Capitalism vs Liberalism

[rastaman]

A liberal is not a socialist. (No matter what that idiot Rush Limbaugh and his ilk say). A liberal believes that human beings are more important than business entities (corporations). A liberal believes that all people are important, not just the rich ones. A liberal believes that the products of work should be shared fairly among those who produce the goods and services that constitute commerce.

If all employers fairly paid workers, then there would not be a huge problem in the U.S. The confiscatory salaries and perks that CEOs and corporate managers have happily awarded themselves while laying off and underpaying large numbers of employees is not true capitalism. It is plutocracy.

Jefferson specifically warned against allowing banks (the most dangerous businesses of his time) to gain too much power. There were no multinational and hugely powerful corporations during his time. So he could not warn against them. However, his purpose was clear. It was to stand up for individual rights and liberty.

Look at Japan. It can hardly be called a socialist country. But it does not allow corporate executives to rape the employees and stockholders by taking an unconsciencely high proportion of the profits of the company. I believe somebody who works at a full time job should make a living wage and be entitled to health care benefits. That is not anywhere near saying that I believe in socialism. I simply believe that businesses should be required to operate in an honest and fair fashion.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by rastaman

A liberal is not a socialist. (No matter what that idiot Rush Limbaugh and his ilk say). A liberal believes that human beings are more important than business entities (corporations). A liberal believes that all people are important, not just the rich ones. A liberal believes that the products of work should be shared fairly among those who produce the goods and services that constitute commerce.

If all employers fairly paid workers, then there would not be a huge problem in the U.S. The confiscatory salaries and perks that CEOs and corporate managers have happily awarded themselves while laying off and underpaying large numbers of employees is not true capitalism. It is plutocracy.

Jefferson specifically warned against allowing banks (the most dangerous businesses of his time) to gain too much power. There were no multinational and hugely powerful corporations during his time. So he could not warn against them. However, his purpose was clear. It was to stand up for individual rights and liberty.

Look at Japan. It can hardly be called a socialist country. But it does not allow corporate executives to rape the employees and stockholders by taking an unconsciencely high proportion of the profits of the company. I believe somebody who works at a full time job should make a living wage and be entitled to health care benefits. That is not anywhere near saying that I believe in socialism. I simply believe that businesses should be required to operate in an honest and fair fashion.

Japan also engages in strong government/business partnership approaches to their economic commerce model. Government is structured to support business AND regulate it...one major difference however; in Japan workers are woven into the decision making process as valued partners with company management. Japanese workers receive a significant commitment from their corporate employers that goes far beyond a paycheck. They are also paid for coming up with innovative ideas that cut costs, increase efficiency and produce a superior product. Japanese managerial strategy employs shared responsibilities where both workers and executives participate in tandem towards common goals.

The current US capitalistic model is based on so called laissez faire philosophy that pushes deregulation and a hands off approach from government. This began in the '70's but exploded under Reagan and Bush II to the point where we basically had the fox guarding the chicken coop. The predictable result was massive fraud and rampant abuse in virtually every area from environmentally criminal behavior to pure theft. Prior to this madness, government regulation of business was not only accepted as normative, but essential. The current GOP partnership between social and fiscal conservatives is has largely been the product of US business lobbyists skillfully seeking to equate laissez faire strategy with capitalism itself...and by curious extension...to moralistic and Christian ideals; a bizarre marriage of unequally yoked bed partners if ever there was one.

[Hartley]

Originally Posted by rastaman

A liberal is not a socialist. (No matter what that idiot Rush Limbaugh and his ilk say). A liberal believes that human beings are more important than business entities (corporations). A liberal believes that all people are important, not just the rich ones. A liberal believes that the products of work should be shared fairly among those who produce the goods and services that constitute commerce.

If all employers fairly paid workers, then there would not be a huge problem in the U.S. The confiscatory salaries and perks that CEOs and corporate managers have happily awarded themselves while laying off and underpaying large numbers of employees is not true capitalism. It is plutocracy.

Jefferson specifically warned against allowing banks (the most dangerous businesses of his time) to gain too much power. There were no multinational and hugely powerful corporations during his time. So he could not warn against them. However, his purpose was clear. It was to stand up for individual rights and liberty.

