I have something very simple to say

[Hydra]

And given what happened to the health care bill, I think more people are ready to hear it.

Capitalism, at it's most basic level, is a system where everything is for sale.

Is that really what we want? A system where everything from our laws to our children have a price?

[Cetacea]

1. "All Our Dreams Are Sold" , Procol Harum, 1991

[timeforpeace]

87. We can't afford sophistry any longer. That's how we got Obama. How's that working out in your battle

against capitalism?

[WeDidIt]

2. I am an unashamed capitalist. n/t

[enid602]

5. capitalism

I am, too. But what we currently have is not capitalism. The insurance companies are protected by archaic laws which prevent them from crossing state lines. What we have is hundreds and hundreds of little, ineficient insurance companies which perform overlapping functions, and have to support hundreds and hundreds of CEO´s, management and Boards of Directors. I also think it would be in the interest of our capitalism to ask those insurance companies to compete with the government (Medicare), so they can figure out what Medicare is doing right.

[WeDidIt]

6. The laws preventing insurance companies from crossing state lines are state laws. n/t

[baldguy]

9. +1000

The richest 1% are socialists. They've created preferential markets, get unlimited govt loans, and they determine market conditions which favor themselves at the expense of everyone else.

They are parasites.

The rest of us have to struggle in the ugly bottom end of capitalism. There is no "middle class" - only the few rich & the many poor.

[enid602]

12. Agreed

Agreed. what they´re protecting is generally not capitalism.

[GreenArrow]

104. it's not socialism either. It's Mammonism. n/t

.

[Deja Q]

18. +1,000,000,000,067,004^42

[Lost-in-FL]

21. +1000

[harmonicon]

91. um.. yeah, that's not what that word means. They aren't socialists. (nt)

[baldguy]

132. From the bottom 99% according to - and sometimes beyond - their abilities

To the top 1% according to their whims & desires.

[Quantess]

113. So true!

[Selatius]

115. We called them "fascists" 60 years ago. Hitler and Franco and Mussolini were fascists.

People died by the hundreds of thousands before that nazi son of a bitch was finally dead in his bunker. It's an insult to the men who bled and died fighting in that world war to equate the thugs in countries like Spain, Germany, Italy, and Japan all those years ago as the same kind of people who favor single-payer health insurance or quality public education that teaches people to be creative, critical thinkers. The fascists just wanted everybody to be jack-booted goose-stepping morons, and if they didn't fit the mold, they were eliminated.

People today who often call themselves democratic socialists would vehemently deny the charge. Back in the day, George Orwell as well as other socialists fought against Franco's thugs on the plains of Spain, and I doubt he'd take kindly to you lumping him in with the thugs who run health insurance companies that profit off human misery.

[baldguy]

135. You neglect to account for the effect of determined corp propaganda over the last 60 yrs.

Of course they're classical fascists - but there's no point in called them that because in the popular consciousness there are no fascists anymore. We defeated them 60 yrs ago. However socialists are still a threat to the average Fox-watching infotainment consumer, since that's what they've been told to fear from the time they were weaned onto the pablum that passes for "news" in this country. Displaying the common attributes of the MSM's strawman socialist boogieman to the current real power structure in America might wake them up a little.

[Enthusiast]

116. Corporate parasites = Fascism.

That is all. And the mechanisms put in place to protect these corporate interests are the greatest danger to representative democracy.

We are actually fighting a war right now, only for the benefit of those that profit from the military industrial complex. This is pure fascism.

[Deja Q]

17. +1,000,000,000,067,004^42

[SharonAnn]

102. Auto insurance can't cross state lines. Ever wonder why? Same reason for health care.

States regulate insurance companies.

Some states have strict regulation and other requirements. Others don't. Whose rules will apply?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. Even the crony capitalism upon which our current system is founded?

[jgraz]

13. I am an unashamed communist.

What we're seeing now is the logical end to a system based on greed and violence. Until we wake up and realize that the natural human state is one of cooperation, not competition, we'll continue spiraling toward disaster.

[Hydra]

15. Well said

I see what we have as the logical end as well. As you say, cooperation...and, I think, sustainability rather than unchecked growth.

[Taitertots]

20. Forced Cooperation

Doesn't sound much like cooperation at all.

I've yet to hear anyone explain communism without it reeking of stupid idea. Mostly it is just a bunch of whining about capitalism and empty rhetoric about how people need to work together.

[jgraz]

23. You should try picking up a book or two on the subject.

We already have forced cooperation in this country. It's just that our forced cooperation only benefits a few wealthy individuals.

Most people with little knowledge of the subject think of communism as the totalitarian dictatorships of the USSR and China. But communism is much more compatible with a democratic system of government. It has nothing to do with "forced cooperation". It has to do with being part of a society and agreeing not to take away more than you give back.

[baldguy]

27. Unfortunately, most Americans base their views of communism & socialism

on 80+ yrs of intensive corporate propaganda.

You can take any "pro-capitalist" any lay out point by point, issue by issue how their lives are totally controlled by others. The "freedom of the market" is a fiction.

