← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Edric
Thread ID: 8785 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2003-08-05
2003-08-05 12:49 | User Profile
Are most of you Capitalists? And how do you explain your positions? I am willing to learn regarding Capitalism.
2003-08-05 14:22 | User Profile
I believe that competition brings out the best in products and services- except in cultural circles, where it can have a deleterious effect. This is where censorship comes in.
I don't believe in financial manipulations and easy credit, which has become part of 'capitalism' as we know it these days.
Tariffs are fine- it costs money to operate ports, etc. and why shouldn't importers pay that cost? False alarms about 'mercantilism' by libertarians are just that.
Government control of the economy won't work- the controllers are too distant from information and consequences. Taxes shouldn't be crafted to induce actions, but to collect revenue. And no government at any level should be granting tax exemptions or other inducements for businesses to relocate in their jurisdiction- if you are governing wisely, you will attract businesses anyhow.
Those are my observations- call that capitalist, if you like.
2003-08-05 14:56 | User Profile
It pays to distinguish between what might be termed Village Capitalism and Crass Capitalism. The latter is what we generally associate with the word 'capitalism' today: it brings a money-over-all attitude, ever-increasing consolidation of wealth and power, the transformation of people from buyers to consumers, etc. The former, on the other hand, is what used to be associated with capitalism: fair competition, a day's work for a day's pay, and filling an actual need (as opposed to creating a false need in the "consumer's" mind and filling that instead).
Of course, it pays to distinguish between Village Socialism and Crass Socialism too: the former is a lot like Village Capitalism, except that part of your taxes go to a fund to help those who can't fend for themselves at the moment: orphans, widows, etc. (This can only work in a homogenous society.) The latter is characterized by totalitarianism, forced redistribution of wealth from the productive to the unproductive, and eventually poverty as people increasingly realize that there are no rewards for working harder.
You can replace the word 'village' with 'national' and 'crass' with 'international' and come up with basically the same meanings.
2003-08-05 17:41 | User Profile
I believe that your analysis of Socialism is probably too much of a pessimistic view. Granted that I do not know much about either Socialism or Capitalism, I do believe that the best alternative is neither complete Socialism nor complete Capitalism but a hybrid of the two Economic Theories.
I personally oppose Capitalism as envisioned by Laissez-Faire Capitalists and Anarcho-Capitalists as it would eventually develop into a Plutocracy (and that I am highly against) and the exploitation of the workers and possibly a widening of the inequality gap without sufficient Socialistic remedies. "The poor get poorer, the rich get richer" or so they say.
May I introduce a National Socialist maxim here which I still hold to: "The common-interest before self-interest". To follow that maxim, a form of Socialist or quasi-Socialist system is required in my opinion. Obviously anyone is free to prove me wrong, I am only exploring theories.
2003-08-05 18:04 | User Profile
There is nothing wrong with small, Mom-and-Pop capitalism. But as soon as big corporations spring up, that's when the trouble starts. Ya might say that "God did not intend for Big Global Capitalism."
Also, Big Capitalism, Big Credit and Big Banking are Jewish-created and Jewish-led.
2003-08-05 20:29 | User Profile
Most successful economies in the world are mixed economies, with some businesses being state controlled and others being privately led. This even goes for America. The internet was not the result of the free market but developped and implemented by the department of defense. I guess 50% of American scientists and engineers are directly or indirectly on the payroll of the DoD. The European Airbus industries were kickstarted by governent subsidieries. Boing seems to be a private business, but how much of their contracts are signed with the DoD? Somehow the American defense budget seems to be a way to inject money into an economy once the private market is not able to do it as we now see in Americac under Bush. Somehow maybe Europeans are more honest in subsidizing industries than Americans. I guess even the American highway system in the 1950s was built via American defense expenditures. The same goes for NASA. So the state always played a role in shaping the economy, even in America. The question just is whether the state injects money in projects that boost wealth and productivity like infrastructure, R&D facilities or new industries or whether the money ends up either in social engineering causes like urban renewal, war on poverty and war on drugs or injecting money in propping up junk bonds or maintaining a decrepid stock and real estate market. I believe that the state's duty is to maintain public infrastructure while consumer goods and services should be provided by private businesses. I believe that the issuing of money should be in the hands of the state and not deligated to a private banking trust. The social security payments should be awailable to those who paid into the system via taxes and fees. The level of services provided should be made dependent on how much the individual taxpayer paid into the system. Children should get full services from free school services to health care