US views of Capitalism v Socialism

[Cartervol]

I never said the rich were getting richer at the expense of the poor. As always, you guys have the same lines over and over again and decide to put words in my mouth in order to make the same tired points over and over again.

I'm all for capitalism amd making money. It is far better than the alternative. And its funny now that I am hearing it is about earners, not wealth. What exactly did Bill Gates Jr. do to earn what he gets? The guy on welfare is there because he doesn't want to get up and work and do something for himself...right? But now your saying that isn't really necessary, and if he can convince somebody to give him money he can get around it. Lazy people are perfectly capable of making a fortune. Hmmm.

And I think its great that everybody is on a rising tide, all I pointed out is some are riding a bigger wave than others. I'm not drawing a single conclusion, just pointing out the data...you guys are the ones drawing conclusions...convicting me of saying it is at the expense of the poor man. Please, you know damn well I have said nothing of the sort.

I have no doubt that those with the most have the most to lose. But this whole TARP, bailout, stimulus crap pushed by both administrations has kept some from having to deal with the consequences of bad decisions and paying the piper when their risk failed. The same ones, who probably, would tell me to go to hell if I made a bad investment, yet they are entitled to may tax dollars, because they work for a company that is "too big to fail" and the economy would suffer if they didn't get to keep their money. Horsesh*t.

I agree with this. They should have let some of those company's fail instead of sticking their noses where it doesn't belong. When company's that large go under, they just retool, downsize and continue on. Its the way its been for as long as i can remember. What i can't remember is the government involving themselves to this level before. Its socialism anyway you slice it. I don't think its good to have government watchdogs hovering over your every move. Makes banks tighten up, makes anyone that has received that bailout money tighten up so they don't get in the same mess again. I really think this involvement will have a reverse effect of what was intended. People scared to do business with each other isn't good for anything.

 

[rjd970]

I agree with this. They should have let some of those company's fail instead of sticking their noses where it doesn't belong. When company's that large go under, they just retool, downsize and continue on. Its the way its been for as long as i can remember. What i can't remember is the government involving themselves to this level before. Its socialism anyway you slice it. I don't think its good to have government watchdogs hovering over your every move. Makes banks tighten up, makes anyone that has received that bailout money tighten up so they don't get in the same mess again. I really think this involvement will have a reverse effect of what was intended. People scared to do business with each other isn't good for anything.

Absolutely.

 

[MG1968]

I never said the rich were getting richer at the expense of the poor. As always, you guys have the same lines over and over again and decide to put words in my mouth in order to make the same tired points over and over again.

I'm all for capitalism amd making money. It is far better than the alternative.

and yet, in another thread, you said that you think corporate taxes, the second highest in the world, are fine just where they're at. In fact, you think they should be even higher on corporations that move manufacturing and other operations overseas.

how can you be "all for" capitalism when you are "all for" the government stifling it by an oppressive tax code that unfairly punishes achievement?

 

[rjd970]

and yet, in another thread, you said that you think corporate taxes, the second highest in the world, are fine just where they're at. In fact, you think they should be even higher on corporations that move manufacturing and other operations overseas.

how can you be "all for" capitalism when you are "all for" the government stifling it by an oppressive tax code that unfairly punishes achievement?

First off, go back and read what I posted. I said they should be higher on corporations that move jobs overseas for tax breaks, effectively taxing them at a rate they would be paying if they kept them here.

And this oppresive tax code that you speak of has still allowed the US to be the world's largest economy by far, the leader in innovation, and steady growth in GDP. Show me one country that has a lower tax rate who's economy is bigger than ours.

 

[MG1968]

First off, go back and read what I posted. I said they should be higher on corporations that move jobs overseas for tax breaks, effectively taxing them at a rate they would be paying if they kept them here.

And this oppresive tax code that you speak of has still allowed the US to be the world's largest economy by far, the leader in innovation, and steady growth in GDP. Show me one country that has a lower tax rate who's economy is bigger than ours.

http://www.volnation.com/forum/politics/69723-barney-frank-wants-control-payroll-now-post2276502.html#post2276552


make it more expensive to do business and what happens?

the US economy is/was big and strong, but it could be even better. Lower corporate and capital gains taxes, turn the US into a tax haven instead of China, Bangladesh or even Ireland.

it's you assertion that too much capitalism is a bad thing, I disagree.

