PDA

View Full Version : The Capitalists Thread



Under
04-10-2010, 08:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Capitalism works because it eliminates inept managers of production automatically through bankruptcy, while extending greater industrial control to competent capitalists.

D W MacKenzie </div></div>

Under
04-10-2010, 08:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Itís interesting to me that the leading sociologist Ė or at least one of the leading source socialists Ė in America today is John Kenneth Galbraith. And he has virtually given up on the development of the Third World, because he has decided that the crucial problem of Third World poverty is that the poor accommodate themselves to being poor. They essentially resigned themselves to poverty, and he says, indeed, this is not an irrational response.

Itís fully rational response to the predicament of the poor. In other words, according to Galbraith, the only way they can escape poverty is to escape the countries in which they live and move to successful capitalist countries. Yet, after all, poverty once prevailed everywhere in the world. It prevailed in the United States in the early stages of our career as a country, and in England, and in all the most successful industrial states, and yet he canít explain growth unless itís already happening. The reason is, he canít understand why somebody would risk his life to create something without any assurance of return. He canít understand giving, and itís giving of yourself without any assured return. Ö They were giving without a predetermined return Ė giving of themselves Ė not just putting down some money and making no effort and having no moral engagement in activities. Thatís the difference between gambling and capitalism. Unfortunately, a lot of people canít tell the difference.

George Gilder</div></div>

Under
04-10-2010, 09:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> My central concern was how people get rich. It seemed to me to explain poverty, you first had to understand walls: and as I was interviewing poor people, are repeatedly came upon the notion that wealth came from taking Ė that the source of wealth is really taking Ė and therefore the way to overcome poverty is to take it back and redistribute it. When I began to examine just how wealth is created, it seemed to me plain that it arises not from taking, but from giving. People get rich by giving rather than by taking, and this seemed to me to be a very important perception, because the reason for the crisis in capitalism today, it seems to me, is not its practical achievements, but rather the perception of its moral character.

I mean, I think itís perhaps more important that the pull is a socialist and at the Taiwanese and the Japanese are capitalists. Itís a fact that capitalism has difficulty defending itself as being in accord with the Judeo-Christian values that underlie the good society. And the more I examine the capitalism in anthropological terms, or even its contemporary manifestations, the more it became clear to me that capitalists give. That is to say that they make investments without a predetermined return: and the gift is not something given necessarily without any return. Even in the Bible, you often give alms, for example, in the hope of some form of return, perhaps a blessing.

George Gilder</div></div>

Under
04-10-2010, 09:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The benefits of capitalism do not flow to the average person when it comes to education because our education system lacks capitalism's driving engine: competition.

Mona Charen</div></div>

Under
04-10-2010, 09:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.

Ludwig von Mises</div></div>

Under
04-10-2010, 09:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The same people who denounce monopoly capitalism usually want monopoly government. And they want it for exactly the same reason capitalists want monopolies: They're greedy.

Joseph Sobran</div></div>

Under
04-10-2010, 09:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm, capitalism is that kind of a system.

Milton Friedman</div></div>

Under
04-10-2010, 09:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition.

Milton Friedman</div></div>

Under
04-10-2010, 09:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Capitalism benefits the little guy far more than the wealthy. Under capitalism, it is ordinary people who get a chance to have their own possessions space and leisure. To the rich, it doesn't matter if they have hot and cold running water or running servants.

Milton Friedman
</div></div>

Under
04-10-2010, 09:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill</div></div>

Under
04-10-2010, 09:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Colonialism became a dirty word in part because of occasional excesses by the colonizers themselves, but mostly as the result of the theorizing of Lenin, whose most influential book was called Imperialism: The Final Stage of Capitalism. Leninís thesis was that the capitalist nations became stagnant as the result of the inherent deficiencies of their system and that they would then rely on colonialism as the only means of creating a market to consume the glut that the proletariat were overproducing. That thesis captivated the minds of the intellectuals, and the canard was loosed that the only interest colonial powers could possibly have in their overseas territories was to serve themselves economically.

