|
On July 27 2011 02:52 TheFrankOne wrote:
What? Pre-agricultural were capitalist? Please explain further, what means of production and ownership were there to define capitalism?
Trade.
What the hell is an anti-capitalist society anyways?
Honestly, you'll have to ask BlackFlag, since he coined the term. I'm just operating under the assumption it means a society with absolutely zero private ownership.
|
I'm sure people owned weapons in pre historic times. back then tools were the means of production, and i'm sure someone realized he'd be better off keeping tools he made then giving them away to others.
|
Social programs need to be cut severely, as well as the military spending.
All the people here that are saying "tax the hell out of the rich" don't know what the hell they're talking about. If you combine all the funds of the rich both individuals and corporations it wont' cover the costs the government debt, and let's not forget that corporations need money to operate. If you strip them off their funds they will close down leaving everyone without a job. The only people left with jobs will be those working for the government who are already getting paid with printed money, because the government doesn't have it in its budget to pay its workers, so instead it steals wealth form all the other people who don't work for the government and already get taxed heavily and gives it to their workers which just carry on working on government projects which further perpetuate the bureaucratic sinkholes for the honest taxpayers' dollars.
|
On July 27 2011 02:39 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2011 02:34 BlackFlag wrote:
read again
I said that there were "relativly" (for the time) open societies before capitalism (which were not anti-capitalist, because that didn't exist for that time). What do you think where the technology that leads to our modern live came from? Capitalism has always existed, even in pre-agricultural societies. Show nested quote +There are also modern examples, but they always got crushed by outside influence within a relativly short time, because they were deemed a threat. Name a few then. Show me some examples of successful open, democratic, anti-capitalist societies.
For example the islamic society during the islamic golden age was pretty liberal. And you both don't even understand what capitalism constitutes, because there's more to it.
If you for example think feudalism is capitalist, every discussion is meaningless.
@thefrankone
anti-capitalist society is a pretty stupid term, i just meant any non-capitalist society pre-capitalism and any socialist theory in modern times.
|
On July 27 2011 02:54 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2011 02:52 TheFrankOne wrote:
What? Pre-agricultural were capitalist? Please explain further, what means of production and ownership were there to define capitalism? Trade.
Bingo. Back before agriculture and land ownership, you didn't need government, law and the rest of society to take a roundabout way of telling you that the thing you just built with your bare hands is yours and that you could trade it to someone who wanted that thing for other things you want.
|
On July 27 2011 03:14 BlackFlag wrote:
For example the islamic society during the islamic golden age was pretty liberal. And you both don't even understand what capitalism constitutes, because there's more to it.
That islamic society wasn't non-capitalist, and was not very liberal any way. Sure, more liberal than Theocratic Europe, but that isn't saying much.
If you for example think feudalism is capitalist, every discussion is meaningless.
Feudalism isn't capitalist for the peasants with regards to the land they work on. But there exists private ownership, so it's not non-capitalist.
|
WTF happened to this thread?
Latest update:
House Republicans do not have enough support to pass their debt-ceiling increase plan on their own, a top conservative said Tuesday as his party’s leaders tried to cobble together a coalition of Republicans and Democrats to put the bill over the top.
“There are not 218 Republicans in support of this plan,” Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican who heads the powerful conservative caucus in the House, told reporters Tuesday morning.
That means Speaker John A. Boehner will have to rely on Democrats to pass the $1.2 trillion spending cuts plan — support Democrats’ top vote-counter said he’ll be hard-pressed to gain. Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer said “very few” Democrats will vote for the Boehner plan, though he acknowledged there could be some.
A vote in the House is expected Wednesday, and Republican leaders are trying to round up enough support to pass their version. They hope that if it can pass the House, that will pressure Senate Democrats to drop their alternative and accept the GOP’s plan.