but lose their claims once they reach adulthood. People who did not pay taxes or SS bills should be excluded from services or just be given funds to provide for basic living costs. The social security system should always be a mixed system of state provided services and private elements. So minimum medical treatment as well as a retirement fund granting at least subsistance level lifestyle should be made available to all while further services require private initiatives. The state should encourage the creation of private property by giving taxbreaks for homebuyers or retirement funds. I also believe in strong trade unions in order to counter corporate power, but their basic approach should be class cooperation rather than warfare while considering themselves responsible for the state of the economy at a whole not just as a special interest group maximizing benefits for a particularly trade at the expense of the larger society. I don't think that a manager's salary should only be judged on the principles of the free market as there is also a moral issue involved in the question whether a system can really survive where the board of director's salaries are 200 times of an ordinary worker. I believe in free trade to a certain degree, and I would say that the common European Market has done more good than harm. But a state should have the right to protect industries it considers vital for the nation's survival. Agriculture is basically a field where most states either erect protective measures or use massive state subsidies. Even Bush now wages a trade war with Europe in order to protect America's steal mills. I think that pure capitalism doesn't work. Such a system was implemented in Russia under the Yelzin administration and we have seen the results of massive impoverishment. Under the Putin administration the state takes a more active role in shaping the economy and since the year 2000 the Russian economy is growing once again. The IMF with its neoliberal agenda has wrecked whole economies like Indonesia and Argentina with its program of massive state cuts, privatization and deregulation. A country like Malaysia on the other hand did much better by keeping the IMF out and shielding the economy from speculative predators that had successfully attacked the Thai currency in the Asian economic crises. Overall I consider the Rhenish model pretty successful. But capitalism is not capitalism and varies from country to country. American capitalism has been strongly influenced by the Calvinist teaching of predestination and thus considers less compassion towards those who did not make it in society. The Scandinavian and German countries are more collectivist with their principles of Volksheim or Volksgemeinschaft.
2003-08-05 22:48 | User Profile
The distributionists have a saying along the lines of: "Distributionism is capitalism for everyone, not just for plutocrats". Sounds like a worthy goal (though I'm sceptical about some of their methods).
2003-08-05 23:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by jamestown+Aug 5 2003, 20:29 -->
QUOTE (jamestown @ Aug 5 2003, 20:29 ) The European Airbus industries were kickstarted by governent subsidieries. Boing seems to be a private business, but how much of their contracts are signed with the DoD? Somehow the American defense budget seems to be a way to inject money into an economy once the private market is not able to do it as we now see in Americac under Bush. Somehow maybe Europeans are more honest in subsidizing industries than Americans.* Good point. Building bombers taught Boeing alot about how to build large aircraft, later passenger jetliners. The US government simply won't let Boeing (or Lockheed Martin) fail, so it's not so different from Airbus in practice.
<!--QuoteBegin-jamestown@Aug 5 2003, 20:29 * I guess even the American highway system in the 1950s was built via American defense expenditures.
Eisenhowers road building program was called the 'National System of Interstate and Defense Highways'. Partly this name was to justify it as a federal program since defense and interstate commerce are longstanding federal concerns. There was a defense element to it though - it mandated certain stretches of road had to be straight allowing dual use as runways. The program was partly inspired by the (Nazi) German Autobahn system.
nikolai
2003-08-06 03:00 | User Profile
I was once a strong Ayn Rand styled Capitalist. As I have grown older and I have observed how "globalism" is destroying the middle-class in this country, I have become much more a Nationalist.
I am now a proponent of free markets within a nation. Competition is good within our nation. However, the current form of global capitalism is quickly sending almost all of our jobs overseas. If not stopped this will eventually lead to a Third World America in which 90% of the people are poor while 10% are very rich.
As Americans we have the duty to protect our borders and protect our industries. We are importing aliens and exporting jobs. A very dangerous combination.
Paleoleftist
2003-08-06 21:49 | User Profile
*Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 5 2003, 20:00 * ** I think the moderate and humane methods advocated by the distributists are their strongest selling point.
For example, rather than the painful and prolonged crucifixion of international plutocrats, they will be swiftly and painlessly decapitated, and their heads displayed on the city walls.
This allows for maxium social impact with a minimum of suffering. What could be more sane and reasonable than this?
Wintermute **
An absolutely convincing argument. For a pagan, your understanding of morality is highly developed. :th: