Jump to content

 

 

Poor Should Stop Blaming Inequality On The Rich


Recommended Posts

TheRealPapaBear get's involved.

 

 

 

:facepalm:

 

The debate had stopped a while back, but after a few weeks/months someone posted something and I responded. I thought it was funny that of all the people to have contributed to this debate it was RPB that responded. I should've expected it but it was funny all the same. Intelligent man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism is entirely independent of its environment. It can and does exist quite happily outside a free market - in fact it prefers the market to be rigged, thereby ensuring more profit...

 

We're going to have agree to disagree. We disagree fundamentally. There have been much more intelligent individuals than us (or at least me!) debating these issue for centuries, so it's not as if we'll come to an understanding. In this case we disagree on the definition of Capitalism. To me a market is inextricably linked to Capitalism. If we can't agree on the premise of the argument we're going to go off on different tangents; we've already strayed so far from my original point that Capitalism evolves. Forgive me, but in your very humorous listing of economic models you list several Capitalist models. If there are different models, then surely they are different? And if they are different, then surely they have evolved? In this way a Capitalist model -- like any model really -- is linked to its environment, and will adapt.

 

Again, it's a beautifully simply model, and it works; it's not perfect but it works and it has many benefits. Perhaps it's through ignorance, but I can't comprehend how a pure socialist model could ever work? It seems so costly and wasteful, not to mention oppressive.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the privitisation of the NHS began in 1999 with Health Secretary Alan Milburn -- I'll assume it never kicked-in exactly in 1999, but he instigated it I believe. According to the ONS, the NHS was becoming "wasteful and inefficient" since 1995, when the "the costs of providing services had outstripped the value of services in cash terms. [...] Output grew by 28% but spending grew by 32-39%." Moreover, "the OECD [...] looked at the efficiencies of different health care systems [and ] found that there was room [...] to improve the effectiveness of their health care spending. Some countries, however, could see significant efficiencies gained. And the top three countries that could benefit the most: Greece, Ireland, and the United Kingdom." I'm not claiming its a terrible system, but I do think its fragmented. In my view you can get the 'basic' services efficiently and easily, but the more niche services are wasteful and inefficient. The NHS needs to concentrate on the 'basic' service for everyone, but then privitise the niche services.

 

A "favourable public approval rate" is subjective; I prefer something more objective. The fact of the matter is that "The Scottish NHS has failed to meet a range of government targets which monitor its performance. [...] People are waiting too long in accident and emergency departments, too long for specialist treatment, and too long to be discharged." I'll stop there though as I don't want to get into politics -- You know how I feel about SNP!

 

Its funny: I tend to agree with your posts regarding Rangers, and I look forward to you putting into words my views better than I ever could myself, however, we fundamentally disagree about Economics and Politics. Perhaps we should quite while we're ahead sometimes -- agree to disagree. I do enjoy the challenge though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're going to have agree to disagree. We disagree fundamentally. There have been much more intelligent individuals than us (or at least me!) debating these issue for centuries, so it's not as if we'll come to an understanding. In this case we disagree on the definition of Capitalism. To me a market is inextricably linked to Capitalism. If we can't agree on the premise of the argument we're going to go off on different tangents; we've already strayed so far from my original point that Capitalism evolves. Forgive me, but in your very humorous listing of economic models you list several Capitalist models. If there are different models, then surely they are different? And if they are different, then surely they have evolved? In this way a Capitalist model -- like any model really -- is linked to its environment, and will adapt.

 

Again, it's a beautifully simply model, and it works; it's not perfect but it works and it has many benefits. Perhaps it's through ignorance, but I can't comprehend how a pure socialist model could ever work? It seems so costly and wasteful, not to mention oppressive.

 

And at the risk of being patronising, I'd say that's the problem right there. You tend to think in a very binary fashion. Markets existed for millenia before capital was invented. Capitalism is a relatively recent development in human terms; the barter and exchange of goods and services has been around infinitely longer.