[Taitertots]

36. So you advocate that since you think your life is totally controlled by others

That you should create a system that controls everyone's lives.

I'm not sure I'm following. Other people have influence on your life during capitalism, and that is bad; But communism dramatically increasing that control over your life would be good.

[baldguy]

45. You're laboring under the impression that America is a capitalist society. It isn't.

It's really a master/slave society. The slaves suffer under pure kill-or-be-killed capitalism. The masters take the cream off the top & control the economy in their favor. THEY are are socialists. THEY control everyone's lives, and there's no mechanism for the rest of us to control them. As we have seen, without those controls the economic system fails.

Democratic socialism & true communism (what jgraz is talking about - not the Cold War-inspired strawman you're tilting at) give a greater share of that control to a larger group of people. They don't fail because people don't have a say in how they live their lives. They fail when people refuse to take responsibility for their decisions.

For example, instead of taking YOUR money and gifting it to the people who CAUSED THE PROBLEM, a democratic socialist solution to the mortgage/lending crisis would have been to 1) Outlaw sub-prime mortgages & derivatives based on mortgages, 2) re-regulate the banking industry to force them to adhere to classic good business practices and 3) Use federal funds to help the victims of the crisis: starting from the bottom, to pay off ever home mortgage in the country.

This would free up funds for the banks to lend to businesses (which was the problem), add equity for the homeowners to use as they see fit to pay off other debt, improve their homes or reinvest in something else, and IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LESS COSTLY IN TERMS OF FEDERAL DOLLARS.

That's right: we could have paid off every home mortgage in America for less money than we spent on the bank bailout.

Of course, in the current climate of uninformed disinformation about "socialism" & "communism" such a reasonable & logical (and beneficial) strategy would be impossible. And America suffers for it.

[Taitertots]

57. The common sense solution to the problem

1)Outlaw mortgage based derivatives
2)Re-regulate the banking system
3)Spend the money on public works projects, education, and infrastructure
4)Seize the assets of all the people in charge of the banks responsible for this and imprison them




If are laboring under the assumption that current US capitalism is the only possible form of capitalism. You are no more valid then people who bemoan the failings of communist nations as proof communism can't work.

[baldguy]

67. You want to punish the officers of banks who were following the law?

That sounds like that bad old scary SOCIALISM! that we've all been conditioned to fear.

The ugly truth is: those banks & their officials weren't doing anything wrong! In fact, if they didn't behave as they did - to maximize the corporate profits & minimize the losses - they would have been liable to be sued by their shareholders for malfeasance. Unless you've got a similar criminal activity they're guilty of, you've got no grounds to confiscate their assets.

At this point, all we can do is try to compensate their victims & repair the damage they've done.

[Taitertots]

72. Your plan is flawed

You basically reward everyone who didn't do what they should have.

You reward the bankers, the reason they wanted the bailout is because they took the money.
You reward the people who took on too large on mortgages, the speculators, and the people who tried to "flip houses".

It won't create any jobs. It won't increase GDP.
It penalizes all the people who actually paid for their houses.

[baldguy]

76. Well, God damn those EVIL homeowners!

Those horrible people who had the impertinence to want to have a decent home for their family! They had the arrogance to want to rise above their predestined station in life and now must be punished! In spite of the fact that everyone: their banker, their mortgage agent, their federal govt, Wall Street and The President himself were saying that these mortgages are affordable, reasonable & pretty much standard in the industry. And the fact that the average home buyer had no way of knowing none of that was true without having extensive knowledge of the financial industry shouldn't enter into calculating the extent of their punishment one bit.

You just don't get it, do you? These people are THE VICTIMS.

[Taitertots]

103. Cut the grand theatrics

It is going to do nothing to help unemployment and the GDP gap.
It isn't going to decrease income disparity.
It rewards the people who caused the problem and punishes socially optimal behavior.
It does nothing to help the underlying problem which are the reason action needs to be taken in the first place

If that segment of effected people are victims are not is irrelevant. What is the best way to both help them and everyone else? It is not paying everyone's mortgages. It is creating jobs with infrastructure spending, education spending, social security, and public health care. Solve the problem, don't pour money into things that are not going to solve the problems(your plan, the bailout).

[baldguy]

127. The victims of the mortgage crisis are not relevant?

So they should be victimized even more? As if scrimping & saving for years, finally getting what you thought was a good deal on the mortgage, but turned out not to be, losing you entire savings to the bank, defaulting, bankruptcy, losing the home & ending up worse off than you were before wasn't punishment enough.

The problems that caused the crisis in the first place - banks having a financial culture that serves Wall Street rather than the communities that they operate in - are systemic; the solutions most be systemic also. The banks profited from pulling value out of communities, so the equity ratio in those communities has to be repaired. Regulation is only one piece of it. Changing the culture of financial institutions by building value in local communities Rather than Wall Street is another. Which would then allow the bank to draw on the real equity in the community to underwrite loans to the community.

Pouring money into a Wall Street bailout - which we've done - only continues to prop up the existing failed system, and primes it for further, more catastrophic collapse in the future. By NOT offering a direct bailout to homeowners, you ensure the systemic problems in the mortgage market will NOT be fixed.

