|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:10 am Post subject: Corporatism/Capitalism shenanigans |
 |
|
OK, OK. This silliness has gone on long enough.
I'll preface by saying that the prospect of �Libertarians� opening new avenues in a two-party stranglehold are both interesting and exciting. On the other hand, I'm done with the word games being proffered by our new messiahs.
The game being played at the moment goes like this:
Modern concepts of the private sector are being labeled �corporatism�, which by agents involved is narrowly defined as �private sector business with government restrictions�
and,
at the same time, there is resistance to the term �capitalism� because, according to entities on this board and elsewhere, they say capitalism implies �a market free of government intereference�.
For anyone interested, this is a deliberate bastardization of terminology that paints circumstances as they are not.
�Laissez fair� is one form of capitalism which, it appears, some parties are attempting to paint as the definitive meaning of capitalism. It's not.
Rather, �capitalism� refers to a much broader and ambiguous notion of the private sector existing and functioning as a separate entity of the state. By no stretch of the imagination does it imply a market free of state control or influence. If it did, terms such as �laissez fair capitalism� and �free market capitalism� would not exist.
In contrast, �corporatism� refers to a tri-partite notion of capitalism having private, union, and government mechanisms involved in its function. It is still a form of capitalism because the private sector continues to exist as a distinct entity, albeit with external forces influencing it.
Key learning point: Corporatism is, in fact, a kind of capitalism. Capitalism does not by definition constitute laissez fair or free market capitalism.
Free market, laissez fair capitalism is far more rooted in ideology than reality
It's an extremely pure concept: absent of government, the private sector will create a better society.
As an idea, it holds hands with communism in a way its proponents probably don't want it to:
absent of a private sector, we will have a better society.
The problem is: the public and private sectors depend on one another:
Basic property rights depend on government recognition.
Copyright and patent rights depend on government recognition.
Minimum wage and labour law are a result of flaws in a free market.
Collusion, trusts, monopolies, and price-fixing are all a result of laissez-fair markets.
Despite antiquated notions of an �invisible hand�doing good, a laissez fair market is freely exploited.
Historically, there has really never been a laissez-fair market.
And this leads us to the oft-suggested canard that a market free of government will function to benefit society. History indicates that it won't.
Modern application
Health insurance companies won't cover you if you're already sick. It isn't profitable for them to do so. If you're diagnosed with cancer outside of coverage, your screwed in the USA. Health, like police or fire department coverage, should not be a for-profit business.
But wait
If government doesn't interfere with business, then we'll have a better society...
OK, OK. Let's indulge these notions:
5 companies control most of the media. Free of government control, what's going to happen?
Globally, government inhibits for-profit oil-drilling where it may harm the environment.
Finally, say government abandons all business regulation. Does that mean �the market� stays out of government?
No. Eminent domain laws, for example, remain to be exploited.
In other words,
-don't be cowed by people playing corporatism/capitalism word games
-the free market is a myth
-all evidence indicates that free market concepts are far more sociopathic than philanthropic
-getting government out of business isn't going to get business out of government
-the next time someone suggests that private sector rape of the citizenry is a matter of corporatism but not capitalism, you should probably ignore this platitude |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
But when speaking of "laissez-faire" capitalism, you ignore the important role the banking system has played. Modern (fractional reserve) central banking ensures that free markets cannot exist, because it eliminates competition. Only through capital accumulation can you have free market capitalism. In a debt-based monetary system, legalized fraud will allow the money powers, in collusion with the government, to finance the creation of monopolies that would not otherwise have existed.
I agree with many of the other points you made, however. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
*****
Libertarians support Liberty. Liberty only occurs when all markets are free from government control. It is not business that benefits from free markets. It is the people who benefit. The economy will grow to its maximum potential, workers will earn and keep their maximum incomes. Pollution is illegal because property is privately owned.
Governments do not like liberty. Governments do not like free markets.
******
Free markets include charities, churches and co-ops. Philanthropy is a market concept.
Free markets include the majority of firemen in the US, who are unpaid volunteers for example, and a large percentage of private contractors and 1/3 of police who work for private contractors and not for the government.
In the US, as the government expands, the percentage of GNP going to help the needy declines. Socialism displaces philanthropy to the needy at a greater rate than the governmental increase in aid to the needy. The more the socialists take over, the greater the level of greed in a nation.
Socialism allows the greedy to use the power of the state to enrich themselves and increase their personal power. They will screw whoever they have to and destroy liberty to get what they want.
There has never been a monopoly in history without it being created and supported by government.
Pollution only occurs because of the rules created by government to violate property rights and allow pollution. All pollution is a result of socialism.
When all property is privatized and returned to the market, and the socialists driven from power, the private property rights of the property owners will be paramount. Pollution of another person's property, including air and water, will be illegal.
Socialism allows pollution. Free markets prohibit it. Governments and some businesses benefit from socialistic control of the economy. The people and the economy are hurt by these socialistic intrusions.