Years have gone by since Lenin wrote his book (1917), during which the developing science of statistics, demonstrated that the principal so-called colonial powers Ė France, Belgium, Portugal, England, the United States Ė were getting less out of their territories than they pumped into them, and in fact were concentrating their overseas investments not in the territories they were allegedly bent of exploiting, but in other advanced nations. The Marxist hypothesis was exploded. But the smear stuck, and stuck even to this day, so that even the average Western conservative has got on the bandwagon. And what happens, in more cased than not, is that said nations revert to a state of nationalist primitivism, a sort of coca-colonized totalitarianism.

Wm F Buckley</div></div>

Under
04-10-2010, 09:46 AM
Definition of Capitalism

"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 (http://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 (http://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.

Because people often use the term "Capitalism" loosely, "Laissez Faire Capitalism" is sometimes used to describe a true Capitalist system. But this phrase is redundant.

It is important to define "Capitalism" correctly because a proper definition is a prerequisite to a proper defense. Capitalism is the only moral political system because it is the only system dedicated to the protection of rights, which is a requirement for human survival and flourishing. This is the only proper role of a government. Capitalism should be defended vigorously on a moral basis, not an economic or utilitarian basis.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Capitalism.html

Under
04-10-2010, 10:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Socialism

Socialism is a political system that denies the validity of property rights. Instead, it claims that all property is communally owned. Instead of being a variant of property rights, this is an invalidation of those rights. It destroys the concept of rights by invalidating their base in human life.

Under socialism, control of property is put into the hands of society as a whole. The first effect of this is that people cannot be independent. They cannot live on their own efforts, because there goods will be stolen. This means that to live, they must act in accordance with the wishes of society. They are enslaved.

The destruction of property rights has an additional effect, though. It destroys the efficacy of one's mind. Without the freedom to act in accordance with one's rational judgments, their minds are invalidated. There is no point to thinking if one cannot act on those thoughts. Since one thinks in order to promote one's life, socialism necessarily leads to an inability to promote one's life. You are required to act against your best judgment and against your best interest.

Socialism is an evil political system. All political systems, though, rest on an ethical system. Socialism is not an exception. It rests on the moral system of collectivism. It is when collectivism is accepted as valid that socialism is possible. It is through collectivism that the crimes of socialism are ignored.</div></div>

Under
04-10-2010, 02:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do The Poor Suffer Under Capitalism?

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. So the saying goes. Opponents of Capitalism like to claim that the poor suffer because the rich are constantly increasing their wealth and using it to oppress the poor. They see the successful as a parasite somehow living off the suffering of the unsuccessful.

[/]The fallacy here is that wealth and success are zero-sum - one man's gain is another's loss. That there is a pie to be divvied up and one man's larger portion is another's smaller portion. Under this false premise the above would make sense - the rich have more (it doesn't matter how they got it), so the rest have less. How unjust![/b]

The truth is that there isn't one big pie being divvied up. There is a separate pie for each individual, each sized according to how productive he is. Every man's consumption is a direct result of his production. One man's effort and consumption in no way negatively affects another's.

There are two common sub-fallacies to the notion of zero-sum wealth.

The first is that if one looks around at any given time, there is a finite amount of stuff to behold. Yes, at any instant there is a finite amount of wealth which is somehow divided up between owners. But what must be taken into consideration is that every piece of property was created. Everything that is somehow valuable to anybody was created in some way - the value was unlocked in some way. An item was either manufactured by someone, discovered by someone, or the use of which was invented by someone. The potential wealth of any man is practically unlimited, any creation, invention, or production that he may make does not diminish to potential of any other person.

The second sub-fallacy to zero-sum wealth is that because there are limited natural resources, and those are all owned, then those without resources have no way to generate wealth. The problem with this is that it's wrong on two accounts. First there is no limit to natural resources, unless you consider that limit to be the entire mass of the universe. The ultimate resource is human labor. (See The Ultimate Resource 2 by Julian Simon) Which leads into the second problem which is that those without resources have no way to generate wealth. With human labor as the ultimate resource, and each man the owner of his own labor, each man has the potential to gain anything he wants - depending on his productivity.