[Taitertots]

131. No, whether or not they are victims is irrelevant

Are they victims or house flippers, speculators, and excessive borrowers? This does not matter. What does matter is how we solve the reason we are in this mess. My plan will make them much better off than your plan could. Not only that, my plan makes everyone else better off too.

Why should we waste the money giving handouts to wall street or handouts to main street? That money could reform education, build a 21 century infrastructure, or be put toward universal health care. We fix the systemic problems in the mortgage market with regulation, and the economy with sound fiscal policy. Pouring billions out and getting nothing in return is the antithesis of sound fiscal policy.

What is going on in your head? You don't want a wall street bailout, but at the same time your plan is an even more epic handout to wall street than we have now. While making way, way more for the banks that bought and sold mortgage backed securities.

Your plan is based more on ideological purity than realistic expectations. You plan is going to crowd out investment, bailout wall street gamblers, punish responsible debtors, and do nothing to solve the underlying reasons we have problems.

[baldguy]

137. So, you would alloy banks to keep the huge lien they have on homeowners??

Because mortgages are soaking up a huge portion of credit market. And if the value of the security is depressed - as is the home market - a significant portion of what would normally be held by the bank as secured debt would now be unsecured.

That's what caused the credit market to collapse. It's not that the banks had no money to lend, It's that they couldn't see a way to realize a return on what they'd already lent out. Bad lending practices (promoted by the federal govt) started a vicious cycle that the banks, the homeowners and the credit industry have no way of pulling out of without drastic intervention.

The ONLY solution is to short-circuit the cycle at it's source - the home mortgage. By paying them all off, the market would be able to start from scratch with new rules. Even if the homeowner immediately took out a new mortgage, it would be based on the true market value of their home & their realistic ability to repay. If they didn't, the cash which they would have used to pay their mortgage would now be either saved (which would supply the bank new funds with which to lend, and thus stimulate the economy) or spent on other goods & services (which would also stimulate the economy). This is Banking 101

Your "plan" doesn't do any of that; it's simply enacting retribution upon those who you see as "guilty".

[Taitertots]

138. Yes, I expect people to pay for their own houses

So lets just make it so they can. We don't need handouts to help people hurt by this. We can not only help them, but everyone all at the same time.

Regulate the banks to prevent it from happening again.

If your idea of fiscal policy is a system based on handouts, I'd doubt you have taken any finance or economics classes.

[baldguy]

139. Reward the banks; punish their victims.

Again.

Is that your view of the American dream?

[Taitertots]

143. What on earth are you talking about?

Reward the banks?
They get repaid the money they lent, sounds more like breaking even. How can you even justify that line of complaint in your head. YOU advocate paying the bankers off in full right now? The banks get substantially less under my plan than under your's.

Punish the "victims"?
They get back to work, keep their houses, get public health care, get education, and a better tomorrow. Your plan is sure to keep them out of work, crowd out investment in housing, without public health care, and ensure they only need increasing handouts in the future.


So yes that is my view of the American dream. Vibrant middle class with functional public health care, excellent public education k-university, strong 21 century infrastructure.

[ThomThom]

144. limit it to just people's residence not investment property

Simple
Helping out families by buying their mortgages and giving them a new one at a reasonable rate is a good first step and probably a good investment. Then you have to change the regulations so banks have rules.

[laughingliberal]

80. Yep. Paying off the mortgages would have cost less and would have put some money back in the hands

people who would have spent it and gotten it out there circulating. It would have gone a long way towards drying up the glut of houses on the market and we might be seeing some building resuming with people going to work to do the building. But noooo. We believe in welfare for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.

Have seen a lot of bitching about offering any help for those losing their homes by people who think they weren't affected. I saw a story on the local news the other night which illustrated the far reaching effects which will, eventually, in some way affect everyone. Reno is now laying off 160 city employees and cutting services back due to the decreased revenue from property taxes. Equity down, tax revenue down. Just for those who say the negative equity crisis is having no effect on them.

[Taitertots]

30. I have read a couple

I have yet to see one that it didn't seem like a terrible idea.

"It has to do with being part of a society and agreeing not to take away more than you give back."
That is a vague and essentially meaningless statement.

You have just further reinforced my beliefs by making empty statements and complaining about capitalism.

[jgraz]

34. Try reading a few not written by capitalists.

Sounds like you have a very secure belief system there. Try, just for a moment, imagining that you might have it wrong.

[Taitertots]

43. I'm not married to capitalism

I'd like to see some fairly dramatic changes within our capitalistic regulated market system.

I've critically examined the issue and my beliefs. I've read the communist manifesto and read about some opinions about it. I don't see it as a system that will create favorable outcomes. No amount of straw man attacks on pure capitalism, or empty jargon about cooperation, teamwork, sharing, or community will change that. The underlying mechanisms of how this could ever work don't make sense.

I've imagined I was wrong and tried to imagine an ideal means to distribute goods and services. I came to the conclusion that we should have "highly regulated market" capitalism, with social programs.