 

[DC Vol]

http://www.volnation.com/forum/poli...trol-payroll-now-post2276502.html#post2276552


make it more expensive to do business and what happens?

the US economy is/was big and strong, but it could be even better. Lower corporate and capital gains taxes, turn the US into a tax haven instead of China, Bangladesh or even Ireland.

it's you assertion that too much capitalism is a bad thing, I disagree.

You have a point, but that's a fine line.


This is exactly the same problem Korea is dealing with.

 

[rjd970]

http://www.volnation.com/forum/politics/69723-barney-frank-wants-control-payroll-now-post2276502.html#post2276552


make it more expensive to do business and what happens?

the US economy is/was big and strong, but it could be even better. Lower corporate and capital gains taxes, turn the US into a tax haven instead of China, Bangladesh or even Ireland.

it's you assertion that too much capitalism is a bad thing, I disagree.

I 100% disagree with that statement.

Make it free to do business and it's just as bad.

Chile and Argentina in the 70's and 80's...Russia in the 90's. Go back and read about what their economies did when the Chicago school of economics - spearheaded by Milton Friedman - did when they got their hands on a clean slate with which to make a captialistic utopia. Corporate taxes were effectively zero, everything was privatized, and trade was completely open. Inflation soared, debt became unsustainable, the price of commodities produced by these countries plummeted, and poverty rates shot through the roof. In Russia, the only thing that saved them was increasing oil prices. The results were disasterous.

Bottom line, extreme capitalism is just as bad as extreme socialism. One has wealth controlled by too few, the other has is spread too evenly. IMO, the U.S. has the right mix, and when we get too far in one direction the freedom and liberties we enjoy allow us to correct it.

 

[paul1454]

I 100% disagree with that statement.

Make it free to do business and it's just as bad.

Chile and Argentina in the 70's and 80's...Russia in the 90's. Go back and read about what their economies did when the Chicago school of economics - spearheaded by Milton Friedman - did when they got their hands on a clean slate with which to make a captialistic utopia. Corporate taxes were effectively zero, everything was privatized, and trade was completely open. Inflation soared, debt became unsustainable, the price of commodities produced by these countries plummeted, and poverty rates shot through the roof. In Russia, the only thing that saved them was increasing oil prices. The results were disasterous.

Bottom line, extreme capitalism is just as bad as extreme socialism. One has wealth controlled by too few, the other has is spread too evenly. IMO, the U.S. has the right mix, and when we get too far in one direction the freedom and liberties we enjoy allow us to correct it.

Pointing to Chile, Argentina, and Russia huh? While I also find “Shock Doctrine” a good read, that book is certainly not gospel and should not be used here as if it were undisputed.

Now, I am not discrediting Klein’s book, it was very well researched and thought out. However, you really cannot say with a straight face that Klein did not greatly oversimplify the issue by painting a picture that capitalism was the sole reason those economies failed to prosper. The truth is, as conceded in Klein’s book, the reason the economies you cited failed was not because of capitalism in itself, it was the resulting corruption after the change in economic structure. However, Klein characterized such corruption as an unavoidable subset of capitalism, rather than an inability of those particular governments, through both political and judicial failures, to combat corruption between business and the government.

As much as she would like it to, her argument does not lead to the conclusion that Friedman, the Chicago economic school of thought, or that capitalism is a failure - only that governments must be tempered to account for the possibility of corruption between big government and big business. To combat such corruption, a government need to be structured in a way that prevents such corruption. Alternatively, one could go even further by pointing out without big government, there can be only minimal misuses of the political process by big businesses similar to those that caused the downfalls of the economies such as Chile and Russia.

One final point, I thought it rather humorous that Klein used Bush's policies after 9/11 as an example of how Friedman and the Chicago school of economics used free market ideals to run the economy in the crapper. Unfortunately, those arguments do not support her argument. The expansions of government after the new deal and 9/11 are far from, arguably completely opposite from, the Friedman economic approach and Chicago school of thought.

 

[gsvol]

Frightening.