Look at Japan. It can hardly be called a socialist country. But it does not allow corporate executives to rape the employees and stockholders by taking an unconsciencely high proportion of the profits of the company. I believe somebody who works at a full time job should make a living wage and be entitled to health care benefits. That is not anywhere near saying that I believe in socialism. I simply believe that businesses should be required to operate in an honest and fair fashion.

That would be the part which is getting interpreted into socialism.

[Spider]

there is a difference , if a group of people all work to produce a product , Libs believe they all should get paid fairly , of course the fairly part is up to interpretation , but now A bed wetter will spin this as , well A Lib wants to take from the working and give it to the non working ....... I am not a Liberal , I am a Democrat ,we could go into all the details in the differences .......but dont want to

[Hartley]

Originally Posted by Spider

there is a difference , if a group of people all work to produce a product , Libs believe they all should get paid fairly , of course the fairly part is up to interpretation , but now A bed wetter will spin this as , well A Lib wants to take from the working and give it to the non working ....... I am not a Liberal , I am a Democrat ,we could go into all the details in the differences .......but dont want to

Who's interpretation?

[rastaman]

Originally Posted by Hartley

That would be the part which is getting interpreted into socialism.

As opposed to the current Free Trade--Reagannomics known today as PREDATORY CAPITALISM......Right!

[SPfloppy]

Lets not do this. It never ends well and only leads to hate speaches from Gaff, Dirty, LABF, Wags and Spider

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by Hartley

That would be the part which is getting interpreted into socialism.

That definition of socialism needs some work. It's not this:

"The products of work should be shared fairly among those who produce the goods and services that constitute commerce."

It's this:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

The slogan was first penned by Louis Blanc and later picked up by Karl Marx, and has become a defacto summary of soicalistic communism.

Fairness has nothing to do with "socialism". It merely assumes the laborer is worthy of his reward as well as the one who offers the opportunity to labor. Your definition assumes that "capital" applies only to money, and leaves out human resources, which are also "capital". Capital involves the employment of both monetary and human resources as well as the social structures that establish the platform that allows "capital" to be turned into profit. The current model of laissez faire capitalism and the rampant religious devotion to greed, more closely resembles feudal Europe with its cast system of nobility and serfs...in other words a radically unfair system in which the haves hold all the cards in the game and the have nots do their bidding.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Hartley

Who's interpretation?

is up for interpretation by both ****ing sides , use your damn head for something besides a hat rack ............

[Rohirrim]

I think the "product" of work being equally shared is socialism. The real issue is not the product, but the "value." To use the former analogy somebody put on here about Penn and Teller's cherry pie. They wanted to talk about who gets the lion's share of the pie. We could say that the way the value system has evolved in our society, the people who labored to create that pie (the orchard keeper, farmer, baker et al), get to split one small piece and those who capitalized the pie making system (the farm, dairy, orchard, bakery et al) get the rest of the pie. We rail and squeal at the government for taking 30%, but are silent at the capitalist who takes 60%. What we have here is a system where the value is tilted ridiculously toward the capitalist and away from the worker. And every year it seems to get worse. The more labor is globalized, of course, the lower the value for that labor goes - even if the price of goods remains constant, or increases. So, for the capitalist, the best case scenario has evolved; He now sits at the apex of a system where the value of the goods the system creates continues to rise, the costs of labor continue to stagnate or fall, and the margin of profit expands while new markets open abroad. To put it in mobster terms, the skim gets bigger.

What should happen in a free society is that the capitalist realizes that the entire system is propped up by the labor and taxes of the entire society, of which he is a part, and he exercises responsibility when it comes to reaping the benefits from the whole. This is the difference between liberty and license. What our system has become is not a system of liberty, but of license.

I think a real turning point happened in the Reagan, Ivan Boesky, junk bond 80s. Even art reflected the change in the movie Wall Street. The social responsibility of the Greatest Generation was tossed out and replaced by the "Greed is Good" ethos. Savings were replaced by credit. Why was the era of the 50s so prosperous for all of America? Because the value of labor and goods was spread across the board. CEOs took in less than 10% of what they do now. They were still rich and they still took in around five to ten times more than their average worker, but nothing like today where they rake in hundreds of times more than that. "Greed is good" tossed out the social contract. It became every man for himself.