Mr. Boehner’s bill would reduce future discretionary spending by $1.2 trillion, grant an immediate debt increase of $1 trillion, and set up a committee to work on trillions of dollars in future deficit reduction either through more spending cuts or tax increases, which would then earn another future debt increase. It would also require both the House and Senate to hold votes on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
But conservative Republicans in the House, many allied to the tea party movement, said they don’t just want votes on the amendment, they want an assurance it will be sent to the states. Mr. Jordan and other conservatives said they would prefer the Senate vote on the debt increase the House passed last week, that includes deeper spending cuts and requires both chambers approve a balanced budget amendment and submit it to states for ratification before any debt increase happens.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/26/house-gop-revolts-against-boehner-debt-plan/
|
On July 27 2011 03:40 xDaunt wrote:WTF happened to this thread? Latest update: Show nested quote + House Republicans do not have enough support to pass their debt-ceiling increase plan on their own, a top conservative said Tuesday as his party’s leaders tried to cobble together a coalition of Republicans and Democrats to put the bill over the top.
“There are not 218 Republicans in support of this plan,” Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican who heads the powerful conservative caucus in the House, told reporters Tuesday morning.
That means Speaker John A. Boehner will have to rely on Democrats to pass the $1.2 trillion spending cuts plan — support Democrats’ top vote-counter said he’ll be hard-pressed to gain. Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer said “very few” Democrats will vote for the Boehner plan, though he acknowledged there could be some.
A vote in the House is expected Wednesday, and Republican leaders are trying to round up enough support to pass their version. They hope that if it can pass the House, that will pressure Senate Democrats to drop their alternative and accept the GOP’s plan.
Mr. Boehner’s bill would reduce future discretionary spending by $1.2 trillion, grant an immediate debt increase of $1 trillion, and set up a committee to work on trillions of dollars in future deficit reduction either through more spending cuts or tax increases, which would then earn another future debt increase. It would also require both the House and Senate to hold votes on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
But conservative Republicans in the House, many allied to the tea party movement, said they don’t just want votes on the amendment, they want an assurance it will be sent to the states. Mr. Jordan and other conservatives said they would prefer the Senate vote on the debt increase the House passed last week, that includes deeper spending cuts and requires both chambers approve a balanced budget amendment and submit it to states for ratification before any debt increase happens.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/26/house-gop-revolts-against-boehner-debt-plan/
Whenever discussions of government and money occur, inevitably people will start arguing about whether capitalism or its alternatives are valid or not. Its a pretty irrelevant discussion, but it always happens anyways.
Anyways, I believe that the two sides will come to an agreement eventually, but it will be skewed in a way so that both parties can claim victory for themselves. Both sides are currently just gathering enough rhetoric to throw around at one another to make their respective cases for the American public to further their aims. Whether this is simple politicking or a result of the genuine beliefs of our politicians, I don't know, but its an inevitable result of our political system (and any other democratic system). It's inefficient, but there aren't too many better alternatives out there.
|
On July 27 2011 03:40 xDaunt wrote:WTF happened to this thread? Latest update: Show nested quote + House Republicans do not have enough support to pass their debt-ceiling increase plan on their own, a top conservative said Tuesday as his party’s leaders tried to cobble together a coalition of Republicans and Democrats to put the bill over the top.
“There are not 218 Republicans in support of this plan,” Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican who heads the powerful conservative caucus in the House, told reporters Tuesday morning.
That means Speaker John A. Boehner will have to rely on Democrats to pass the $1.2 trillion spending cuts plan — support Democrats’ top vote-counter said he’ll be hard-pressed to gain. Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer said “very few” Democrats will vote for the Boehner plan, though he acknowledged there could be some.
A vote in the House is expected Wednesday, and Republican leaders are trying to round up enough support to pass their version. They hope that if it can pass the House, that will pressure Senate Democrats to drop their alternative and accept the GOP’s plan.
