23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

[Ian]

I always had the sneaking suspicion that Marx was like one of these no-nothing college kids that get drawn into his philosophy. Like them, he never worked a day in his life. Know it all hippies... http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/1 ... ll-hippies

I have the same sort of feeling towards anarchists - mostly people who've never tasted any real responsibility in their lives, and therefore don't understand the necessity of any government. Easy for them to dehumanize those people who keep things running. I probably have more tolerance for communist ideas than I do for anarchist ones.

[Atheist-Lite]

[Coito ergo sum]

What about Franco's Spain. That was Capitalist.

Err....Franco's Spain was a fascist economy and an autarky, not a capitalist economy. Fascism is centrally planned - the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. All private enterprise is contingent on service to the State.

Capitalist, my ass.

More fine examples of how Capitalism ALWAYS devolves into totalitarianism and militarism as the system becomes more and more unsustainable and the masses harder and harder to exploit.

Well, we know that capitalism doesn't always devolve into totalitarianism. We haven't yet been given an example of a communist state that hasn't devolved into totalitarianism.

[Coito ergo sum]

I always had the sneaking suspicion that Marx was like one of these no-nothing college kids that get drawn into his philosophy. Like them, he never worked a day in his life. Know it all hippies... http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/1 ... ll-hippies

I have the same sort of feeling towards anarchists - mostly people who've never tasted any real responsibility in their lives, and therefore don't understand the necessity of any government. Easy for them to dehumanize those people who keep things running. I probably have more tolerance for communist ideas than I do for anarchist ones.

I don't find that the proponents of anarchism or communism really have a good handle on how their system would operate in the real world. Essentially, any time you try to ask questions about their system, they evade by suggesting that we're not getting what true anarchism or communism is, and when they are asked to describe what the true anarchism or communism is, it's always just too nuanced and complex to put into words.....lol

[Seth]

Read about the current trouble in Egypt. You'll find the government is using the military to "protect" the instruments of power,they have surrounded the key buildings with tanks, ie all the government departments.

You won't find a better current example of the use of force to keep an exploited and abused population down.

I don't see why I should limit examples to current events. So, what about Tiananmen Square? East Germany, 1953? Hungary 1956? Czechoslovakia 1968? ...

You are conflating totalitarianism , a political system, with communism, an economic system. ( though they weren't communist, they were statist)

The trouble is that virtually every case of attempting to establish a communist state has lead inexorably to one form of totalitarianism or another...

The left is still in denial about this...

Just as the right are in denial about the predatory nature of unchecked capitalism, and the need to balance it with strong unions, a cynical free press, and governments capable of robust but intelligently applied regulation...

Yeah, except the right is NOT in denial, and has NEVER denied that reasonable regulations in exercise of legitimate police power objectives are necessary for capitalism and free markets to function. This is a base canard that the left drags out as some sort of asinine attempt to paint Libertarians and conservatives as greedy anarchic ogres, but it's a flat-out lie.

Once again, Libertarians and conservatives distinguish between necessary regulations that keep the markets from engaging in fraud and force, exercises of the police power to make sure that everyone deals honestly, and REDISTRIBUTIVE regulations that attempt to regulate what may be sold, who it may be sold to, under what conditions it may be sold and how much can be charged or paid that are intended to select economic winners and losers in the market through regulatory manipulation for the purposes of Progressive social engineering.

The Community Reinvestment Act, and everything that followed from it that resulted in the housing market meltdown that triggered this recession is the quintessential example of why such social-agenda redistributive regulation is improper, imprudent and dangerous.

The whole housing meltdown was proximately caused by the liberal notion that everybody ought to own a house, and that government should meddle in the housing markets to force banks to loan money to people who had no business whatsoever borrowing money to buy a house. Absent Carter's meddling, which was horrifically exacerbated by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who are almost singlehandedly responsible for the recession through their coercive actions that caused banks to make toxic loans, the housing bubble would never have occurred, and the collapse would not have occurred because none of the banks involved would ever have made the toxic loans that got "securitized" and sold as investment vehicles in the first place.

