The Extremist Cult of Capitalism

JC29856

blueandwhite wrote:

I will never understand the US's obsession with it's quasi-capitalism. Inevitably, in a market driven society like the US, private and public enterprises become so intertwined that it's virtually impossible to differentiate between them. I've heard a number of individuals on this forum profess to hate big government while giving big business a free pass, yet in the US I get the distinct impression that there is very little separating public office and private business from each other. If markets were free of undue influence I could understand why some people would show strong devotion to capitalist ideals, but as it now stands it appears that your markets are constantly manipulated by politicians and the private entrepreneurs with the means to do so.

As for many of the so-called white collared professions; they are vastly overrated and quite attainable if you travel in the right circles. Stock brokers, lawyers and accountants are a dime-a-dozen. If you have the right connections these careers are readily available and the education needed to enter any of these professions isn't particularly challenging. Moreover, your success upon graduation depends largely on the firm that you sign on with, not your competence as an individual. Brokers, lawyers and accountants are just as replaceable as teachers, police officers and nurses.

first part - totally agree
second part - totally true (im living proof, the white collar world is such bullshit im embarrassed to be a part of it)

Jason P

Cool, I'm in a cult!

Oh, yeaahh!

JC29856

free markets...true pricing

The idea that those who wish to profit from a rise in the price of a commodity would freely sell that commodity instead of holding, and thus squeezing, supply in order to encourage that price rise is laughable on its face. That the SEC claims such speculators are instead providing what amounts to liquidity and increased accessibility just shows they don’t care at all how ludicrous their assertions are.

Speculation in commodities must be banned, period.
yankeefrank

Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/ ... eKM0j1C.99

VINNY GOOMBA

Question for anyone who wants to answer: In your opinion, were American slave owners members of this capitalist extremist cult?

JimmyV

JC29856 wrote:

blueandwhite wrote:

I will never understand the US's obsession with it's quasi-capitalism. Inevitably, in a market driven society like the US, private and public enterprises become so intertwined that it's virtually impossible to differentiate between them. I've heard a number of individuals on this forum profess to hate big government while giving big business a free pass, yet in the US I get the distinct impression that there is very little separating public office and private business from each other. If markets were free of undue influence I could understand why some people would show strong devotion to capitalist ideals, but as it now stands it appears that your markets are constantly manipulated by politicians and the private entrepreneurs with the means to do so.

As for many of the so-called white collared professions; they are vastly overrated and quite attainable if you travel in the right circles. Stock brokers, lawyers and accountants are a dime-a-dozen. If you have the right connections these careers are readily available and the education needed to enter any of these professions isn't particularly challenging. Moreover, your success upon graduation depends largely on the firm that you sign on with, not your competence as an individual. Brokers, lawyers and accountants are just as replaceable as teachers, police officers and nurses.

first part - totally agree
second part - totally true (im living proof, the white collar world is such bullshit im embarrassed to be a part of it)

So you are ranting against a system that you are a part of, that you benefit from, that makes your way of life possible? Alrighty then.

JC29856

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Question for anyone who wants to answer: In your opinion, were American slave owners members of this capitalist extremist cult?

by "virtue" of having slaves?

JC29856

JimmyV wrote:

JC29856 wrote:

blueandwhite wrote:

I will never understand the US's obsession with it's quasi-capitalism. Inevitably, in a market driven society like the US, private and public enterprises become so intertwined that it's virtually impossible to differentiate between them. I've heard a number of individuals on this forum profess to hate big government while giving big business a free pass, yet in the US I get the distinct impression that there is very little separating public office and private business from each other. If markets were free of undue influence I could understand why some people would show strong devotion to capitalist ideals, but as it now stands it appears that your markets are constantly manipulated by politicians and the private entrepreneurs with the means to do so.

As for many of the so-called white collared professions; they are vastly overrated and quite attainable if you travel in the right circles. Stock brokers, lawyers and accountants are a dime-a-dozen. If you have the right connections these careers are readily available and the education needed to enter any of these professions isn't particularly challenging. Moreover, your success upon graduation depends largely on the firm that you sign on with, not your competence as an individual. Brokers, lawyers and accountants are just as replaceable as teachers, police officers and nurses.

first part - totally agree
second part - totally true (im living proof, the white collar world is such bullshit im embarrassed to be a part of it)

So you are ranting against a system that you are a part of, that you benefit from, that makes your way of life possible? Alrighty then.

ranting? maybe... a part of?...sadly yes, i blame my father thou

VINNY GOOMBA

JC29856 wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Question for anyone who wants to answer: In your opinion, were American slave owners members of this capitalist extremist cult?

by "virtue" of having slaves?