"When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.'"
- Adolph Hitler

"Teach your children well,
Their father's hell did slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picked, the one you'll know by.

Don't you ever ask them why,
if they told you, you would cry,
So just look at them and sigh
and know they love you."

Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young

 

[rjd970]

However, you really cannot say with a straight face that Klein did not greatly oversimplify the issue by painting a picture that capitalism was the sole reason those economies failed to prosper. The truth is, as conceded in Klein’s book, the reason the economies you cited failed was not because of capitalism in itself, it was the resulting corruption after the change in economic structure. However, Klein characterized such corruption as an unavoidable subset of capitalism, rather than an inability of those particular governments, through both political and judicial failures, to combat corruption between business and the government.

This is really the meat of your last post. And you cannot really say...especially after reading the book...that saying lower taxes, privatized everything, and completely open trade markets are the end all solution to everything. That is oversimplying on the same exact scale. And it is what most on this board seem to think.

It's the perfect example of those who have the gold make the rules. The capitalism practiced by these countries placed enormous wealth in the hands of the very few. Of course corruption is going to happen, and of course the political and judicial systems won't be able to do anything about it. The economic transformation centralized the power to those who could make the most money. The corruption was there in each of these countries before capitalism took over, the only difference is afterward it was rampant, and the populations of these countries suffered.

...I haven't made it to the Bush stuff yet.

 

[gsvol]

Pointing to Chile, Argentina, and Russia huh? While I also find “Shock Doctrine” a good read, that book is certainly not gospel and should not be used here as if it were undisputed.

The truth is, as conceded in Klein’s book, the reason the economies you cited failed was not because of capitalism in itself, it was the resulting corruption after the change in economic structure.

As much as she would like it to, her argument does not lead to the conclusion that Friedman, the Chicago economic school of thought, or that capitalism is a failure - only that governments must be tempered to account for the possibility of corruption between big government and big business.

Bottom line on Friedman and Chile, Chile didn't really follow what Friedman recommended, China did, compare the eventual outcomes, India as well is accepting what Friedman has been saying and are having outstanding results.

 

[paul1454]

Bottom line on Friedman and Chile, Chile didn't really follow what Friedman recommended, China did, compare the eventual outcomes, India as well is accepting what Friedman has been saying and are having outstanding results.

Exactly. The author who wrote the book rjd was basing his assertion on made a lot of conclusory statements about Friedman's views that were inaccurate. This led to a mischaracterization of Friedman's approach in an effort to support her hypothesis. I don't fault her for that, we all do it from time to time. It doesn't, however, change the fact that she was incorrect.

 

[paul1454]

This is really the meat of your last post. And you cannot really say...especially after reading the book...that saying lower taxes, privatized everything, and completely open trade markets are the end all solution to everything. That is oversimplying on the same exact scale. And it is what most on this board seem to think.

Of course you can’t privatize everything and have a completely hands-off economy. The free market economy creates problems with externalities that are not adequately accounted for in the free market structure such as pollution and the effects on the economy of banking risk. However, I firmly believe a large government is not required to adequately regulate such externalities. In fact, much of that regulation can be done at the state and local level.

Of course corruption is going to happen, and of course the political and judicial systems won't be able to do anything about it. The economic transformation centralized the power to those who could make the most money. The corruption was there in each of these countries before capitalism took over, the only difference is afterward it was rampant, and the populations of these countries suffered.

I understand your argument, but I believe you may be making the same assumption that Klein made (i.e., that corruption is inevitable and cannot be diminished). Sure corruption between governments and businesses are going to happen, but government can be structured in ways to minimize those negatives (i.e., through access to information, judicial remedies, etc.). Very few countries afford their businesses and citizens the legal protections for contracts and property that are taken for granted in the US. These protections have allowed our quasi-free market economy to flourish with relatively few bumps along the way.

Moreover, by limiting government, the value to big businesses of corruption between the political process is minimized. For example, suppose a big construction company acquires a construction contract from the government through corrupt means (probably the company owner was a friend of a congressional representative). With a big government running extremely large and expansive projects, the dollar value of exploiting the government is very large. Conversely, if the government is limited and its endeavors are less expansive, the dollar value of that contract is arguably much smaller.