It's not government's job to try to manipulate the markets to achieve social engineering goals, and every single time it tries to do so, it goes badly in the end.

So please quit trotting out this asinine claim that Libertarians and conservatives want market anarchy, it's simply not true and never has been. It's a polemic argument that only an idiot or an ideological hack makes, and I don't think you're either.

[Seth]

[
You've nailed the root cognitive disconnect. Communists, when challenged with the evidence of history, resort to "dictionary Communism" much like atheists resort to "dictionary atheism" as a way to avoid culpability or recognition of the fundamental failings of the ideology.

I thought you were an atheist. I guess not, ay?

Absolutely not. I'm a non-theistic Tolerist™

But, atheism is not an ideology. I'll just correct you right there. Atheism is one thing: lack of belief in gods - atheists hold every conceivable ideology on the planet from libertarianism or objectivism to platonism to epicureanism to Marxism to fascism to anarchism to whatever. Atheism is a belief, or lack thereof. It can be religious (some Buddhists are atheists, for example) or non-religious. But, that's another thread...

Isn't it just. For my take on it, which I'll import to another thread presently, you can visit The Broadside.

Theoretical "perfected" Communism is indeed heaven on earth. Everyone living together in socialist harmony, loving and caring for one another in socialist solidarity, freely giving of their labor according to their ability, charitably taking only according to their modest and reasonable needs. No greed, no avarice, no sloth, no individualism, no concerns about inequality in any way, no crime, no corruption, no authoritarian central government, no classes.

That never sounded the least bit appealing to me. Who would want to live in such a Huxleyian "Brave New World?" Sounds lie a "Stepford" society to me.

Everyone loving and caring for one another? Really? Freely giving of their labor? Sounds great until you realize that everyone may have a different view of what care ought to be dispensed or is needed and what labor is warranted or required, and what needs are modest and what excessive. Is air conditioning a luxury or a need? Here in the US it's deemed a need - in many other countries, it's a luxury.

No greed? Sometimes greed is fun - gotta love a fun night at the casino once in a while... drop some coin at the craps table and let it ride, baby! Now, that's some fun...but, it is pure greed and nothing else. Sloth, too. That can be awesome - I like the occasional day of excess and laziness - lay on the couch and relax - get nothing accomplished. Invigorating. I'd hate not to be able to be slothful when I please. Or gluttonous - gotta love me some gluttony. No individualism? Sounds downright horrid. I love individualism.

Well, I should have specified that it's attractive to Eloi.

Me, I'm a Morlock.

It's fuckwitted utopian delusion, is what Communism is.

It fails utterly every time it's been tried for the simple reason that people are not utterly altruistic saints who will give of themselves without thought of reward, according to their ability, and they are not monks who have sworn vows of poverty which induces them to only consume in accordance with their needs.

I don't think that's the exact reason it fails. Certainly some folks are not altruistic in the least. But, I have a very high opinion of people, and I have noticed that people will by and large not steal, not lie and not harm others, generally speaking, with or without laws. It's our nature as social animals. There are, of course, standard deviations from the norm, and we have sociopaths, thieves and other bad folks to contend with.

The bigger problem is that people have different ideas about what is "able" and what is "need." Is air conditioning a need? I say so. Some say no. When the State says it is, it is. When the State says it isn't it isn't. What am I "able" to give? Will I, in communism, determine that for myself? Can't be, of course, since I am also a rational being, and if I get to determine what I am able to give, then I'll determine a much lower amount than some third party would determine I'm able to give. That's the simple, basic reality - if I am going to give money for something I will try to give as little as possible. If someone else is going to get money for something, I am going to try to get as much as possible. Same thing with "effort" - if I have to work, I'd like to commit to working the least amount possible. That way, if I choose to work more, I can, and if I'm tired of it, I won't.