[jgraz]

44. I bet we almost totally agree.

My belief in communism is as a direct replacement to the corporatism that currently runs our lives. Communism and regulated capitalism are actually compatible, if you don't require either one to be the exclusive method by which you run an economy.

I've been part of communist companies (they didn't call themselves that) where we all got a piece of the profits and all had a say in how the company was run. This worked well for small startups, but I've also been part of large, successful companies that followed the same philosophy.

When I say "communism", I don't mean "Stalinism". I just mean a system built in mutually agreed cooperation rather than forced greed and wage slavery. You can still have free markets (much freer than our "capitalist" ones), but they would be based on our need to cooperate and build a society, not some hyped-up myth of individual conflict.

[Taitertots]

61. We agree on some things

"I just mean a system built in mutually agreed cooperation rather than forced greed and wage slavery."
This is a meaningless sentence. That is at the same time both anti-capitalist empty jingoism while being vague and without concrete meaning.

"they would be based on our need to cooperate and build a society, not some hyped-up myth of individual conflict"
Another meaningless sentence. That is another empty complaint about capitalism and a meaningless hype of communism.


Please explain your ideas in a manner that is not simply vague and meaningless.

[ima_sinnic]

122. ignorance is bliss

I work as a copy editor for a website offering editing service to people all over the world; at least half our clients are from Asian countries, and China is one of them (not as numerous as people writing from South Korea, however, which is probably at least 3/4 of our Asian clients).

I recently read back-to-back papers from 2 different people in China, apparently unrelated to each other in any way, comparing capitalism and communism and reminiscing about how much better life was under communism. Paraphrasing, "we never worried about getting enough to eat; it was fun--we worked together and everybody watched out for each other."

I have gained many other insights into the minds of Asians and others around the world after five years of reading their writing, and there is a growing, very rational, and harsh critique of capitalism bubbling to the surface. The Asians, particularly South Koreans, Chinese, and Indians, also are very excited about their new important role in the world--they are "emerging," literally--they are a homogeneous society excited about "diversity" (one of the top 5 themes in their papers), and they are exploring all the new markets now open to them by which they are becoming properous--so they are embracing capitalism, but they have a more ingrained cooperative tendency.

As these new global players have a more and more important influence in the world, capitalism is going to take it the nuts. If the U.S. does not start regulating "its" corporations, you can be sure the rest of the world will. Luckily for the American sheeple, there ARE sane and moderate people in the world who can see the outcome of unregulated greed.

[WeDidIt]

24. Then you are my ideological enemy

This system will outlive us...

And another hundred generations.

[jgraz]

25. We already knew that.

[WeDidIt]

26. Communism is antithetical to 99% of the U.S. polity. n/t

[baldguy]

32. As is unregulated capitalism.

Conservatives are working on that, though.

[jgraz]

33. So? If we decided truth by popularity contest, we'd still be teaching creationism in schools.

[WeDidIt]

37. Truth is decided by popularity contests in Democratic Republics. n/t

[jgraz]

38. Yeah... not really.

We don't even decide policy by popularity. Of course, one could argue that we don't really live in anything approaching a democratic republic.

[ImOnlySleeping]

117. not truth

perception of truth

[MNBrewer]

118. Laughable comment there.

[girl gone mad]

97. Yet many, including you, support a system that amounts to corporate communism.

It's interesting that the ideals which you espouse are so contrary to the politicians and legislation which you defend.

[blindpig]

124. Oh yeah?

Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism

Thursday, April 09, 2009

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.

There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism

It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. The fact that a “free-market economy” attracts substantially more support than “capitalism” may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets.

Other survey data supports that notion. Rather than seeing large corporations as committed to free markets, two-out-of-three Americans believe that big government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.

Fifteen percent (15%) of Americans say they prefer a government-managed economy, similar to the 20% support for socialism. Just 14% believe the federal government would do a better job running auto companies, and even fewer believe government would do a better job running financial firms.

Most Americans today hold views that can generally be defined as populist while only seven percent (7%) share the elitist views of the Political Class.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2009/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism

Times they are a changin', Bucko. Capitalism goes on the ash heap of history or the whole planet does.

[Forkboy]

71. LOL

:thumbsup:

[blindpig]

121. Even in the worst case that cannot happen

Capitalism will lay waste to the planet first.

[Odin2005]

52. Both Capitalism and Communism are BS.

A co-op-based market economy is the way to go.

[jgraz]

55. Tell me more.

What's your idea of a "co-op-based market economy"?

[Odin2005]

56. Private businesses would be cooperates, owned collectively by their employees.

They would exist in a regulated market economy.

[jgraz]

58. Almost exactly what I'm talking about.

It's not full communism, but it's enough to make a real difference.

[Odin2005]

59. Well, I reject Economic Planning

It is antithetical to choice and innovation. The market is not the problem, the problem is who owns economic enterprises, the Investor Class are parasites who do no useful work and run businesses like little totalitarian states.

[baldguy]

69. The market is the problem.

Markets require checks & balances & REGULATIONS geared to harness their forces for the betterment of society at large. Otherwise they will invariably fall under the control of the very totalitarian investor-class parasites you're criticizing.