However you see it. Would being a slave owner be considered part of a capitalistic system to you?

JimmyV

JC29856 wrote:

sadly yes, i blame my father thou

OK, that cracked me up. I'll give you that.

mikepegg44

brianlux wrote:

Edson, I know for a fact just about anyone can be a teacher. I used to be a teacher and it never ceased to amaze me that we have some very unqualified teachers out there. But what I get from what riotgrl is saying is that a good teacher contributes more to society that a good stock broker. First of all, without an education, a person cannot become a stock broker. Secondly, a good teacher does more than impart information or prepare people for careers. A good teacher helps students learn to think critically, to think for themselves and be true to themselves.

I read somewhere that in Japan, teachers are paid and respected the same as high ranking professionals-- doctors, lawyers and such. Here in the US we pay and acknowledge teachers as though they are baby sitters and so that's often what we get. This leaves the good teachers-- and I have no doubt riotgrl fits this description-- underpaid and under-appreciated. In my opinion, that's just wrong.

We don't know if that is a true statement though. While we like to believe it, a stock broker is what makes it possible for a lot of people to make a living, makes it possible for people to retire, makes it possible for people to go to college to become teachers...I know they are evil capitalist pigs, but they do their part. I don't want to go into a whole who does more discussion, but everyone plays their part.

undervalue / overvalue is something that drives me crazy to discuss. Your services, no matter what they are, are worth what someone is willing to pay you for them money wise. To say teachers are undervalued perpetuates the philosophy our worth comes from monetary reimbursement for our services.

I am certainly worth more than my salary, but I choose to do my work because I believe in it. Does that mean I am undervalued? no, it means that my money situation isn't where I would like it to be, but in terms of value, my co-workers value me highly, so does my family, friends, and industry really, I am very valued...As far as teachers go, i don't see too many news stories about the stock broker of the year, I don't see too many news stories about the factory worker of the year...

Extremist cult of capitalism? nope.

What it boils down to is that people will never be happy, every system has faults, there is no utopia...if you aren't happy with your station in life, work to change it, but something that is easier is to quit subscribing to the idea that we aren't valued highly enough.

brianlux

mikepegg44 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Edson, I know for a fact just about anyone can be a teacher. I used to be a teacher and it never ceased to amaze me that we have some very unqualified teachers out there. But what I get from what riotgrl is saying is that a good teacher contributes more to society that a good stock broker. First of all, without an education, a person cannot become a stock broker. Secondly, a good teacher does more than impart information or prepare people for careers. A good teacher helps students learn to think critically, to think for themselves and be true to themselves.

I read somewhere that in Japan, teachers are paid and respected the same as high ranking professionals-- doctors, lawyers and such. Here in the US we pay and acknowledge teachers as though they are baby sitters and so that's often what we get. This leaves the good teachers-- and I have no doubt riotgrl fits this description-- underpaid and under-appreciated. In my opinion, that's just wrong.

We don't know if that is a true statement though. While we like to believe it, a stock broker is what makes it possible for a lot of people to make a living, makes it possible for people to retire, makes it possible for people to go to college to become teachers...I know they are evil capitalist pigs, but they do their part. I don't want to go into a whole who does more discussion, but everyone plays their part.

undervalue / overvalue is something that drives me crazy to discuss. Your services, no matter what they are, are worth what someone is willing to pay you for them money wise. To say teachers are undervalued perpetuates the philosophy our worth comes from monetary reimbursement for our services.

It is true, mikepegg, that many of us work at the job of our choice. I just think if we pay teacher a low salary we will get what we pay for unless a particular teacher gives more that what they are paid which many do.

mikepegg44 wrote:

I am certainly worth more than my salary, but I choose to do my work because I believe in it. Does that mean I am undervalued? no, it means that my money situation isn't where I would like it to be, but in terms of value, my co-workers value me highly, so does my family, friends, and industry really, I am very valued...As far as teachers go, i don't see too many news stories about the stock broker of the year, I don't see too many news stories about the factory worker of the year...