The fundamental failure of Communism is that people care first and foremost about their own needs, then about the needs of their family and perhaps their friends. Only far down the road, after their needs, and their desires, have been met do they even begin to think about the needs of others, generally speaking. It may be easily observed that the vast majority of people, when faced with economic or physical crisis like shortage of food or other basic needs, will, in the end, fight tooth and nail for their own survival and comfort.

Communism wrongly assumes that people will work hard for the benefit of the collective without prospect of recognition or reward for that industry.

People are selfish, cruel, greedy, self-serving, cupidinous, fearful, overbearing, hostile, friendly and an endless list of adjectives describing the faults and foibles of human nature that absolutely, categorically precludes the success of utopian Communism.

It's a flawed social theory because it utterly ignores actual human nature and behavior in favor of a theoretical human character and condition that will never, ever exist in any but the very smallest and most voluntary of situations, like monasteries.

Altruism is NOT a high-order fundamental aspect of human nature. Maslow identified the basic human needs, and altruism falls far down on the list.

Human beings will satisfy their own individual needs before they act altruistically towards others. Socialism fails to recognize this fundamental fact of human nature.

Well, right. It's like when the plane loses cabin pressure - put the mask over your face before helping your children. First order of business is to keep self alive such that you can then help others. Survival first - altruism second.

Yup. And altruism cannot be forced. Communism and socialism both demand altruistic behavior, and will enforce altruistic behavior with brutal efficiency when a person is not sufficiently dedicated to serving the collective. That's called "slavery" and nobody likes being enslaved.

What this means in the practical sense is that socialism is a least-common-denominator system that induces people to do the least possible amount of work in order to get the greatest possible share of resources. This situation is induced because there is no reward for excellence or hard work. Any success that the individual achieves is redistributed to others, and soon the individual ceases to excel and begins to do only the minimum required to get by. No society can be prosperous when everyone is doing the least possible amount of work because there is no inducement to do more.

Communism is not concerned with "prosperity." Communism is concerned with equality. The assumption in Marx's communism is that the poor are desperately, awfully poor to the point of starvation level. The Communist Manifesto was written under the Czars, where serfs lived in shacks and were basically slaves. By taking from the rich - there was only rich and desperately poor - all that could happen was the mass of workers would do a tad bit better and they wouldn't be slaves anymore. Now, communism doesn't offer that - in a western country like the US or Canada, communism offers a decline in living standards, because compared to much of the world WE ARE THE RICH, and for that reason alone we are the enemy.

Exactly correct. Communism tried to solve a serious problem of death-dealing social inequity by simply taking wealth from the wealthy on the philosophical excuse that it was wrong for the wealthy not to share their wealth, and so the poor were justified in taking it, and killing the wealthy, for their selfishness.

But while Marx was responding to a genuinely cruel and repressive aristocracy and imperialist social structure, and revolution was quite literally the only way out of that situation, once the system reached democracy Marx should have stopped and turned to capitalism rather than continuing down the road to communism. He should have looked at the success of the United States and emulated that system of government rather than taking the violent revolutionary road to totalitarian State Socialism that he did.

And present day Marxists make the same mistake, but to a greater degree. They buy into Marx's "wealth evil, poor good" propaganda without realizing that it is the wealthy who create, support and drive the economy and build businesses that employ people, and that the socialist/communist model of organization simply doesn't work outside the very smallest of organizations.

Whole Foods is an example of a "socialist" business in that it has profit sharing and involves employees in decision making, but only to a limited extent. It still has a CEO and a hierarchy, and more skilled and more valued employees make more money than new and unskilled laborers.

On a national scale, the failure of Communism in the economy is also that central planning of an economy simply cannot work, as F.A. Hayek points out so cogently in "The Road to Serfdom."

