mention of higher taxes. These traders despised anything or anyone that threatened their bonuses. Ever see what a drug addict is like when he’s used up his junk? He’ll do anything — walk 20 miles in the snow, rob a grandma — to get a fix. Wall Street was like that. In the months before bonuses were handed out, the trading floor started to feel like a neighborhood in “The Wire” when the heroin runs out.



I’d always looked enviously at the people who earned more than I did; now, for the first time, I was embarrassed for them, and for me. I made in a single year more than my mom made her whole life. I knew that wasn’t fair; that wasn’t right. Yes, I was sharp, good with numbers. I had marketable talents. But in the end I didn’t really do anything. I was a derivatives trader, and it occurred to me the world would hardly change at all if credit derivatives ceased to exist. Not so nurse practitioners. What had seemed normal now seemed deeply distorted.

Quote:Only a wealth addict would feel justified in receiving $14 million in compensation — including an $8.5 million bonus — as the McDonald’s C.E.O., Don Thompson, did in 2012, while his company then published a brochure for its work force on how to survive on their low wages. Only a wealth addict would earn hundreds of millions as a hedge-fund manager, and then lobby to maintain a tax loophole that gave him a lower tax rate than his secretary.

I will say again that there is nothing wrong with financial success from enriching society through fair trade. This is anything but, and is absolutely churlish and reprehensible and most ridiculously, defended by swaths of people against their own interest. It is a fascinating phenomenon that so many people can buy into ideology to their own detriment. These people, derivatives traders, energy futures traders, and the like are taxing society much more than the much maligned government, which at least provides services, however worthless you may feel they are.

(01-20-2014 10:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 06:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 06:40 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  What requirements of unfettered capitalism have never been fulfilled?

Unfettering, for one.

That there has never been a pure example of this doesn't mean we can't extrapolate useful data from those examples which come closer to it. We've never had a true communist society either, they've all been totalitarian regimes with lip service to communism, doesn't mean there isn't information to be garnered from those societies.

Capitalism is a great driving force for invention, and used properly can be a massive tool in raising the living standards worldwide. Just don't act like there isn't clear evidence that as we move towards what could be described as realistically 'unfettered capitalism', there is evidence that the whole of society suffers. Far more evidence than that of modern democratic socialism found in the majority of Western Nations, at least.

It's clear that ideally there lies a balance towards socialism and capitalism, the only question is the relatively minute disagreements on where that balance should be struck.

Exactly.

Some have warned against the neofeudalism that our current policies are steering towards. I hesitate to use the term because I am not sure I agree with every point those who authored it have made.

However, we must recognize the destructive forces in our economy such as this and work to repair the balance. I do not hate or even dislike capitalism, but I will work against those who abuse the power they can grasp with it. There is a balance to strike.

Quote:I see Wall Street’s mantra — “We’re smarter and work harder than everyone else, so we deserve all this money” — for what it is: the rationalization of addicts.

Amen.

The problem with this "balance" nonsense is the fact we have a government and legal system not designed for any such implementation.

(01-20-2014 10:38 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 06:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 06:40 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  What requirements of unfettered capitalism have never been fulfilled?

Unfettering, for one.

The micro levlel ( derivatives trader) that the author described was s perfect example of unfettered. Read the story please. Also I said new feudalism. There are differences.

That derivatives trader was trading in a financial services sector that was among the most highly regulated, if not the most highly regulated, in our whole economy. And pretty much everything he did had to be blessed by regulators. That's not my idea of unfettered.

Financial markets were never deregulated, not even remotely. What got called (incorrectly) "deregulation"was the removal of certain limits on what had previously been considered incompatible lines of business. So companies could do more things than they could before. But each of those individual things remained highly regulated.

Even everything Bernie Madoff did was reviewed and passed by regulators.

(01-20-2014 11:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 10:38 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 06:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  [quote='UCF08' pid='10320881' dateline='1390261255']
What requirements of unfettered capitalism have never been fulfilled?

Unfettering, for one.