As a teacher, I believed the same- that I was worth more than I was paid. I certainly believe that about being in the used book business. But I can afford to be underpaid because I don't have kids in the home to care for and I have a reasonably comfortable life. The only problem is that I will have to work until I drop dead. Is a darned good thing I like what I do!

mikepegg44 wrote:

Extremist cult of capitalism? nope.

Yeah- cult doesn't seem like the right word.

mikepegg44 wrote:

What it boils down to is that people will never be happy, every system has faults, there is no utopia...if you aren't happy with your station in life, work to change it, but something that is easier is to quit subscribing to the idea that we aren't valued highly enough.

No utopia- that's for sure. I think what we're trying to do here- at least I hope so- is discuss better ways to do things- to make it possible for people to be fulfilled, satisfied, safe and healthy. There's some idealism for you!

JC29856

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

JC29856 wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Question for anyone who wants to answer: In your opinion, were American slave owners members of this capitalist extremist cult?

by "virtue" of having slaves?

However you see it. Would being a slave owner be considered part of a capitalistic system to you?

im not sure i see the correlation between salve owners and capitalism, maybe slavery in general but i havent slept well the past few nights so im not as sharp as usual... first i dont see capitalism as an extreme cult, are there fanatics that think capitalism is the be all end all? certainly but i dont think most think of it as a cult. anyway to answer your question
were American slave owners members of this capitalist extremist cult? yes and no

actually this just came to mind...i think i missed the entire point of this thread since it was started!

mikepegg44

brianlux wrote:

No utopia- that's for sure. I think what we're trying to do here- at least I hope so- is discuss better ways to do things- to make it possible for people to be fulfilled, satisfied, safe and healthy. There's some idealism for you!

What makes some happy is not what makes all happy. The more free we all are to pursue those goals the better. I think it is up to you to find happiness no matter what your station in life is. My life doesn't need to change to make you happy, and vice versa, I shouldn't expect a degradation of your life, no matter how small, that doesn't come willingly from you in order to improve my life. when I lived downtown in Minneapolis I walked past a smiling homeless man every day. He sang gospel songs and wished everyone a happy morning. He was certainly happier than I was those days, and probably most days since the last time talked to him...I realized that it was me making me unhappy, not anyone else...longing for what others have can only lead to an unfulfilled life...

Does capitalism have issues, sure every system does...when one is the dominant form we will often 'noble savage' the hell out of other forms claiming how great they can be, but often will ignore the problems that are inherently possible and the unintended consequences that create a terrible situation for some and a great one for others

VINNY GOOMBA

JC29856 wrote:

im not sure i see the correlation between salve owners and capitalism, maybe slavery in general but i havent slept well the past few nights so im not as sharp as usual... first i dont see capitalism as an extreme cult, are there fanatics that think capitalism is the be all end all? certainly but i dont think most think of it as a cult. anyway to answer your question
were American slave owners members of this capitalist extremist cult? yes and no

actually this just came to mind...i think i missed the entire point of this thread since it was started!

Well, no one other than you really answered the question, but I'll get to my point anyway

It all depends on how one defines "capitalism." More and more people are defining capitalism to mean making money off of other people in Machiavellian fashion. Slavery, which included the endorsement and sanctioning of force against other individuals by government on behalf of slave-owners would fit that definition. By this definition, slave-owners would be extreme capitalists.

However, free-market capitalism, which is what I think of when I hear capitalism, would promote exactly the opposite of slavery. Under that system, the government is supposed to protect against coercion, and at its most intrusive level enforce voluntary contracts. This system isn't free of people trying to take advantage of each other. No system is. Humanity has to overcome its very nature for that to happen. But at least there is choice in this system, and a series of checks and balances by the market and government alike, so long as the government is playing its proper role of protecting against fraud, theft, assault, vandalism, extortion, and coercion, and doing nothing more, nothing less.

I'm all for abandoning the use of the world "capitalism" as a synonym for the free-market because it has lost its original meaning to most of the population. What left-leaning people are railing against when they are railing against capitalism is likely what free-marketers are also railing against: corporatism. Now there's a system that uses the force of government, and even manipulates the laws to legally permit fraud, theft, assault, vandalism, extortion, and coercion, all while burdening competition with excess and impractical regulations. Corporatists play the game so well because they not only re-write the rules to their benefit, but also own the referee, or play the role of referee themselves.