Mr. Boehner’s bill would reduce future discretionary spending by $1.2 trillion, grant an immediate debt increase of $1 trillion, and set up a committee to work on trillions of dollars in future deficit reduction either through more spending cuts or tax increases, which would then earn another future debt increase. It would also require both the House and Senate to hold votes on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
But conservative Republicans in the House, many allied to the tea party movement, said they don’t just want votes on the amendment, they want an assurance it will be sent to the states. Mr. Jordan and other conservatives said they would prefer the Senate vote on the debt increase the House passed last week, that includes deeper spending cuts and requires both chambers approve a balanced budget amendment and submit it to states for ratification before any debt increase happens.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/26/house-gop-revolts-against-boehner-debt-plan/
Long story short: some members of team liquid have an understanding of history bordering on or wandering far into willful ignorance.
The Republicans need to be more willing to compromise, a balanced budget amendment is a radical demand and not really the bargaining point they should be standing at. The Tea Party does not seem to understand what a compromise is. If they refuse to back down, I am worried about what will happen. Democrats have pretty much given up on tax increases but Republicans seem to be terrible bargaining partners.
Denying there is a problem doesn't mean there is no problem. I know some people have said in this thread that we won't default on our bonds but that does not mean there will be no default. Markets will not react kindly to a default on any obligations even if we pay interest on the debt..
|
On July 27 2011 00:44 BestZergOnEast wrote:
You are correct that America benefited from it's geography but the devastaton of the European continent is a result of the theories on government that were in place at the time and having an imperial foreign policy (which America didn't in the time period we are discussing 1776-1914) doesn't make your economy stronger, since high taxes are necessary to pay for global empire. But your mistake is you are looking at the conditions of prosperity and then asking "okay, so what system was in place during this time of prosperity". That's like you have a basketball coach, and he spends years training his team, recruiting top talent, making his team #1. Then that coach dies, and some idiot comes in who doesn't know what he's doing. The team will still be incredible for a while, but over time it will fade from glory owing to mismanagement.
If conditions were the same at factories than on the farm, why did people choose to go to the factories? I am not saying things were great during the industrial revolution, just that they were better than before. Standards of living skyrocket for the poor during this time period. Standard of living was "bad"? Compared to what? Today's life style? No shit sherlock. If life was the same @ the factory than on the farm then why did we see rapid increases in their standards of living?
The reason why mainstream economists defend any and every state intervention in the economy is because you make a lot more money arguing for a minimum wage then you do against it.
@BestZergOnEast do you realize what you are saying? You're negating the impact that slavery and enforced 2nd class citizenship had on the American economy. Or you're trying to justify the need to return to that form of exploitation on hard working individuals. People moved to the factory for the opportunity to get basic freedoms (right to own land, a fair wage, right to vote, education, etc...) that were not allowed to them by staying on the farm or in their former countries.
It wasn't that these freedoms didn't exist; they just weren't allowed for everyone. It's not ok to dismiss that American cities were built on the backs of exploited immigrants and former slaves. Contrary to your argument, to continue with the policies of those eras is what leads to Imperialism - something most Americans are overwhelmingly against.
I urge anyone talking about taxes to look at their paychecks. Federal Income Tax is only one of many things that US citizens must kick up to their governments. If you were to look, you would notice that Social Security and Medicare are separate, discreet payments that everyone has to pay, regardless of how many deductions they qualify for at the end of the year. To vilify the lowest earners as less hardworking or freeloaders is so far from the truth. If the payments they are making are not enough, it's because the government screwed up and borrowed against it; not because the citizens weren't paying.
People can only receive incomes that the market will bear and in some cases the lowest earners are forced to spend much more in taxes than they can truly afford: 1) property taxes either as a homeowner or via their rent increases, and 2) sales taxes - everything they make gets spent. You could tell them to be faster and smarter so that they could do the jobs of 2 people to make more money, but then they'd be doing the jobs of their managers (*.*)
Don't get caught up in the shell game. The American Government has lost their drive and for the most part is not doing its job. Most of our representatives' 'hard work' consists of trying to stay in power, not fulfilling their responsibilities to the American people. The more we fight with each other about the falsehoods that they tell us, the less they actually have to do to keep their jobs. Call their bluff. Make them become more efficient. Make them come through on their promises. Force them to figure out how to do it with the revenues they have. Rich or poor, we're all giving them a considerable amount of our money to do a job which they have routinely gotten wrong or ignored completely. Make them get it right!
|
On July 27 2011 03:15 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2011 02:54 domovoi wrote:On July 27 2011 02:52 TheFrankOne wrote:
What? Pre-agricultural were capitalist? Please explain further, what means of production and ownership were there to define capitalism? Trade. Bingo. Back before agriculture and land ownership, you didn't need government, law and the rest of society to take a roundabout way of telling you that the thing you just built with your bare hands is yours and that you could trade it to someone who wanted that thing for other things you want.