Minimum wage laws, wage and hour laws hurt the poor, least skilled and disadvantaged workers the most. They were designed to do exactly that. Such laws can actually benefit certain businesses by keeping the cost of labor lower than it otherwise would be. At the same time, minimum wages help highly paid skilled workers by impoverishing their marketplace competitors - they exclude lower skilled workers from offering their services in certain fields. These laws hurt the consumer, the economy and the poor. Socialism is truly evil.
Eminent domain laws are a fascist-socialist violation of the property rights of individuals. They should be abolished.
We must demand a complete separation of the economy and state.
And, to educate those who have an obvious complete lack of economic and financial education, there must be a complete separation of education and the state.
******
It's amazing the people claim that the government is so good for them because, after all the government told them it's true.
Just like people who claim the bible is true because the bible says it's true.
A kidnapped girl, raped and forced to bear children grows to love the perpetrator, just as you have grown to love the state that rapes and robs you. You believe the lies they keep telling you. You want to believe because you don't want to feel the pain that would come from understanding just how badly you've been abused.
****** |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| In the US, as the government expands, the percentage of GNP going to help the needy declines. Socialism displaces philanthropy to the needy at a greater rate than the governmental increase in aid to the needy. The more the socialists take over, the greater the level of greed in a nation. |
I'll just add that this is doubly true because nearly all scarcity in our system is artificially created by government regulation of the economy. Most resources are actually abundant and cheap; combined with ever improving technology, our standard of living should be much higher and much cheaper to afford than it is.
The artificial scarcity is a result of the elite (esp. the financial oligarchy) monopolizing most of the wealth and resources for itself through fraudulent means (through the Fed), at the expense of the rest of us. This culture of greed then spreads to the rest of society, where getting rich at other peoples' expense is portrayed as the embodiment of the "American dream", when in fact it's the opposite of the ideals our country was founded on.
| Quote: |
| A kidnapped girl, raped and forced to bear children grows to love the perpetrator, just as you have grown to love the state that rapes and robs you. You believe the lies they keep telling you. You want to believe because you don't want to feel the pain that would come from understanding just how badly you've been abused. |
Good analogy. It's also pride (people don't like to admit they're wrong, especially when they've been duped their whole lives). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 6:32 pm Post subject: Re: Corporatism/Capitalism shenanigans |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
The problem is: the public and private sectors depend on one another:
Basic property rights depend on government recognition.
Copyright and patent rights depend on government recognition.
|
Whose position is it that they don't?
The classical liberalism position is that the government's role is what it, and only it, can perform. A state police force is better than a privatized police force, a state army is better than a privatized army, and individual and property rights are better protected by the state than by a private company.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| -the free market is a myth |
You're committing the fallacy of what is not the case for the whole isn't the case for some parts.
If you opened a bakery, how would you know how much bread to produce? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I have kind of waded late into this debate, but I believe capitalism should be restrained as should the greedy impulses of many capitalists. When capitalism is unchecked as many of the nobility of England realized, it leads to a human catastrophe. For the longest time Roosevelt and others after him checked the power of the very wealthy and the middle class burgeoned in the US when that was reversed, the middle class declined, the airwaves became more in the hands of the anti-democratic forces of the corporations. You can't have power for the people and by the people if the people do not have control over their own nation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:09 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Pollution only occurs because of the rules created by government to violate property rights and allow pollution. All pollution is a result of socialism. |
Yeah, m'kay.
After 5 years of residency here, I have to say that ontheway's above post [the bit I quoted being just a tidbit] is the most thoroughly dogmatic statement I've ever encountered on this board. So much so that, while I find it quite scary, I'm not threatened by it at all because it's over-the-top ridiculous. I don't feel obligated in the least to have to explain why at all. Just look above.
What I'd be interested in seeing is a more grounded subscriber to libertarianism walk us through these beliefs and try to base them in reality. Any takers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:24 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Hi, I'll preface by saying I'm copy-pasting comments from another thread in an effort to keep relevant commentary in one place.
The following was directed at me on another thread:
| Quote: |
Add to the list of words which Nowhere man has not learned the meaning of: mixed economy.
Add to the list of historical events which Nowhere man has not read the history of: the extinction of the carrier pigeon and near extinction of the buffalo.
Really. It's back to school time for you Nowhereman, for your information is wrong and just nowhere, man. |
I'll add that I've been accused of "hit-and-run" tactics on this forum.
That has NEVER been my intention.
On the other hand, as poster Fox pointed out elsewhere, I could write the talking points myself for "Libertarians" on this board.
And, it's a bit tiresome at this point for people to be substituting "You don't understand ____(my libertarian view) " for a proper defense of the views y'all clearly espouse.
So, enough of that. Step up to the plate.
What is the problem you see, and how do you propose to solve it?
You are expected to answer follow-up questions.
Mithridates, I call you out.
Not to pick on you, but because I have a long-standing respect for your opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:11 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Hi, I'll preface by saying I'm copy-pasting comments from another thread in an effort to keep relevant commentary in one place.