I am certainly not saying you are wrong. People vary greatly on their conception regarding the role of government. If you feel otherwise, that's the great thing about the US - you can have whatever opinion you want. Just wanted to state my mine.

 

[volinbham]

A few comments:

1. Capitalism is a superior system for generating economic growth relative to socialism
2. More economic growth increases the likelihood of rising standards of living for all
3. While fraught with problems, even complete laissez faire capitalism is a more impartial "selector" of who receives wealth and allocator of resources than a state controlled system
4. We are far from a complete laissez faire form of capitalism
5. Corruption is not tied to capitalism anymore than any other system

 

[volinbham]

Off topic but I find this rebuttal from Klein as telling about the accuracy of her thesis.

Sorry Boys, Milton Friedman Supported The War


Both Jonathan Chait and The Cato Institute claim that the late economist Milton Friedman was a staunch opponent of the invasion of Iraq. The Cato paper states of me that, "She claims that Friedman was a 'neoconservative' and thus in favor of an aggressive American foreign policy, and she argues that Iraq was invaded so that Chicago-style policies could be implemented there. but nowhere does she mention Friedman's actual views about the war. Friedman himself said: 'I was opposed to going into Iraq from the beginning. I think it was a mistake, for the simple reason that I do not believe the United States of America ought to be involved in aggression.' And this was not just one war that he happened to oppose. In 1995, he described his foreign policy position as 'anti-interventionist.'"


Similarly, Chait accuses me of not knowing the difference between libertarians and neo-cons and chides me for never mentioning -- "not once, not anywhere" -- that Friedman "argued against the Iraq war from the beginning." Apparently Friedman's anti-war stance should be "morbidly embarrassing" to me.


I am not the one who should be embarrassed. Despite his later protestations, Milton Friedman openly supported the war when it was being waged. In April 2003, Friedman told the German magazine Focus that "President Bush only wanted war because anything else would have threatened the freedom and the prosperity of the USA." Asked about increased tensions between the U.S. and Europe, Friedman replied: "the end justifies the means. As soon as we're rid of Saddam, the political differences will also disappear." [Read the whole interview in German and our translation.] Clearly this was not the voice of anti-intervention. Even in July 2006, when Friedman claimed to have opposed the war from the beginning, he remained hawkish. Now that the U.S. was in Iraq, Friedman told The Wall Street Journal, "it seems to me very important that we make a success of it."

If you notice, she ignores a direct quote from Friedman saying he was against the Iraq war and sticks to her point that he supported the war by taking various comments that may or may not fit her initial claim that he was a proponent of the war. The last one is particularly weak - saying that one hopes we are successful in a war you think should have never been waged is not akin to supporting that action from the beginning.

I don't doubt there are legit points that she makes but she does appear bent on shaping and selecting facts to support her thesis rather than penning the thesis that the facts reveal.

 

[rjd970]

I understand your argument, but I believe you may be making the same assumption that Klein made (i.e., that corruption is inevitable and cannot be diminished). Sure corruption between governments and businesses are going to happen, but government can be structured in ways to minimize those negatives (i.e., through access to information, judicial remedies, etc.). Very few countries afford their businesses and citizens the legal protections for contracts and property that are taken for granted in the US. These protections have allowed our quasi-free market economy to flourish with relatively few bumps along the way.

Nobody is saying have government control everything. Why does it always come down to if your against neo-capitalism your nothing more than a socialist, and if your against neo-socialism, your nothing more than a fundamental capitalist? I'm for the happy medium.

Access to information and judicial constraints have done nothing to curb the powerful lobby's in D.C. Which, IMO, is the front line of business/government corruption in the U.S.. Would a more capitalistic system do away with this? No. In fact, it would probably make it worse.

You make good points, certainly worth noting. All I was trying to do was say that no tax, free market everything isn't the end all solution. It's the right direction, I wholeheartedly agree, but it needs some constraints. And I still think the basic thesis of Kein's book...that massive strategic shocks lay the path to fundamental reform of national policies...is dead on, and the examples she uses are proper. The only beef that I have with her is she focuses exclusively on capitalistic reforms. Somebody could write a book with the same thesis detailing how Obama and his cohorts are taking advantage of the economic shock to push their socialistic agendas, or how the marxists took advantage of socio-economic uprisings in China and the old Russian aristocracy.