Ironically, that's completely wrong. There was/is no such thing as personal ownership in a pre-agricultural (which means pre-tribal) community, since tools were only made when the group you belonged to needed them. There was no such thing as private property of goods or real estate in pre-agricultural societies. There was no vertical hierarchy in an agricultural society, as was the case in most tribal societies. Sure, there was trade going on between several bands, but it was very limited, and consisted mainly of trading supplies. Both parties had to gain benefits of transaction. You could not trade, say, meat for a golden arrow point because golden arrow points aren't exactly edible. Trading also wasn't something that 2 people did, it was something two bands did. Everything those people did had to attribute to the survival and/or growth of the band. Individualism (and with it personal gain) was practically non-existant.
Private property is a relatively new concept among human societies, and requires a primitive kind of state or a chiefdom to be in place. These forms of social organization both require a lot of people living in a limited, slightly isolated area. Pre-agricultural societies were just way too small for that.
Advised literature: "The Origins of Political Power" by Francis Fukuyama
|
Yes of course I realize what I'm saying (how could I not), even though it is clear that you do not. I don't quite understand how I could personally negate the impact that slavery had on the American economy. You must be a foreigner, your english not strong. And no, I don't justify slavery. I oppose slavery. People didn't "move to the factory" (you don't live in a factory you work in it) to "own land". They may have colonized America for that purpose, but that's a completely unrelated discussion so I'm not sure why you would bring that up. Yes, America was much freer than Europe, and so many people left Europe to go to America.
Were American cities built on the back of "exploited foreigners" and slaves? Well slaves maybe. GUess what, so were Russian cities, built on the backs of serfs (and poorly at that). Slavery has been a problem in the human race for a long time. The greek city states were built on the backs of slaves. So what? Why is this relevant? I am against slavery.
Imperialism is not a by product of laissez-faire, it is a byproduct of the interventionist state. When I say 1776-1914 the reason I end at 1914 is because that is when you see the rise of American imperialism, specifically the Wilsonian idea that America must make the world safe for democracy. Of course I am an opponent of imperialism, which is of course the actions of GOVERNMENT and not the market.
The American Government's job is to protect private property and liberty. And you are right, they are not doing their job, they are in fact the largest and most aggregious violators of property rights. They are quite simply nothing less than a criminal organization.
|
and further since tribes predate agricutlure, clearly pre-tribal and pre-agriculture do not mean the same thing.
advised literature : For A New Liberty, Murray Rothbard (available online for free, in pdf and audio book format, at mises.org just search 'for a new liberty' on that website
|
On July 27 2011 04:00 _Major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2011 00:44 BestZergOnEast wrote:
You are correct that America benefited from it's geography but the devastaton of the European continent is a result of the theories on government that were in place at the time and having an imperial foreign policy (which America didn't in the time period we are discussing 1776-1914) doesn't make your economy stronger, since high taxes are necessary to pay for global empire. But your mistake is you are looking at the conditions of prosperity and then asking "okay, so what system was in place during this time of prosperity". That's like you have a basketball coach, and he spends years training his team, recruiting top talent, making his team #1. Then that coach dies, and some idiot comes in who doesn't know what he's doing. The team will still be incredible for a while, but over time it will fade from glory owing to mismanagement.