JC29856

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

JC29856 wrote:

im not sure i see the correlation between salve owners and capitalism, maybe slavery in general but i havent slept well the past few nights so im not as sharp as usual... first i dont see capitalism as an extreme cult, are there fanatics that think capitalism is the be all end all? certainly but i dont think most think of it as a cult. anyway to answer your question
were American slave owners members of this capitalist extremist cult? yes and no

actually this just came to mind...i think i missed the entire point of this thread since it was started!

Well, no one other than you really answered the question, but I'll get to my point anyway

It all depends on how one defines "capitalism." More and more people are defining capitalism to mean making money off of other people in Machiavellian fashion. Slavery, which included the endorsement and sanctioning of force against other individuals by government on behalf of slave-owners would fit that definition. By this definition, slave-owners would be extreme capitalists.

However, free-market capitalism, which is what I think of when I hear capitalism, would promote exactly the opposite of slavery. Under that system, the government is supposed to protect against coercion, and at its most intrusive level enforce voluntary contracts. This system isn't free of people trying to take advantage of each other. No system is. Humanity has to overcome its very nature for that to happen. But at least there is choice in this system, and a series of checks and balances by the market and government alike, so long as the government is playing its proper role of protecting against fraud, theft, assault, vandalism, extortion, and coercion, and doing nothing more, nothing less.

I'm all for abandoning the use of the world "capitalism" as a synonym for the free-market because it has lost its original meaning to most of the population. What left-leaning people are railing against when they are railing against capitalism is likely what free-marketers are also railing against: corporatism. Now there's a system that uses the force of government, and even manipulates the laws to legally permit fraud, theft, assault, vandalism, extortion, and coercion, all while burdening competition with excess and impractical regulations. Corporatists play the game so well because they not only re-write the rules to their benefit, but also own the referee, or play the role of referee themselves.

awesome post!
i get everything except "all while burdening competition with excess and impractical regulations" can u give an example of what you refer to here?

VINNY GOOMBA

JC29856 wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

JC29856 wrote:

im not sure i see the correlation between salve owners and capitalism, maybe slavery in general but i havent slept well the past few nights so im not as sharp as usual... first i dont see capitalism as an extreme cult, are there fanatics that think capitalism is the be all end all? certainly but i dont think most think of it as a cult. anyway to answer your question
were American slave owners members of this capitalist extremist cult? yes and no

actually this just came to mind...i think i missed the entire point of this thread since it was started!

Well, no one other than you really answered the question, but I'll get to my point anyway

It all depends on how one defines "capitalism." More and more people are defining capitalism to mean making money off of other people in Machiavellian fashion. Slavery, which included the endorsement and sanctioning of force against other individuals by government on behalf of slave-owners would fit that definition. By this definition, slave-owners would be extreme capitalists.

However, free-market capitalism, which is what I think of when I hear capitalism, would promote exactly the opposite of slavery. Under that system, the government is supposed to protect against coercion, and at its most intrusive level enforce voluntary contracts. This system isn't free of people trying to take advantage of each other. No system is. Humanity has to overcome its very nature for that to happen. But at least there is choice in this system, and a series of checks and balances by the market and government alike, so long as the government is playing its proper role of protecting against fraud, theft, assault, vandalism, extortion, and coercion, and doing nothing more, nothing less.

I'm all for abandoning the use of the world "capitalism" as a synonym for the free-market because it has lost its original meaning to most of the population. What left-leaning people are railing against when they are railing against capitalism is likely what free-marketers are also railing against: corporatism. Now there's a system that uses the force of government, and even manipulates the laws to legally permit fraud, theft, assault, vandalism, extortion, and coercion, all while burdening competition with excess and impractical regulations. Corporatists play the game so well because they not only re-write the rules to their benefit, but also own the referee, or play the role of referee themselves.

awesome post!
i get everything except "all while burdening competition with excess and impractical regulations" can u give an example of what you refer to here?