 

[paul1454]

The only beef that I have with her is she focuses exclusively on capitalistic reforms. Somebody could write a book with the same thesis detailing how Obama and his cohorts are taking advantage of the economic shock to push their socialistic agendas, or how the marxists took advantage of socio-economic uprisings in China and the old Russian aristocracy.

Same here. When I read her book, the whole time I was thinking........."ummm, new deal anyone?" I think her book would have been much stronger if she hadn't tried to be so one-sided.

Btw, I wasn't trying to peg you as a socialist. I have no idea your political views (I didn't even know this site had a politics forum until a few days ago). I was just pointing out that corruption can be mitigated. I pointed to our regulatory structures as an example, but I do agree with you that we could do better. And like volinbham said, I believe corruption exists independent of economic structure.

 

[rjd970]

Same here. When I read her book, the whole time I was thinking........."ummm, new deal anyone?" I think her book would have been much stronger if she hadn't tried to be so one-sided.

Btw, I wasn't trying to peg you as a socialist. I have no idea your political views (I didn't even know this site had a politics forum until a few days ago). I was just pointing out that corruption can be mitigated. I pointed to our regulatory structures as an example, but I do agree with you that we could do better. And like volinbham said, I believe corruption exists independent of economic structure.

That's fair enough.

Welcome aboard. You will soon find, that if you believe in any way that isn't capitalistic, socially conservative, and Jesus friendly around here...your derided by some as a dirty socialistic atheist commy. Just fair warning.

 

[MG1968]

I 100% disagree with that statement.

Make it free to do business and it's just as bad.

Chile and Argentina in the 70's and 80's...Russia in the 90's. Go back and read about what their economies did when the Chicago school of economics - spearheaded by Milton Friedman - did when they got their hands on a clean slate with which to make a captialistic utopia. Corporate taxes were effectively zero, everything was privatized, and trade was completely open. Inflation soared, debt became unsustainable, the price of commodities produced by these countries plummeted, and poverty rates shot through the roof. In Russia, the only thing that saved them was increasing oil prices. The results were disasterous.

Bottom line, extreme capitalism is just as bad as extreme socialism. One has wealth controlled by too few, the other has is spread too evenly. IMO, the U.S. has the right mix, and when we get too far in one direction the freedom and liberties we enjoy allow us to correct it.

when did I say to make it free to do business?

you're so consumed with the superiority of your own arguments that you can't be bothered to read those of others.

 

[volinbham]

You will soon find, that if you believe in any way that isn't capitalistic, socially conservative, and Jesus friendly around here...your derided by some as a dirty socialistic atheist commy. Just fair warning.

Only by some. Also recognize this very statement is making the same type of generalizing accusation which you feel is made about you...

 

[rjd970]

Only by some. Also recognize this very statement is making the same type of generalizing accusation which you feel is made about you...

Read the post again, I made sure to go back and add it "derided by some" into it.

 

[rjd970]

when did I say to make it free to do business?

you're so consumed with the superiority of your own arguments that you can't be bothered to read those of others.

When you say things like "raise taxes and see what happens" I follow it to mean no taxes is ideal. If that is not your position, I apologize.

 

[MG1968]

When you say things like "raise taxes and see what happens" I follow it to mean no taxes is ideal. If that is not your position, I apologize.

yeah, I did say that raising taxes will stifle growth, especially now.

corporate and capital gains taxes should be kept low, ideally much lower than what they are now, but not eliminated entirely UNLESS the US adopts a consumption based tax system.

It's my opinion that taxing an individual or a company based on their income is immoral.

 

[DC Vol]

yeah, I did say that raising taxes will stifle growth, especially now.

corporate and capital gains taxes should be kept low, ideally much lower than what they are now, but not eliminated entirely UNLESS the US adopts a consumption based tax system.

It's my opinion that taxing an individual or a company based on their income is immoral.

Just curious, you mentioned you think it should be dropped down to near Irish levels?

 

[MG1968]

Just curious, you mentioned you think it should be dropped down to near Irish levels?

yep. Ireland's corporate tax rate is something like 18.5%, roughly half that of the US.