[Odin2005]

92. Regulations are not planning, they are a referee.

by Planning I am talking about Soviet-style economies. The ideal purpose of the government is to act as a referee to prevent the formation of monopolies and cartels and to provide vital public services, not to micromanage the economy, which stifles innovation and breeds corruption.

Thus the well-known Russian joke "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."

[eridani]

88. That would be anarchosyndicalism

Maybe a bit of market socialism? You know, based on the presumption that government-owned department stores and for-profit fire departments are equally stupid.

[tekisui]

63. The owner-worker is a good model to work towards.

It is largely a response to the same problems diagnosed through Marxism. The prescription for correction is so much more practical than Communism.

[leftstreet]

82. +1

[AlbertCat]

90. realize that the natural human state is one of cooperation,

Except it's not.

This is the now debunked "noble savage" meme.

It is a truth that "primitive" "natural" societies have more frequent and more absolute warfare than the "modern" civilized nations. True, WWI & WWII are bad! But they are not like the generations long feuds that spring up in tribal societies. And the "destroy your enemy absolutely" style of warfare is not the norm like in tribal warfare. Percntage-wise...the casualties of tribal warfare are much higher than that of the world wars.

Really, these late 19th century and early 20th century social philosophies are old hat.


It is human nature to compete and to want to own things. The best thing seems to be a kind of regulated capitalism.... where certain commodities which really have no free market.... because you cannot refuse them (energy, medicine, food....) must be heavily regulated and supported by the government.

Deregulation has been the main demise of the American system.

[jgraz]

129. You're talking philosophy, I'm talking about evolutionary theory

Most anthropologists agree that the desire to own things started with the invention of agriculture about 5000 years ago. Until then, there was no need for people to appropriate land and material goods.

Most societies of prey animals (as we are) have to be built on cooperation. There is no way that "rugged individuals" could survive by themselves. Without cooperation, without an instinctive desire to help each other, humans would have been leopard food long before we even thought of leaving Africa.

[harmonicon]

94. who cares what "the natural human state" is?!

I think most people are fundamentally wicked, selfish, greedy, and heartless fucks. However, I think that as a society, we can make a world where that isn't accepted as an ideal.

[jgraz]

130. Capitalists do.

They use it as as excuse to promote the selfishness and greed necessary to keep their system running. The problem is, it's a lie.

[harmonicon]

133. I know that they do, but I don't think it's a lie.

However, what I'm saying is that that shouldn't matter. When people try to use "naturalness" as a justification for something, we're screwed no matter what the outcome is; no matter who wins the argument.

I've also seen this used as an excuse for racism, which is also unacceptable. What is natural is no influence on what is right and wrong, and it's right and wrong that should matter.

[jgraz]

136. That's certainly another way to attack it.

Both are correct. It's a lie AND it's irrelevant. Whether it's natural or not, capitalism is killing us.

[coti]

28. Would you call this bill capitalist? Does it allow for the invisible hand

of the free market to work its magic?

Or is it corporatist, using the powers of the federal government to force Americans' money into the hands of a few powerful insurance companies?

[arcadian]

41. Do you own a business or have extensive investments?

If not, then you aren't a very good one. Since you post so much on DU and aren't tending to your investments, you are probably a terrible capitalist.

[lib_wit_it]

75. And?

[girl gone mad]

96. Yet, you support a bill which is most assuredly anti-capitalistic.

Strange dichotomy.

[grahamhgreen]

107. Are you really? Do you live off of your capital, or do you have a job? What is your net worth?

[Laelth]

3. I am a liberal. Ultimately, that means my answer is "yes."

At bottom, I support capitalism, and I support a system where everything is for sale.

Liberalism's purpose is to protect Capitalism from its own excesses--to insure that the masses are protected from the evil that is inherent in this system so that the system will not collapse.

And that, it seems to me, while not exactly "noble" or "good," is about the best I can do.

:dem:

-Laelth

[DrDan]

4. unfortunately, greed came into the picture

today dollars drive everything - religion, charitable orgs, education, healthcare, . . . nothing is untouched.

Look at Christmas today. Begins before Halloween!!!!! "Black Friday". All greed-driven.

[Hydra]

7. Greed is not considered a sin in Capitalism

Everything has a dollar figure attached to it, and that's how it's supposed to work.

[coti]

29. But, of course, this isn't capitalism.

In a capitalist system, buyers are supposed to have some sort of choice.

[Hydra]

40. In a capitalist system, what guarantees "choice?"

The logical end is that you destroy your competitors and restrict access, thus creating shortage and high demand.

Anti-Trust is not part of basic capitalism.

[coti]

46. In capitalism, at the very least, you have a legal choice of whether to buy.

Not here- the federal government is making it law that you have to buy health insurance.

[Hannah Bell]

70. no, you don't. since the necessities of life are sold in the market, you *must* buy.

no choice about it.

[coti]

74. Not in the same way that I am talking about.

A car? You could always find some way to go without- legally.