And now, we see that ethos of greed destroying our economy (from greed bubble to greed bubble), buying out our government, and even writing the policies of our society. During the Bush era, we watched the energy companies sitting down with Cheney and writing our national energy and environmental policy. Now, under Obama, we watch the insurance giants and big pharma writing our health care policy. We no longer have a voice in the process. Many thought that by putting Obama in charge that change might happen. No such luck. The power of the capitalist oligarchs is too great now. It doesn't matter which politician you throw out and which one you replace him with. There is no more "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" where the voices of the people can write a new outcome in a massive letter campaign. The gears of the machine are greater than the voices of the people.

The clearest signal of this change came during the immigration and ports debate a few years ago. The American people rose up and demanded change en masse. They marched in the streets. They howled and screamed. What happened? Nothing. At least nothing the corporate oligarchy didn't want to happen. The control of our ports were sold to private, foreign operators (or their shadows) and our immigration policy remained unenforced and therefore, unchanged. Sure, there were a few token raids on meat plants for PR's sake, but the overall policy grinds on exactly as before.

So now, history dictates the outcome. either the oligarchs see the error of their ways and return to the social contract, or they succumb to continuing to feed the greed, like drug addicts, until the masses reach a breaking point and start constructing guillotines.

The ones I really feel sorry for are those who keep waiting for the "invisible hand" of the marketplace to right the ship. Good luck with that.

PS: This whole reality makes the voices of the turfers and teabaggers even more pathetic than at first glance. They are actually enablers for the very policies that they think they are protesting against, because they have been fooled into thinking that the government is the enemy. The government is just the oligarch punching bag.

[rastaman]

Great Post Rohirrim. The Free Marketeers have no come back.....deep down they know its true.

[Hartley]

Originally Posted by rastaman

Great Post Rohirrim. The Free Marketeers have no come back.....deep down they know its true.

Okay, so the Cherry pie labors who are not happy with their size of their slice quit, and find more suitable employment according to their desires (bigger slice), getting a education if necessary.

The CEO must offer more lucrative pay to find workers or he is forced to go out of business. He decides to take that profit hit and goes down form 60% to 10% like Rohirrim wants. Everyone is happy. Except for the CEO of course who is making less, but it was decided by the free market, and not by government.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Hartley

Okay, so the Cherry pie labors who are not happy with their size of their slice quit, and find more suitable employment according to their desires (bigger slice), getting a education if necessary.

The CEO must offer more lucrative pay to find workers or he is forced to go out of business. He decides to take that profit hit and goes down form 60% to 10% like Rohirrim wants. Everyone is happy. Except for the CEO of course who is making less, but it was decided by the free market, and not by government.

So you agree Reagan ****ed up when he got involved in the air traffic controllers strike ........ Then Reagan ****ed up when he changed the law so companies could file taxes as individuals ....... you bed wetters are all alike yell scream socialism , unless it is for the side you want , then it is ok ......

[Fedaykin]

Rohirrim points out the naivete of the Lassize-Faire crowd very well. They are puppets who are so concerned about Uncle Sam that they completely forget about the robber barons.

They advocate for economic policy that strips the government of control and gives it to corporations whose only accountability is to their own greed.

[Odysseus]

Originally Posted by rastaman

Great Post Rohirrim. The Free Marketeers have no come back.....deep down they know its true.

Now it's time to say goodbye to our economy
M-e-s-s-s-y M-o-n-e-y!

Messy Money!

(Donald Trump)

Messy Money!

(Donald Trump)

Forever we will wish that we saw through the lies! lies! lies! lies!


Definitely keeping my day job.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by Hartley

Okay, so the Cherry pie labors who are not happy with their size of their slice quit, and find more suitable employment according to their desires (bigger slice), getting a education if necessary.

The CEO must offer more lucrative pay to find workers or he is forced to go out of business. He decides to take that profit hit and goes down form 60% to 10% like Rohirrim wants. Everyone is happy. Except for the CEO of course who is making less, but it was decided by the free market, and not by government.

The above is a complete fantasy. What really happens is this:

* CEO gets hired for 1000%+ of the average employees salary and a healthy chunk of stock options.

* CEO make decisions based on short term profitability to boost his stock option value.

* CEO cashes in his stock options.

* CEO's decisions bankrupt company, everyone loses their job except the execs who found another company.

Rinse, Wash, Repeat.

[Hartley]

Originally Posted by Spider

So you agree Reagan ****ed up when he got involved in the air traffic controllers strike ........ Then Reagan ****ed up when he changed the law so companies could file taxes as individuals ....... you bed wetters are all alike yell scream socialism , unless it is for the side you want , then it is ok ......