 

As for pure socialism, I'm not sure there ever was or could be such a thing, but in any event it wouldn't be the binary opposite of Capitalism, whereby it was the only alternative and it certainly couldn't be more oppressive than the type of capitalism forced on the countries of Latin and South America by the US and its companies. When people had the chance they voted Socialist and the result was, more often than not, a US backed military coup and dictatorship. Google Salvador Allende.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And at the risk of being patronising, I'd say that's the problem right there. You tend to think in a very binary fashion. Markets existed for millenia before capital was invented. Capitalism is a relatively recent development in human terms; the barter and exchange of goods and services has been around infinitely longer.

 

I don't see how that contradicts my point? Yes, Markets were around a lot longer, but Capitalism is still closely associated with them. According to the OED, Capitalism is "[an] economic [...] system in which a country’s trade [...] are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." Trade is the act of buying and selling goods, a market is just a place where this happens, therefore Capitalism is closely associated with a 'market'. Have I misinterpreted your point?

 

As for pure socialism, I'm not sure there ever was or could be such a thing, but in any event it wouldn't be the binary opposite of Capitalism, whereby it was the only alternative and it certainly couldn't be more oppressive than the type of capitalism forced on the countries of Latin and South America by the US and its companies. When people had the chance they voted Socialist and the result was, more often than not, a US backed military coup and dictatorship. Google Salvador Allende.

 

I'm afraid I don't know enough about Latin America to comment too deeply. Allende's life (and death) does indeed leave a bad taste. However, I'm not sure it suggests Capitalism is oppressive, simply that America's foreign policy is shady, some would say Imperialistic; America is not Capitalism, and Capitalism is not America.

Edited by Rousseau
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how that contradicts my point? Yes, Markets were around a lot longer, but Capitalism is still closely associated with them. According to the OED, Capitalism is "[an] economic [...] system in which a country’s trade [...] are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." Trade is the act of buying and selling goods, a market is just a place where this happens, therefore Capitalism is closely associated with a 'market'. Have I misinterpreted your point?

 

you said: "To me a market is inextricably linked to Capitalism." if it is inextricable, it cannot be an entity on its own. Clearly it can and, for most of human history, has.

 

This, if I may, is another example of binary thinking. Capitalism=markets=capitalism.

 

 

I'm afraid I don't know enough about Latin America to comment too deeply. Allende's life (and death) does indeed leave a bad taste. However, I'm not sure it suggests Capitalism is oppressive, simply that America's foreign policy is shady, some would say Imperialistic; America is not Capitalism, and Capitalism is not America.

 

It suggests, indeed proves, that unfetterred capitalism is every bit as oppressive to those on the receiving end of it as so-called 'socialist' oppression. American foreign policy has largely, if not entirely, been driven by the interests of their major corporations ever since, and before, Eisenhower warned, in vain, of the military-industrial complex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you said: "To me a market is inextricably linked to Capitalism." if it is inextricable, it cannot be an entity on its own. Clearly it can and, for most of human history, has.

 

This, if I may, is another example of binary thinking. Capitalism=markets=capitalism.

 

Semantics. For most Americans, the Pilgrims and Thanksgiving are inextricably linked, but in actuality they are two distinct entities; Thanksgiving only started in 1860s, whereas the first Pilgrims arrived in 1600s. They can still be distinct entities, while being linked.

 

I don't see how I can be accused of binary thinking when I have tried to argue that Capitalism evolves, changes and has many forms. Your accusation would appear to be the binary opposite of what I've been (albeit unsuccessfully) trying to argue.

 

It suggests, indeed proves, that unfetterred capitalism is every bit as oppressive to those on the receiving end of it as so-called 'socialist' oppression. American foreign policy has largely, if not entirely, been driven by the interests of their major corporations ever since, and before, Eisenhower warned, in vain, of the military-industrial complex.