Milk? Potatoes? Cheese? Again- you can always eat something else.

Hell, you could move into the wildnerness and raise your own crops and hunt to feed yourself. Having done all that, you would never have to buy anything (in theory), except for one thing- health insurance.

Legally, everyone is going to have to buy health insurance. There is no choice.

[Hannah Bell]

101. there's no free wilderness to grow vegetables in. you have to buy land,

pay taxes on it, buy inputs for your vegetables, etc.

i take your point on the insurance mandate, but there's basically no way to live outside the system of paying corporations to live, one way or another.

[geckosfeet]

31. Good point. But when the government facilitates and provides cover it is called fascism.

[Hydra]

39. No, this is the logical end

Everything is for sale, the Government is for sale. You buy influence and laws, you make more money. Rinse and repeat.

[geckosfeet]

42. Yes. See definition of fascism. Admittedly, with some subtle variations

but IMO a clear derivative.

Fascism

Again, not perhaps a pure strain of fascist government. The nationalist agenda ebbs and flows with the right/left groups that are elected. But I think we are witnessing the evolution of fascism, or possibly a merging of a capitalist democracy resulting in a variation of the fascist state.

In any event, when government facilitates business interests over peoples interests, when government takes power to legislate from the people and gives it to corporate interests, that is fascism.

You can sugar coat it with dreams of capitalist utopia all you want - in fact, that is one of the roles of government under fascism. But when corporate interests dominate the legislative process it is called fascism.

[zoff]

49. 30 or so posts to the F word.

I'm glad it didn't show up later. From wikipedia:

"Fascism ... is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system ..."

Sounds on the money to me.

[hayu_lol]

8. Back in the day when everything seemed to be working well...

we had carefully regulated capitalism. Capitalism is one of those raging tigers that needs must be kept behind bars and controlled.

What we have now is nobles and serfs.

[DrDan]

11. I agree with that - hence the role for government - regulate -

protect citizens.

[FredStembottom]

35. This is SO important, hayo_lol

In the 50's we seemed to have nearly created the "perfect" system. Regulated Capitalism.

What we have now is like a bowling tournament with the rules removed. The problem isn't that we bowl in tournaments it's that, NOW, a certain few can walk down the lanes and kick the pins over.... and still take home the trophy!

Capitalism is like anything else. It needs rules!

[pissedoff01]

14. Even Adam Smith favored government intervention

to maintain market fairness and to keep people 'honest'

[geckosfeet]

16. When the national government condones and facilitates the removal of our power,

no matter that it is through layers of lobbyists, PR departments and focus groups, it' called fascism, not capitalism.

What I see is a government that is at nearly all levels bought, owned and controlled by big corpo. This governments role is to provide cover for big corpo. Government provides the illusion of a two party system and a democratic system to pacify the citizens. The corpo's harvest the labor and dwindling financial resources of the citizens and payoff the politicians.

It seems the same as it was under the bush/chainey/KKK rove regime.

And I can't believe I am writing this but the starkness of it all comes into finer focus with each passing day.

[pissedoff01]

19. We're living under corporate fascism

[C_Lawyer09]

22. The Question of what a true free market economy represents

must be asked. Because a government corporate alliance is not it. There has been no meaningful anti-trust legislation passed since the turn of the century. If this were accomplished along with true campaign finance reform, we wouldn't be held hostage to garbage legislation. Maybe if family members and loved ones were not employed by lobbying firms; Trent Lotts son, Daschles wife, Reids son, maybe we'd have a represented constituency. We have not seen true capitalism at work for a long time. A free market is a fair playing field. One need only look toward the tax codes that allow corporations that are geographically located in the U.S. but hold p.o. boxes in Barbados, and hence are allowed to evade paying 70b worth of revenue in 2002 numbers, to realize, in large part what brought us to this point is misbegotten legislation. Capitalism at the small business level, must be absolutely re-energized. It is not fair that politicians will legislate a Wal-Mart, free property and a tax holiday, and Joe and Josephine Dry Cleaners can barely hold their head above water during the 2-5 years it usually takes to establish a business. If fake competition is legislatively engineered, bad product with worse prices is the result. Bill Moyers did an awesome CBS special on monopolies, but I can't find the link.

[Hawkowl]

47. Well said!

Simple and easily understood.

[asdjrocky]

48. They find the very things we need to live-

Food, water, heat and health. Then they find a way to profit on our most basic needs.

Yeah, capitalism is evil.

[Hydra]

66. Your ability to survive

Held hostage for a profit. You said it well.

[asdjrocky]

68. So did you.

[DailyGrind51]

50. Let's replace the American flag with a big "$" sign!

"300+ million self-interested individuals under Dollar Almighty"

[Odin2005]

51. Healthcare is a fundamental human right, not a commodity.

[harmonicon]

98. No shit.

The number of times I've had to say that around here amazes me.

[roamer65]

53. I'm for managed capitalism (aka socialism)

Everything should not be for sale.

(i.e. Health care should not, whereas glass bottles should be for sale.)

[lunatica]

54. The truth is yours today!

I love it when someone states the obvious that succinctly!

