Absolute Capitalism

[History_Buff]

Well, most people alive would pick oil, and that wouldn't much help us. Plus, Jose might try to fight you

 

[GhostWriter16]

How would everyone sharing perfectly make everything ok? For that to be your ideal world, you have to assume that scarcity doesn't exist. Take for instance rare goods like oil, or diamonds, or food prepared by Jose Andres; we could all share it perfectly, but there will be so little to go around that it would never be useful to anyone.

From a position of no scarcity you can argue anything you want, but it has zero validity in the real world. It becomes like the writings of von Mises and his ilk; looks great on paper, but even the guys who write it eventually acknowledge that you could never base a working economy on it.



So, without addressing any of the specific strong points and failings of communism, are you actually saying that America should always, now and forever, be a constitutional democracy just because some guys 200 years ago saw that it was a good idea?

Lets say we discovered a perfect government system that made everyone perfectly happy and satisfied (like your impossible theoretical model). It has worked flawlessly in every other country in the world. Should it be rejected just because it's not the system America has used forever?

Well, our system worked quite well before it was perverted.

 

[Cutlass]

Well, our system worked quite well before it was perverted.

New Deal liberalism did work quite well before it was perverted. Now we have collapses of the financial system again.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

well, our system worked quite well before it was perverted.

1929?

 

[History_Buff]

Well, our system worked quite well before it was perverted.

You mean in 1787, when it was decided that a more effective central government was required?

 

[JollyRoger]

Jollyroger, stop being sarcastic. It's only securing lifetime employment if the child wants it. And, your point isn't even that your scenario is acceptable, but that more government should be introduced. In the words of Ronald Regan, "Government exists to protect us from each other, it oversteps its bounds when it protects us from ourselves." Therefore, if someone wants to gamble their lives away, not wear seatbelts, or decide not to purchase healthcare, that should be allowed, though the government should also leave these people to the consequences of their actions rather than giving them welfare. However, if somebody wants to sign a contract on behalf of their child, abort a baby in the womb (Please do not debate the point of whether a fetus is a life or not, I believe that it is, and that being said, my point is understood whether agreed with or not) or recklessly drive the government should interfere because you are overstepping the bounds of your own freedom and interfering with someone elses.

So government regulation of non-persons such as banks and oil companies to protect us from them would be acceptable? Or should the government only step in to prevent a corporations from aborting their proposed subsidies post-conception, but pre-registration?

 

[GhostWriter16]

You mean in 1787, when it was decided that a more effective central government was required?

No it was needed that time. I meant FDR making us a Welfare State.

 

[Cutlass]

No it was needed that time. I meant FDR making us a Welfare State.

You mean when he created the most prosperous and wealthy and stable period in American history when the US became the standard most of the world aspired to?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yeah, that's when working for your way lost some of its worth.

Wow, I can't really argue with you because there are people 10 times worse I have to argue with simultaneously.

 

[JollyRoger]

Yeah, that's when working for your way lost some of its worth.

Are you kidding? Social mobility has improved since the New Deal.

 

[Cutlass]

Yeah, that's when working for your way lost some of its worth.

Wow, I can't really argue with you because there are people 10 times worse I have to argue with simultaneously.

How so? Everyone had a higher real purchasing power. Get that? EVERYONE HAD A HIGHER REAL PURCHASING POWER AND STANDARD OF LIVING AFTER TAXES. So a policy that made literally everyone better off after taxes, is hardly a bad policy.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Are you kidding? Social mobility has improved since the New Deal.

And it is even better in Western countries which indulge more "socialism".

Absolute capitalism means Feudal conditions in a modern garment. If society stops to be guided by a central agency it is only guided by human nature. And this never ever plays out well except in very small tribe-like communities.
This is a very sad fact, but it is a fact we have to live with.

 

[Karalysia]

Social mobility has declined since Bush, significantly. You're more likely to die poor thanks to him and the Republicans.