Those who view the disparity between rich and poor as an indication of tragedy usually want to rectify the situation. But the only means to achieve egalitarianism in a world where each man has equal rights but unequal ability is to trample those rights. The only tool available is force. And no amount of force will make men more able, force can only make men less able. The only means of making "the poor" successful under capitalism is to destroy the rich. But because wealth is created and consumed individually, this won't make anyone better off for long. You can kill or rob a successful man and live off of the fruits of his labor for a while, but you will have killed the tree, and once those initial fruits are gone, there are no more where those came from unless you find a new victim to rob. This is a pyramid scheme that can only end in death for all.

The truth is that the wealthier those around you are, the better off you are. This is very important. The more wealth your neighbors have, the more they can buy. The economies of scale drive prices down, increasing your standard of living, and decreasing your cost of capital so you can increase your productivity and further increase your standard of living. One man possessing enormous wealth does in no way negatively affect any other people, unless he uses that wealth as a means to initiate force.

The saying should be: the rich get richer and the poor get richer. Everyone gets richer under capitalism where they are free to do so. </div></div>

cushioncrawler
04-10-2010, 04:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Capitalism works because it eliminates inept managers of production automatically through bankruptcy, while extending greater industrial control to competent capitalists. D W MacKenzie</div></div>Capitalism duznt work. On the other hand, there iz no such thing az capitalism, and there iz no such thing az socialism. What we hav iz mixtures.
usofa woz/iz mainly capitalist. Capitalism relys on some companys dieing. In fakt it relys on some countrys dieing. usofa died in 2008. We are now getting a new usofa.

The usofa aborigines had a 100% socialist system -- and it worked well for 200,000 years -- then it woz fukked by whiteman's systems.

Capitalism iz worse than that, ie too much capitalism -- duznt just rely on some corporations dieing, or just some countrus dieing, it relys on some worlds dieing.
madMac.

pooltchr
04-10-2010, 05:12 PM
As you continue believing that capitalism doesn't work, remember that it was capitalism that created the computer that you are using to rant against it.

Steve

cushioncrawler
04-10-2010, 05:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As you continue believing that capitalism doesn't work, remember that it was capitalism that created the computer that you are using to rant against it. Steve</div></div>Steve -- Yes, Capitalism grew and blossomed and looked and stank lovely, and it gav us computers -- and then it died (or woz killed), probly never to be seen again. All life iz like that. Its Darwinian. Everything dies (or iz killed). Lets hope that the newer better Kapitalizm goze better.
madMac.

pooltchr
04-10-2010, 06:30 PM
That would require getting leadership in Washington that supports capitalism rather than socialism.

Steve

cushioncrawler
04-10-2010, 07:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That would require getting leadership in Washington that supports capitalism rather than socialism. Steve</div></div>Steve -- All systems are socialist, and all are capitalist, and none are.
Good leadership iz the key in any system. Bad leadership can sink any good system.
madMac.

LAMas
04-10-2010, 07:22 PM
"...The usofa aborigines had a 100% socialist system -- and it worked well for 200,000 years -- then it woz fukked by whiteman's systems..."


Are you also describing Australia?

cushioncrawler
04-10-2010, 07:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LAMas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"...The usofa aborigines had a 100% socialist system -- and it worked well for 200,000 years -- then it woz fukked by whiteman's systems..." Are you also describing Australia?</div></div>Yeah i meant to say Ozzy aborigines -- or at least their system.
The usofa aborigines (ie their system) were probly around for only 10,000 yrs -- dunno.
madMac.

cushioncrawler
04-10-2010, 09:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As you continue believing that capitalism doesn't work, remember that it was capitalism that created the computer that you are using to rant against it. Steve</div></div>Steve -- As you continue believing that christianity works, remember that it was christianity that held up the creation of the computer that you are using to rant for it.
If it werent for christianity, we would hav been uzing computers in 980AD instead of 1980AD.
Columbus would hav founded america when he looked down from hiz satellite.
madMac.

Qtec
04-10-2010, 09:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Under</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Capitalism works because it eliminates inept managers of production automatically through bankruptcy, while extending greater industrial control to competent capitalists.

D W MacKenzie </div></div>
</div></div>

Did you sleep through the banking crisis?

Q

LWW
04-11-2010, 04:45 AM
You mean the one brought on by statist intervention in markets?