[Hydra]

65. T/y :D

Votes for sale
Morals for sale
Lives for sale

I woke up today and thought: "Why? What could possibly be worth this?"

[libertypirate]

60. The problem really isn't Capitalism. It is labeling our economy in its

current form as Capitalism. In order to see Capitalism we have to ignore the deep seeded fascism that pays lip service to the worker.

We are no longer the purpose of our society. We are just the profit for which the fascists see as their purpose.

This is not the distributed free flow of capital. We shouldn't be calling fascism capitalism because it legitimizes the fascists.

[laughingliberal]

108. A very good point. Just as abused children make excuses for their perpetrators

so we call it capitalism. And at its roots it is fear. We are terrified to admit to ourselves that we are now living in fascism. As we who have been around for a few years know, this was always the looming threat. And we have spoken very quietly to each other ticking off the progress towards and away from it. And we have asked ourselves and each other, "are we there yet?" And the answer was, for a long time, "No, not yet." And now that the answer is, "Yes, we're there," it's too frightening to speak. As Americans far removed from the war Germany waged we study the history of Hitler's rise to power and wonder how such a thing could happen? Why didn't the people say anything? Didn't they realize what was happening? Now, some of us know very well how it happens. And, yes, there were those sounding the alarm but they were marginalized as lunatics and dismissed. After a while they dared not speak. Keep your head, down, go to work, look out for yourself and, maybe, they won't notice you.

[blindpig]

126. too funny

Fascism is a form of political organization very friendly to capitalism. Did Hitler destroy the capitalists? Hell no, he went hat in hand to them and cut a deal. Capitalists made money hand over fist until the very end.

Capitalists don't give a shit about politics except how it affects their bottom line. Capitalism is amoral, utterly destructive of human lives and life in general.

[Kablooie]

62. I'll buy that.

[Waiting For Everyman]

64. Profit doesn't belong in health care.

Or other basic needs either, including education. Or primary home loans, or primary car loans and city transportation, or utilities. "The basics" should be protected (as it used to be) from this constant gouging we have today. If we expect people at the bottom to make it on their own, they certainly can't do that while being treated like a food-chain for sharks. Obviously. We can't have it both ways... either we protect and support the bottom while they're climbing up the ladder, or we don't expect people to make it on their own. That's nothing but a fraud.

Profit belongs in the realm of the people who are well-off with perfect credit, and for voluntary things which they do at their own risk.

[truedelphi]

73. I am not against profit (And I suspect you are not either)

Obscene profit is what I am against.

If a good doctor makes a decent living off his patients, that is fine with me.

But if a CEO at a HMO is making an amount equivalent to the sum of the salaries of 3,300 employees at a hospital inside that system, a hospital wherein people and the hospital itself are struggling to survive because the HMO does not give it enough money, then something is wrong.

How that something will ever be fixed under the current system, I do not know.

[femrap]

77. I wonder how much I could get for my kidney? nt

[Orsino]

78. Properly regulated capitalism would be fine with me.

When we finally muster the knowledge and courage to state clearly what should not be for sale, and to legislate accordingly, we can have capitalism that is unable to eat us.

[Goldstein1984]

79. I am an unashamed socialist

Capitalism is just social Darwinism.

[snot]

81. AND where nothing that can't be commodified is valued.

[harmonicon]

99. excellent point. (nt)

[hfojvt]

83. I don't buy it

I think there are still many things that are not for sale. Our country is not perfectly capitalist.

[Hydra]

85. Ok, I'll bite

Name something that isn't for sale here in the US(And if you name something illegal, that still counts- they're still here and for sale)

[kestrel91316]

84. One thing I am sure of: unfettered free-market capitalism is a crime

against humanity. So is the act of trying to achieve it.

[Cleita]

86. The economy should serve the people, not the people serve the economy

which is what is happening. Also, even though we have been brainwashed since WWII to think of capitalism as a political system, it isn't and it shouldn't be thought of that way because it seems to be doing quite well in communist China which is really a totalitarian dictatorship not a communist country as our leaders claim. Socialism also seems to be doing quite well in many European democracies, as well, so I think we need to define these things better. Of course we now admit that government married to business is fascism and Hitler could never be prouder if he saw what the Republicans accomplished in this country since Nazi Germany fell. His only qualm would be a President of African ancestry and all those ethnic minorities allowed to co-habit with us.

[pundaint]

89. Horses for courses, capitalism works for development and invention, but it is not

not an appropriate way to provide the commons. The life span of a corporation should return to the original approximation of a human life, corporate personhood should be ended. Corporations are our servants not our peers, or like today, our masters, there is no role for corporate participation in elections.

[defendandprotect]

111. Nonsense . . . we fund most of the research and invention ... and then turn it over

to private corporations ---

Agree with you that the corporation should be put back in the box, however -- as quickly

as possible --

We should move on to a more socially responsible economic system.

And cut corporations off from government welfare ---

We're not subsidizing the Vatican -- !!!