The following was directed at me on another thread:
| Quote: |
Add to the list of words which Nowhere man has not learned the meaning of: mixed economy.
Add to the list of historical events which Nowhere man has not read the history of: the extinction of the carrier pigeon and near extinction of the buffalo.
Really. It's back to school time for you Nowhereman, for your information is wrong and just nowhere, man. |
I'll add that I've been accused of "hit-and-run" tactics on this forum.
That has NEVER been my intention.
On the other hand, as poster Fox pointed out elsewhere, I could write the talking points myself for "Libertarians" on this board.
And, it's a bit tiresome at this point for people to be substituting "You don't understand ____(my libertarian view) " for a proper defense of the views y'all clearly espouse.
So, enough of that. Step up to the plate.
What is the problem you see, and how do you propose to solve it?
You are expected to answer follow-up questions.
Mithridates, I call you out.
Not to pick on you, but because I have a long-standing respect for your opinions. |
Why don't you try doing some research for yourself? The info you get here will always be second hand and not as well written and convincing as getting it from the primary source.
If you want some pointers to get you started, I and many others on this board would be happy to inundate you with links.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:20 am Post subject: .... |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford!
Righty right with that. It seems like a good place to start with.
So, Rusty, you've been exceedingly vigilant in pointing out cases where people don't understand your "capitalism=NO government intervention in business.
You, Rusty, have repeatedly insinuated that capitalism=NO government intervention. Whatsoever. At all.
Now, Rusty, you've not qualified this term at all.
So, per your repeated suggestion that capitalism designates the "laissez faire" meaning you'd like it to, I have to conclude that you don't really know much, or are otherwise claiming to speak for people you don't.
Now, there are two groups who will account for your beliefs.
One group is the businessmen.
One group is the union men.
In a very gullible state, those who might hope to mourn business losses while ignoring the unions are naive.
So, to reiterate, union stories are not spoken for by Pat Buchanan-types who'd like to teach them Jesus.
Tying religion into your economic reform is a sad mistake.
Time is on our side.
We don't offer a new religion.
It's your mistake to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pollution only occurs because of the rules created by government to violate property rights and allow pollution. All pollution is a result of socialism.
This statement has been proven absolutely to be true.
Summaries are available in a variety of basic economic texts and publications. It is taught at major universities.
Numerous winniners of the Nobel Prize for Economics agree.
But, those who haven't studied economics have never seen this discussed. It is beyond the ken of those in the mainstream media. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Pollution only occurs because of the rules created by government to violate property rights and allow pollution. All pollution is a result of socialism.
This statement has been proven absolutely to be true.
Summaries are available in a variety of basic economic texts and publications. It is taught at major universities.
Numerous winniners of the Nobel Prize for Economics agree.
But, those who haven't studied economics have never seen this discussed. It is beyond the ken of those in the mainstream media. |
I think nowhere man (and I) would be more willing to buy this argument if you said, "Nobel Prize winnner ______ has shown as much in his book/paper/thesis/etc called Pollution is due to the bloody gov't" instead of making vague assertions claiming there are highly respected academics and professionals that have validated your opinion/argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:59 pm Post subject: Re: .... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Rusty Shackleford!
Righty right with that. It seems like a good place to start with.
So, Rusty, you've been exceedingly vigilant in pointing out cases where people don't understand your "capitalism=NO government intervention in business.
You, Rusty, have repeatedly insinuated that capitalism=NO government intervention. Whatsoever. At all.
Now, Rusty, you've not qualified this term at all.
So, per your repeated suggestion that capitalism designates the "laissez faire" meaning you'd like it to, I have to conclude that you don't really know much, or are otherwise claiming to speak for people you don't.
Now, there are two groups who will account for your beliefs.
One group is the businessmen.
One group is the union men.
In a very gullible state, those who might hope to mourn business losses while ignoring the unions are naive.
So, to reiterate, union stories are not spoken for by Pat Buchanan-types who'd like to teach them Jesus.
Tying religion into your economic reform is a sad mistake.
Time is on our side.
We don't offer a new religion.
It's your mistake to do so. |
Haha. What? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
Pollution only occurs because of the rules created by government to violate property rights and allow pollution. All pollution is a result of socialism.
This statement has been proven absolutely to be true.
Summaries are available in a variety of basic economic texts and publications. It is taught at major universities.
Numerous winniners of the Nobel Prize for Economics agree.
But, those who haven't studied economics have never seen this discussed. It is beyond the ken of those in the mainstream media. |
I think nowhere man (and I) would be more willing to buy this argument if you said, "Nobel Prize winnner ______ has shown as much in his book/paper/thesis/etc called Pollution is due to the bloody gov't" instead of making vague assertions claiming there are highly respected academics and professionals that have validated your opinion/argument. |
 I think recent events (and not so recent) have reduced the Nobel Prize to the level of farce. Why don't you google what he is talking about?
In all honesty, the pollution hypothesis is one I haven't come across myself. I might take my own advice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