 

I think this is similar to the first point: you condense the definition of Capitalism into one narrow definition, but attribute the effects of many different forms of Capitalism into your narrow definition. I have tried to argue that Capitalism has many forms. Imperialist Capitalism (Capitalism carried on the back of Imperialism a few centuries ago, which should have dies out with Imperialism, but which has not) is indeed oppressive, but I think it's indirect oppression. It's still oppressive and I couldn't argue otherwise, but I think it's indirect in the sense that it doesn't directly control these countries, merely instigates the control most suitable to them; the control, and oppression, is still in the hands of the leaders of the country.

 

Perhaps I've been guilty of something similar, attributing the 'virtues' (for want of a better word) of our modern form of Capitalism onto all previous forms. In that case I should suggest that modern, democratically-elected, directly controlled Capitalism is 'closely associated' with markets and trade, champions individual freedom and therefore is not oppressive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Semantics. For most Americans, the Pilgrims and Thanksgiving are inextricably linked, but in actuality they are two distinct entities; Thanksgiving only started in 1860s, whereas the first Pilgrims arrived in 1600s. They can still be distinct entities, while being linked.

 

I think you'll fnd it is not just 'semantics'; it's logic.

Thanksgiving is, by its very nature, inextricably linked with the Pilgrims, since it is a celebration about the Pilgrims. The Pilgrims however are not inextricably linked with Thanksgiving.

Had there been no Pilgrims, there would have been no Thanksgiving.

Had there been no Thanksgiving, it wouldn't have mattered a jot to story of the Pilgrims

 

 

 

Perhaps I've been guilty of something similar, attributing the 'virtues' (for want of a better word) of our modern form of Capitalism onto all previous forms. In that case I should suggest that modern, democratically-elected, directly controlled Capitalism is 'closely associated' with markets and trade, champions individual freedom and therefore is not oppressive.

 

How in the name of Jesus H can you have a "democratically-elected" capitalism? Are we to have referenda throughout the countries of the world to choose the heads of BP, Toyota and Amazon?

 

I'm guessing that what you're trying to say is that a free-market economy, regulated within a social-democratic framework for the general good of society, whilst protecting the rights and aspirations of the individual, is the system that works best for everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And at the risk of being patronising, I'd say that's the problem right there. You tend to think in a very binary fashion. Markets existed for millenia before capital was invented. Capitalism is a relatively recent development in human terms; the barter and exchange of goods and services has been around infinitely longer.

 

As for pure socialism, I'm not sure there ever was or could be such a thing, but in any event it wouldn't be the binary opposite of Capitalism, whereby it was the only alternative and it certainly couldn't be more oppressive than the type of capitalism forced on the countries of Latin and South America by the US and its companies. When people had the chance they voted Socialist and the result was, more often than not, a US backed military coup and dictatorship. Google Salvador Allende.

 

quite so.

Salvador Allende was elected by popular vote in Chile. The CIA backed the military to murder him and install Thatcher's friend Pinochet. There followed brutal dictatorship when thousands "disappeared" Capitalism is not some sort of economic evolution. It is imposed by wealth and subsequent power to deny the working class the fruits of their labour, so that the wealthy retain power over us.

we have nothing to lose but our chains......and a world to win !

Link to post
Share on other sites

And at the risk of being patronising, I'd say that's the problem right there. You tend to think in a very binary fashion. Markets existed for millenia before capital was invented. Capitalism is a relatively recent development in human terms; the barter and exchange of goods and services has been around infinitely longer.

 

As for pure socialism, I'm not sure there ever was or could be such a thing, but in any event it wouldn't be the binary opposite of Capitalism, whereby it was the only alternative and it certainly couldn't be more oppressive than the type of capitalism forced on the countries of Latin and South America by the US and its companies. When people had the chance they voted Socialist and the result was, more often than not, a US backed military coup and dictatorship. Google Salvador Allende.

 

quite so.

Salvador Allende was elected by popular vote in Chile. The CIA backed the military to murder him and install Thatcher's friend Pinochet. There followed brutal dictatorship when thousands "disappeared" Capitalism is not some sort of economic evolution. It is imposed by wealth and subsequent power to deny the working class the fruits of their labour, so that the wealthy retain power over us.

we have nothing to lose but our chains......and a world to win !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.