Just another corporation seeking $$$ and influence ove rour government --

[annabanana]

120. Well said. You should post more often. . . . .n/t

[LooseWilly]

93. Communism is good. Christianity is stupid.

-Negativland
(the video content has been blocked on youtube... ironically)
(http://www.youtube.com/index?ytsession=1Lc48-jSpEy5bK5B54ohjeljqi-Y72nZEbG5e2Ob-xrGFS3WW8-dzIHnXVTjk7fGsCxTZbBujh0uNaacZ7mv3f-5fIvXXbLRLnHe360wSZbwitK4cPhES1X8LwEMm99UREN6DBSMweZJ2HbBYHKDQPAFpu99ZJT_3Ajst93NTS6c1HyFjhhqnSD5nOPu3n53HiQahTSK2ITnWXWRnyzYzRnwvQ2tsgH3kKMFKoHVgMbYIrt20V8lWs14nAf4CFlnqct9_kYz5FOKJIG_lwlAZw)

[Starry Messenger]

95. No, I don't want this.

I played this election game for a few years because I bought into the message that electing Dems would put us on the right track. I'm over that now. This isn't fixable in its present form.

[dcsmart]

100. if i am doing the buying, yes

[wial]

105. competition has its place

like a fire in the fireplace. it does not follow it's a good idea to light the drapes.

[defendandprotect]

112. No ... capitalism is not about competition, it's about KILLING the competition . . .

which is what monopoly is --

Noticed any monopoly lately???

[Selatius]

114. To be a capitalist, all one needs to do is own some form of productive capital.

Be it buildings, land, equipment, etc. to produce a product or service.

Whether or not competition exists is beyond the scope of what it means to be a capitalist. You could literally own 100% of all the land and buildings and equipment in a nation-state and still be considered a capitalist. Most would likely call you a dictator or more likely a "fascist" with a tremendously hideous amount of power, but a capitalist you would still be.

[defendandprotect]

134. You're saying that we weren't taught that capitalism's advantage was the

"competition" it created . . . ???

As for buildings and land -- capitalists/elite were very quick to attach themselves

to the new government's teat -- where land was doled out to elites.

Further, I've never seen the "creator's" signature on a Deed of Transfer of any property --

The system of capitalism itself is intended to move a nation's wealth and resources from

the many to the fewe -- and it does that quite successfully. It is systematic class warfare

on the poor and middle class.

Unregulated capitalism as we saw prior to the New Deal -- and post the overturning of New

Deal regulations on capitalism -- is merely organized crime.

Meanwhile, we have always called corporatism "fascism" and it is what we are living with now.

Capitalism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill" system --

it is antonymous with democracy -- indeed, a threat to democracy.

[Selatius]

140. Competition is an incidental. In the end, all competition ends if allowed to run its course.

Because through competition competitors are destroyed or driven out of a market. Soon, an oligopoly emerges, and if fighting continues, there will be a monopoly. Nobody can deny that this is what happens when things are allowed to take their course in such an economic system. As a result, few economies are entirely capitalist but are mixed in nature incorporating socialist aspects and intervention in the markets to break down monopolies and oligopolies. Most people who've studied it and advocate "the free market" probably believe it like a blind ideologue, or they are on the payroll of a company in the position to stomp out competition and become a monopoly.

[defendandprotect]

142. Play a game of "MONOPOLY" . . . go see the movie TUCKER . . .

Capitalism is about killing competition --

[grahamhgreen]

106. There is even a deeper level - everything is for rent, you own nothing and rent it from the wealthy

[alp227]

109. NO. Public service is NOT a business.

I've just finished reading George Lakoff's The Political Mind, in case you're wondering where I got that idea.

[defendandprotect]

110. Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime . . . and that's what you see

in this health care DEFORM --

This will not be the end of the betrayals by this corporate administration --

Social Security, Medicare, abortion ???

[Locrian]

119. capitalism is a reward system - plain and simple

Capitalism is a reward system - plain and simple. It is not some law of nature or inevitable result of civilization.

The RULES of capitalism will determine what is rewarded. W/o any rules, this means "whatever makes money is good". So death, destruction, parasitic behavior, are all encouraged - as long as they make money. Doesn't matter if that is short term.


How do people expect capitalism "to set market prices" for things like your LIFE (ie health care) and expect it to be a fair system? And what about things that make money, but are bad? Like war, prisons, etc?


People with money have ALWAYS made the most with no rules - because they are free to use their advantage to take it from everyone else.

[WVRICK13]

123. But We Have A Perverted

mix of socio-capitalism. The taxpayers support industry and capital enterprise through taxes but the capital enterprises oppose any relief for the populace. True capitalism would have told Wall Street and the banks tough shit, you screwed up pay the consequences.

[rosesaylavee]

125. And that is the gist of it.

You put your finger right on it. And no, that is not what I want. It doesn't work well except for the HAVEs.

[Maru Kitteh]

128. And on what corner of the earth do they not have a price now? It does not exist.

Yes. Everything has a price. It does everywhere, and it always has.

[dorkulon]

141. Capitalism does not equal corruption.

There are capitalist nations with less corrupt governments. There are obviously corrupt socialist governments.