If conditions were the same at factories than on the farm, why did people choose to go to the factories? I am not saying things were great during the industrial revolution, just that they were better than before. Standards of living skyrocket for the poor during this time period. Standard of living was "bad"? Compared to what? Today's life style? No shit sherlock. If life was the same @ the factory than on the farm then why did we see rapid increases in their standards of living?
The reason why mainstream economists defend any and every state intervention in the economy is because you make a lot more money arguing for a minimum wage then you do against it.
@BestZergOnEast do you realize what you are saying? You're negating the impact that slavery and enforced 2nd class citizenship had on the American economy. Or you're trying to justify the need to return to that form of exploitation on hard working individuals. People moved to the factory for the opportunity to get basic freedoms (right to own land, a fair wage, right to vote, education, etc...) that were not allowed to them by staying on the farm or in their former countries. It wasn't that these freedoms didn't exist; they just weren't allowed for everyone. It's not ok to dismiss that American cities were built on the backs of exploited immigrants and former slaves. Contrary to your argument, to continue with the policies of those eras is what leads to Imperialism - something most Americans are overwhelmingly against.
What? It's natural for people that don't know the language to be exploited when they first get here. I mean for you to suggest that something else should happen is ridiculous. Knowing how to talk english is an important skill for living in US. If you don't know English there will be consequences just based of the fact that it's an important skill that you don't have, luckily you can learn english and use your other strengths to your advantage to become successful in society.
As for the slaves... Yeah slavery was wrong, and freeing slaves created a huge group of lower class uneducated workers, that were... low-paid laborers? What else do you expect to be done? Give all of them some kind of wage-minimum so that they don't get exploited for low wages? That doesn't make sense, if they can't do a job that's economically worth 10 dollars an hour, then they shouldn't get paid 10 dollars an hour.
I urge anyone talking about taxes to look at their paychecks. Federal Income Tax is only one of many things that US citizens must kick up to their governments. If you were to look, you would notice that Social Security and Medicare are separate, discreet payments that everyone has to pay, regardless of how many deductions they qualify for at the end of the year. To vilify the lowest earners as less hardworking or freeloaders is so far from the truth. If the payments they are making are not enough, it's because the government screwed up and borrowed against it; not because the citizens weren't paying.
No, it's because having the government spend money is ALWAYS less efficient than having the private sector spend money, and it is also unfair to FORCE people to pay for others. It's basically wealth redistribution, meaning having what you've worked hard for taken away from you so that it could be given to others regardless of how hard they're working.
Yes the government screwed up, but borrowed against it? what does that even mean? The government doesn't need to borrow against its sectors in order for those sectors to lack funds. The government will ALWAYS lack the funds in every one of their sectors, that's the nature of the bureaucratic sinkhole that is social projects.
People can only receive incomes that the market will bear and in some cases the lowest earners are forced to spend much more in taxes than they can truly afford: 1) property taxes either as a homeowner or via their rent increases, and 2) sales taxes - everything they make gets spent. You could tell them to be faster and smarter so that they could do the jobs of 2 people to make more money, but then they'd be doing the jobs of their managers (*.*)
That's the issue with taxes not with the need of social programs. Let's not forget that most people are still employed by private companies that are owned by someone, if you jack up the taxes against them, then maybe they won't hire another worker, and then that person will have no money at all. Yes taxes are bad because they take away money from the people that earned it, but taxes on the Employers will also effect the employees in a negative way.
The government loves to create this division between employees and employers, and pit one against the other, and since there's way more employees and presidents need to get re-elected they keep siding with the employees, and keep screwing the employers... so the employers are forced out of business, and forced to reduce their labor force, and in the end it's the employees that also suffer.
Don't get caught up in the shell game. The American Government has lost their drive and for the most part is not doing its job. Most of our representatives' 'hard work' consists of trying to stay in power, not fulfilling their responsibilities to the American people. The more we fight with each other about the falsehoods that they tell us, the less they actually have to do to keep their jobs. Call their bluff. Make them become more efficient. Make them come through on their promises. Force them to figure out how to do it with the revenues they have. Rich or poor, we're all giving them a considerable amount of our money to do a job which they have routinely gotten wrong or ignored completely. Make them get it right!