Yeah i agree with you, Reagan should not have interfered with the strike.

[Hartley]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

The above is a complete fantasy. What really happens is this:

* CEO gets hired for 1000%+ of the average employees salary and a healthy chunk of stock options.

* CEO make decisions based on short term profitability to boost his stock option value.

* CEO cashes in his stock options.

* CEO's decisions bankrupt company, everyone loses their job except the execs who found another company.

Rinse, Wash, Repeat.

No more pie companies, great! Because there is still a market for pies out there. Entrepreneurs will create their own small business pie shops, which could one day perhaps turn in to big corporations, which is fine as long as they can find people to work for them.

If not they would remain small community based business (pie shops), where portions are divided up as everyone see's fit.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by Hartley

Okay, so the Cherry pie labors who are not happy with their size of their slice quit, and find more suitable employment according to their desires (bigger slice), getting a education if necessary.

The CEO must offer more lucrative pay to find workers or he is forced to go out of business. He decides to take that profit hit and goes down form 60% to 10% like Rohirrim wants. Everyone is happy. Except for the CEO of course who is making less, but it was decided by the free market, and not by government.

Government has gotten involved only due to massive fraud and criminal behavior on the part of corporate management. If you want to get down to it...the proper government involvement here would be by federal law enforcement officials prosecuting corporate thieves.

The fact is, technology has changed the fundamental dynamics of capitalism. Labor is now so devalued due to foreign compeition that management has nearly achieved the ability to do away with the very workers that have supported this business model in the first place. When you can hire people for 30 cents an hour why pay $10 an hour?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

The above is a complete fantasy. What really happens is this:

* CEO gets hired for 1000%+ of the average employees salary and a healthy chunk of stock options.

1000%? That would be 10x the average worker's salary, a virtual bargain in this system. US CEO's currently average something like 450 times the average worker's pay...in other words about 450,000% more.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by Hartley

No more pie companies, great! Because there is still a market for pies out there. Entrepreneurs will create their own small business pie shops, which could one day perhaps turn in to big corporations, which is fine as long as they can find people to work for them.

If not they would remain small community based business (pie shops), where portions are divided up as everyone see's fit.

More Lassize-faire fantasy. This only is true if the majority of participants are ethical and responsible actors who think beyond the next big payday. Otherwise unregulated economies inevitably collapse because short term success is relatively easy, whereas long term success is extremely difficult.

To continue our pie analogy what really happens is eventually PIE-MART comes into existence. Its ultra capitalistic (illicit bordering on illegal even) business plan allows it to succeed, but at the expense of its employees (who have no other choice because PIE-MART runs everyone else out of business) and the local communities that its sets up shop in.

[rastaman]

Reagans economic policies set the stage for the current economic conditions we see today. Prior to the Reagan Admin. coming into power, the U.S. was not a debtor nation we were actually the monetary loaners for the entire world; and the U.S. dollar was the most prized monetary exchange around the world.

[Broncojef]

Originally Posted by rastaman

Reagans economic policies set the stage for the current economic conditions we see today. Prior to the Reagan Admin. coming into power, the U.S. was not a debtor nation we were actually the monetary loaners for the entire world; and the U.S. dollar was the most prized monetary exchange around the world.

Completely false

Capitalism=What made America great all these years
Modern day liberalism/socialism/fascism = What is bringing us down

[Spider]

Manufacturing and our work ethic made us what we was ....... Durring WW2 , GM flat out kicked up production to help the war effort ........ Reagan didnt help .What is bringing us down is we got people that will sell goods no matter what kind to the highest bidder , buy cheapest as they can doesnt matter if they are the enemy or not ...........If we want ot get back to be the bad ass on the block , we have to get back to hard work , sacrifice, and get a mean streak 2 miles wide .........be fair , honest and willing to bust a foot off in someones ass when they need it ........

[Spider]

Take Detroit for example , the big 3 . there was a time when the big 3 would flat stomp a new mud hole in an upstart , tucker torpedo for example , But they changed , they built alot of crap ( low line Cars like the Dodge Aries K car ) and pushed it in us ...... Hell look back to the 70 and earlier , those cars were built with pride , today meh ......... **** the consumer ..... Jap crap didnt do Detroit in , neither did the unions , the Big 3 did themselfs in , selling junk for a buck .. It always comes back to haunt you