The micro levlel ( derivatives trader) that the author described was s perfect example of unfettered. Read the story please. Also I said new feudalism. There are differences.

Quote:That derivatives trader was trading in a financial services sector that was among the most highly regulated, if not the most highly regulated, in our whole economy. And pretty much everything he did had to be blessed by regulators. That's not my idea of unfettered.

...so regulated that it caused the economic collapse that we are all now paying for because the mantra of these people is to privatize profits but socialize losses. But I digress. The regulation argument is a hollow one. The regulations are not effectively enforced, and the penalties have no teeth. Even worse the regulators are scared to act because the people involved switch sides (job hop) so often. You cant have the fox watching the henhouse. That's what happens in those markets. It's a faux veneer, this "regulation".

Quote:Financial markets were never deregulated, not even remotely. What got called (incorrectly) "deregulation"was the removal of certain limits on what had previously been considered incompatible lines of business.

Yes, I am well versed in Glass Steagall and Gramm Leach Bliley. The comingling of business lines put quasi public assets (i.e. everyone's investment/retirement assets which constituted capitalization of these entities) at risk - these jerkoffs were gambling with our money. Taking down that wall is the second worst thing that has happened in American Politics in the last 15 or so years. The bundled garbage paper was just the vehicle.

(01-20-2014 10:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The problem with this "balance" nonsense is the fact we have a government and legal system not designed for any such implementation.

You act as if this same system of government wasn't our government when we effectively balanced that line better than we are now, and led the charge into the most prosperous and peaceful time in recorded human history.

(01-20-2014 11:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 10:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The problem with this "balance" nonsense is the fact we have a government and legal system not designed for any such implementation.

You act as if this same system of government wasn't our government when we effectively balanced that line better than we are now, and led the charge into the most prosperous and peaceful time in recorded human history.

You just said nothing.

What are you talking about?

(01-20-2014 11:17 PM)Artifice Wrote:  ...so regulated that it caused the economic collapse that we are all now paying for

Exactly. Most of the problems were caused by regulations.

And as for your dim view of the effectiveness of regulations in this case,
1) the same points could be made about regulators anywhere, which is why regulation so often has counterproductive results, and
2) regulated, even regulated ineffectively or counterproductively, is not unfettered.

The last century saw the greatest show of overall progress and the limiting of human suffering in recorded history due explicitly to the US straddling the line between allowing healthy capitalism to flourish while providing regulations to protect the interest of it's overall population. You claim that there is something inherent about our government and legal system which prevents such a thing to happen, yet it did happen. Your statement is laughable.

(01-20-2014 11:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The last century saw the greatest show of overall progress and the limiting of human suffering in recorded history due explicitly to the US straddling the line between allowing healthy capitalism to flourish while providing regulations to protect the interest of it's overall population. You claim that there is something inherent about our government and legal system which prevents such a thing to happen, yet it did happen. Your statement is laughable.

Maybe you should check out some legal history before you say dumb*** **** like you just did.

Good God!

I love this leftist view that everything good happened because we have a mix of capitalism and socialism, but everything bad happened because we have unfettered capitalism.

We either have unfettered capitalism or a mix between capitalism and socialism, and whichever one we have is responsible for both the good and the bad. You can't have it both ways.

(01-20-2014 11:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 11:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The last century saw the greatest show of overall progress and the limiting of human suffering in recorded history due explicitly to the US straddling the line between allowing healthy capitalism to flourish while providing regulations to protect the interest of it's overall population. You claim that there is something inherent about our government and legal system which prevents such a thing to happen, yet it did happen. Your statement is laughable.

Maybe you should check out some legal history before you say dumb*** **** like you just did.

Good God!

Nothing? Cool.

(01-20-2014 11:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I love this leftist view that everything good happened because we have a mix of capitalism and socialism, but everything bad happened because we have unfettered capitalism.

We either have unfettered capitalism or a mix between capitalism and socialism, and whichever one we have is responsible for both the good and the bad. You can't have it both ways.

It's an interesting case of selective memory.