That's why the government needs to have as little power as possible obviously. The welfare of the people largely depends on their wealth. Wealth is best generated and distributed in a meritocratic way via the free market, but the free market can't be run like a democracy. In fact it can't really be run at all. It runs by the absolutely natural and fair principles of supply and demand.
|
On July 27 2011 04:28 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Yes of course I realize what I'm saying (how could I not), even though it is clear that you do not. I don't quite understand how I could personally negate the impact that slavery had on the American economy. You must be a foreigner, your english not strong. And no, I don't justify slavery. I oppose slavery. People didn't "move to the factory" (you don't live in a factory you work in it) to "own land". They may have colonized America for that purpose, but that's a completely unrelated discussion so I'm not sure why you would bring that up. Yes, America was much freer than Europe, and so many people left Europe to go to America.
Were American cities built on the back of "exploited foreigners" and slaves? Well slaves maybe. GUess what, so were Russian cities, built on the backs of serfs (and poorly at that). Slavery has been a problem in the human race for a long time. The greek city states were built on the backs of slaves. So what? Why is this relevant? I am against slavery.
Imperialism is not a by product of laissez-faire, it is a byproduct of the interventionist state. When I say 1776-1914 the reason I end at 1914 is because that is when you see the rise of American imperialism, specifically the Wilsonian idea that America must make the world safe for democracy. Of course I am an opponent of imperialism, which is of course the actions of GOVERNMENT and not the market.
The American Government's job is to protect private property and liberty. And you are right, they are not doing their job, they are in fact the largest and most aggregious violators of property rights. They are quite simply nothing less than a criminal organization.
You don't even look at the links I post do you?
That "wilsonian" idea is predated by the Jeffersonian idea of an empire of liberty.
"I am persuaded no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire & self government." - Jefferson to James Madison, 27 April 1809
|
I'm actually not concerned about the debt ceiling. It has been raised multiple times in our recent history and you actually want to have a country in a federal deficit (not necessarily an operational deficit) because it shows how much other nations are investing in you.
I feel this recent debt ceiling debate is actually a scare tactic strategy on the part of both parties to garner support. For Republicans, they want to refrain from raising it to imply their principles are intact, as well as hurt the Obama economy.
For Democrats, they want to stall so they can ridicule Boehner and the Republicans for actling like children when a "crisis" is in order.
In conclusion, both parties are using shock tactics for political gain when the debt ceiling is not as much of an issue as it is hyped to be.
|
"You don't even look at the links I post do you?"
No I did not. Go to mises.org and read everything there. How did that feel? Are you going to do it? I do plenty of research on my own, if you want to talk, let's talk, but I've got plenty of my own propangda to read.
Jefferson was opposed to a standing army, so that idea that he supported imperialism and empire is just patently absurd.
|
A federal deficit means the federal government is going into debt, no? And yes, this is just grand standing and political theatre for the most part. Everyone knows its getting raised, it's a matter of how, and when, and who can get embarassed the most. This is openly reported in the media.
|
On July 27 2011 04:51 BestZergOnEast wrote:
"You don't even look at the links I post do you?"
No I did not. Go to mises.org and read everything there. How did that feel? Are you going to do it? I do plenty of research on my own, if you want to talk, let's talk, but I've got plenty of my own propangda to read.
Jefferson was opposed to a standing army, so that idea that he supported imperialism and empire is just patently absurd.
The difference is my links are relevant and address specific points of debate. You ramble then retort by telling me to go read everything at a website that holds up archaic economic "theory" as truth.
You have no real concept of history, you have made it eminently clear you do not understand real economics and whatever "research" your opinions are based on must have been conducted by people with the same degree of intellectual integrity as you.
Jefferson was so against standing armies he pushed congress to establish West Point.
|
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0505-08.htm
In history, Jefferson found justification for his opinion. "The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies," he wrote in that letter to Monroe, "yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier, and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so."
Just admit I am right and you are wrong. It's not that hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