An excerpt from this article that I found in a quick google search about Monsanto using regulation to their benefit, pay more attention to the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. In a nutshell, large corporations lobby for regulatory requirements that only their vast-reaching resources can provide at low cost, and smaller businesses are muscled out:
http://www.psrast.org/ecologmons.htm

"The Regulatory Irony

Laws governing biotechnology continue to favour agribusiness and biotechnology corporations, but as the industry has developed, the corporate push for specific types of regulations has taken ironic twists. The initial lack of a cautious regulatory approach enabled small biotechnology companies to develop and market new bioengineered products at a rapid pace. In the meantime, larger agribusiness corporations like Monsanto and Ciba-Geigy were buying up these small companies while developing their own expansive in-house biotechnology research and marketing operations. During this time, Monsanto, Ciba-Geigy, and several other agribusiness corporations came virtually to dominate the world market for bioengineered food products, strengthening their hold over much of the world's food supply.

From their position at the top, Monsanto and other corporations have actually favoured some seemingly tight regulations, but, it turns out, only when the regulations serve corporate marketing purposes. Regulations that require corporations to submit a plethora of costly scientific data to regulatory agencies, for example, discourage competition from smaller biotechnology and seed companies while giving the public the illusion that new biotechnology products undergo rigorous safety evaluations and are therefore safe.

In 1995, for example, Monsanto lobbied against a provision in the EPA funding bill that would have prevented the EPA from regulating agricultural plants bioengineered to contain the toxic bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Genetically engineered foods had just hit the market, and Monsanto was fully aware that almost any EPA regulations for Bt plants would publicly sanction the genetically engineered products and defuse resistance from public interest environmental groups. Furthermore, corporations could only get their Bt products to market if they had extensive money and resources to jump through all the regulatory hoops. Big corporations alone can meet data requirements and, once in the system, manipulate and pass the EPA's safety evaluation process. With the competition out of the way, the market is theirs."

kenny olav

Nothing wrong with "work, earn, buy"... that's what socialists want too.

The difference is capitalism says any amount of money a person receives for work is earned income. But does anyone really earn $3,500,000.00 per hour? Or even $350.00 per hour?

I think we need to come together to decide upon maximum and minimum salaries that are fair.

For starters, what is the most important job in America? President, right? Why should anyone earn more money than the President? The President's salary should be the maximum salary. The minimum salary should be an amount that any person can live on comfortably.

hedonist

JC29856 wrote:

awesome post!

Agreed! Most of Vinny's thoughts on this are aligned with mine.

To Kenny - I think "importance" is subjective (as is comfort). I just don't believe it's anyone's place to dictate what someone *should* earn. (and perhaps "earn" is subjective as well.)

kenny olav

hedonist wrote:

JC29856 wrote:

awesome post!

Agreed! Most of Vinny's thoughts on this are aligned with mine.

To Kenny - I think "importance" is subjective (as is comfort). I just don't believe it's anyone's place to dictate what someone *should* earn. (and perhaps "earn" is subjective as well.)

Society has been dictating through their representative government what people should and should not do since the founding of our government. Yes, these terms are subjective, but so are such terms as liberty and justice. Society can decide in a general way what these terms mean.

hedonist

kenny olav wrote:

hedonist wrote:

JC29856 wrote:

awesome post!

Agreed! Most of Vinny's thoughts on this are aligned with mine.

To Kenny - I think "importance" is subjective (as is comfort). I just don't believe it's anyone's place to dictate what someone *should* earn. (and perhaps "earn" is subjective as well.)

Society has been dictating through their representative government what people should and should not do since the founding of our government. Yes, these terms are subjective, but so are such terms as liberty and justice. Society can decide in a general way what these terms mean.

Ah, but I'm not so sure I trust society to decide so properly. I'm not talking about how we treat each other as a culture, but about putting limitations on earnings. My own definitions of important, should, etc. are good enough for me - and I'd never apply them to or impose them on anyone else.

While I'm not a Twitter user, I have to give credit to the person(s) who came up with the idea. It'd be ridiculous for me to declare they shouldn't have the wealth (again, subjective word but here specifically related to money), or put a cap on it. Look at the person who invented the Pet Rock and made a fortune from it. Sure it was a silly idea, but it was a silly idea that people loved and spent their money on. Good for these people. Money doesn't have to be the only goal for inventions or ideas, but it sure doesn't hurt.