 

[ilduce349]

Came across this when searching for a mod, this was the 3 thing on the list
It would be a near perfect place, as long as their is a dictator in charge
I would define it as:
Almost no Government intivention:
Income tax = Non existent
GST = Non existent
Property tax=very low

Government spending= almost non existence
The job of the government would be:
To pass new laws to decide what is morally right and wrong
To ensure safety in all communities by arresting criminals and charging them 4 their crimes
To ensure security in the country by have a powerful army
No Charity acts, No free health care, no government insurance.

The governments sources of income
Cheap labor off inmates
Bail out fees
Property tax
Parking tickets and speeding tickets (55% of the British governments income comes from this, tickets are 6 times the price as they r in Canada, and the police r less lenient to those who commit them)

Everything else is passed to big businesses.

However, if it was like this Capitalism would fall eventually. so their should be a max size of a business (something like 90% of the market)

 

[GhostWriter16]

For the most part, that sounds like what Government ought to be doing.

Well, except the dictator.

 

[Cutlass]

For the most part, that sounds like what Government ought to be doing.

Well, except the dictator.

So you want capitalism to fall?

 

[ilduce349]

I would like 2 remind people that Bush was not a true capitalist
the idea of installing a capitalist government means
Reduce government spending
Reduce government size
Reduce government income (lower taxes and sh*t)

Bush
Increased government spending
Increased government size
and Reduced government income

That does not work: that is the reason y the US is in total sh*t right now.
I would like to remind everyone that the US had virtually no taxes and no Government from
1957-1999 and was the world power and economic power
then Bush decides to increase spending, and it ends in sh*t
Meanwhile China had increased spending and income from 1950-72
then they started becoming more capitalist (decreased spending, and starting letting corporations, mainly american take over) now China has the fastest growing economy in the world and is projected to over take america as the economic power in the next 25 years. Looking at that thier is now way in hell u can say that socialism and the left wing democracies around the world work. Also bush was a complete idiot.
We need a government system that makes it easier 4 intellects to come to power and impossible 4 ******s. Make the government its a corporations, have the leader (or CEO for businesses) chosen by a Board to determine who is the man most fit 4 power.

 

[Karalysia]

I would like to remind everyone that the US had virtually no taxes and no Government from
1957-1999 and was the world power and economic power

 

[GhostWriter16]

I would like 2 remind people that Bush was not a true capitalist
the idea of installing a capitalist government means
Reduce government spending
Reduce government size
Reduce government income (lower taxes and sh*t)

Bush
Increased government spending
Increased government size
and Reduced government income

That does not work: that is the reason y the US is in total sh*t right now.
I would like to remind everyone that the US had virtually no taxes and no Government from
1957-1999 and was the world power and economic power
then Bush decides to increase spending, and it ends in sh*t
Meanwhile China had increased spending and income from 1950-72
then they started becoming more capitalist (decreased spending, and starting letting corporations, mainly american take over) now China has the fastest growing economy in the world and is projected to over take america as the economic power in the next 25 years. Looking at that thier is now way in hell u can say that socialism and the left wing democracies around the world work. Also bush was a complete idiot.
We need a government system that makes it easier 4 intellects to come to power and impossible 4 ******s. Make the government its a corporations, have the leader (or CEO for businesses) chosen by a Board to determine who is the man most fit 4 power.

I do not consider Bush to be the greatest president, just better then Obama.

 

[ilduce349]

Exactly
1957
Taxes shot down

The fact is US's Marginal taxes is half of the time of WW2
here in Canada its went up 20% during that time

due to inflation Marginal taxes go up, thats whats been happening for 100 years.
Also were is that graph. It shows marginal tax, which is also known as income tax.

GST 0% the whole time
Property tax Barely a change unit the mid 90's
Point is this shows just 1 tax form, that went down during that time.
As i said reduced spending.

Also may i remind u
1991 Communist Collapsed. Y?
Because it doesn't work
China gave up on Communism in the 70's
Germany gave up on Communist in the 80's

Communism doesn't work so until u find a system that actually works, don't argue against the current best system (a system that has)

Just so u no
Economic Left/Right: +8.98
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: +6.27