LWW

Under
04-11-2010, 03:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Definition of Communism

The effects of Communism
A satellite photo of the Korean peninsula at night. Can you tell which half is Communist and which half is Capitalist?

http://www.sibelle.info/images/koreas.jpg

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Communism is a form of socialism. It puts control of all property into the hands of the government directly. The results have been impressive: over 100 million people killed in the last century.</span>

Communism is a form of socialism. It puts control of all property into the hands of the government directly. The results have been impressive: over 100 million people killed in the last century.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Communism is the bloodiest form of government ever conceived.</span> It enslaves the entire population, and rules through fear. Because it destroys property rights, it makes the production of wealth almost impossible. Since the use of one's mind is no longer a method of creating wealth, communism has only one method of production: Through hard physical labor. But without the use of reason, even this is severely limited in its scope.

Since the population gets an equal share of the wealth produced, there is virtually no incentive to produce, since one's effort is of negligible benefit. To compensate for this, the government must intimidate and force the people into working hard. Since self-interest is eliminated as a motivation for production, it is replaced by its cruder sort of self-interest in the form of fear of death. The government slaughters citizens to keep the rest in line.

This is encouraged because the government policies are failures. Communism is supposed to produce limitless wealth, making all of its citizens happy and rich. But with the ability to produce impaired, the success never happens. To distract the population from its failure, the government must blame it on others. And anyone guilty enough of harming everyone in society should be killed of course. Communism lives on scapegoats.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Communism is a brutal system of government. It does not just fail to protect individual rights, it establishes a system of violence force. The results have been exactly what one would predict: starvation, poverty, and the slaughter of millions</span>. </div></div>
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_Communism.html

Under
04-11-2010, 04:05 PM
Definition of Public Schools
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Government schools, or public schools as they are often referred to, are one of the worst violations of individual rights in existence. In one single government program they manage to: steal massive amounts of wealth from us; steal the best years of our childhood and our children's childhood; indoctrinate those very children in socialist propaganda; leave the children uneducated and incapable of logical, rational thought; lock up the children with a group of thugs where they are unable to be protected and so learn to live in fear and resentment, as well as mortal danger; encourage the belief that people belong to the government, instead of government is created and controlled by the people; and much more.

What possible reason could people have for starting such monstrous institutions? And why are they allowed to continue? Because they are based on a commonly accepted moral premise, the Ethics of Intentions. People care more that the schools are allegedly built to help the children then they do about the consequences. No matter how bad the results, people will defend schools on the premise that they are trying to do good .
</div></div>
[/url]http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_PublicSchools.htmll[/url]

Under
04-11-2010, 04:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Capitalism works because it eliminates inept managers of production automatically through bankruptcy, while extending greater industrial control to competent capitalists. D W MacKenzie</div></div>Capitalism duznt work. On the other hand, there iz no such thing az capitalism, and there iz no such thing az socialism. What we hav iz mixtures.
usofa woz/iz mainly capitalist. Capitalism relys on some companys dieing. In fakt it relys on some countrys dieing. usofa died in 2008. We are now getting a new usofa.

The usofa aborigines had a 100% socialist system -- and it worked well for 200,000 years -- then it woz fukked by whiteman's systems.

Capitalism iz worse than that, ie too much capitalism -- duznt just rely on some corporations dieing, or just some countrus dieing, it relys on some worlds dieing.
madMac. </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Evasion</span>

Evasion is the act of willful suppression of one's knowledge of reality, and the acting upon that knowledge. This self-destructive act is perpetrated constantly by those who are slaves of the false primacy of consciousness premise and are trying to act upon their feelings without regard to the validity or source of those feelings, or what the likely consequences will be.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Just as man can choose to think, he can choose not to think.</span> Or more specifically, he can choose not to focus. Man can choose to avoid a particular topic or idea. Guilt, for instance, can make a man want to avoid thinking about a particular topic. His mind can focus on something else, which is the equivalent of changing the topic of a conversation.

Man can also choose not to thinking rigorously. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Instead of making the effort to integrate ideas, he can choose not to. He can stay focused on particulars, and avoid the task of understanding.</span>

Your post is a prime example of evasion.