Communism, and indeed Marxism, were a response to a specific set of historical circumstances that no longer obtain, and as a result, Marx's theories and ideology are no longer useful, and indeed are positively harmful to society. Marxism is extremely dangerous because it's so frequently misused, and it's misused because it's a populist ideology that "empowers" the poor and downtrodden and gives them the illusion that they will be in power and control. But it's an enormous lie, and the Marxist elite know full well it's a lie, and they don't care because what they want is to be at the head of the snake so that they can wield the power. That's what makes it so utterly fucking evil. It exploits the proletariat by lying to them wholesale and propagandizing them to believe that classless communist utopia awaits them, where milk and honey will flow in abundance from some undefined font of milk and honey, and that they will never have to work for a living again, and everyone will be "equal."

But every evil fucking Marxist dictator in history, including the present ones, know full well that this utopia is just an illusion dangled before the lumpen proletariat to get them to rise up and smite the bourgeoisie in revolutionary zeal. Communism is a brass ring that can never be reached as the proletariat whirl around and around on the carousel of Marxist totalitarianism.

[Seth]

Communism is concerned with equality. .

I'd say there's nothing wrong with that... except when equality is enforced at the expense of equity. All people are born equal. What happens after that is another matter.

The assumption in Marx's communism is that the poor are desperately, awfully poor to the point of starvation level. The Communist Manifesto was written under the Czars, where serfs lived in shacks and were basically slaves. By taking from the rich - there was only rich and desperately poor - all that could happen was the mass of workers would do a tad bit better and they wouldn't be slaves anymore. Now, communism doesn't offer that - in a western country like the US or Canada, communism offers a decline in living standards, because compared to much of the world WE ARE THE RICH, and for that reason alone we are the enemy.

Marx was a German who whote much of his work while in London. And he figured workers' revolutions would first take root in the most advanced countries, places like Germany and Britain. Something he got wrong right off the bat.

I also like to point out that Marx wrote his philosophies while suffering from painful boils on his ass, a condition he couldn't afford to treat at the time. Is it possible the quality of his health care influenced his ideas? Mebbe.

Well, he's certainly made a pain in the ass of himself to generations that followed him, that much is true.

[Coito ergo sum]

[
You've nailed the root cognitive disconnect. Communists, when challenged with the evidence of history, resort to "dictionary Communism" much like atheists resort to "dictionary atheism" as a way to avoid culpability or recognition of the fundamental failings of the ideology.

I thought you were an atheist. I guess not, ay?

Absolutely not. I'm a non-theistic Tolerist™

Atheists can be non-theistic tolerists, so the fact that you are that doesn't really relate to whether you're an atheist or not. Do you think that gods don't exist? If you think not, then you're an atheist. If you think you can't know whether there are any gods, then you're an agnostic. Or, colloquially, some folks suggest that if you seriously doubt there are any gods, but don't feel sure enough to say you don't think they exists, then you're an agnostic too.

So, are you an atheist as well as a non-theistic tolerist? The non-theistic part - no god - implies atheism to me. Can you clarify the difference?

But, atheism is not an ideology. I'll just correct you right there. Atheism is one thing: lack of belief in gods - atheists hold every conceivable ideology on the planet from libertarianism or objectivism to platonism to epicureanism to Marxism to fascism to anarchism to whatever. Atheism is a belief, or lack thereof. It can be religious (some Buddhists are atheists, for example) or non-religious. But, that's another thread...

Isn't it just. For my take on it, which I'll import to another thread presently, you can visit The Broadside.

Link doesn't seem to work.

Theoretical "perfected" Communism is indeed heaven on earth. Everyone living together in socialist harmony, loving and caring for one another in socialist solidarity, freely giving of their labor according to their ability, charitably taking only according to their modest and reasonable needs. No greed, no avarice, no sloth, no individualism, no concerns about inequality in any way, no crime, no corruption, no authoritarian central government, no classes.

That never sounded the least bit appealing to me. Who would want to live in such a Huxleyian "Brave New World?" Sounds lie a "Stepford" society to me.

Everyone loving and caring for one another? Really? Freely giving of their labor? Sounds great until you realize that everyone may have a different view of what care ought to be dispensed or is needed and what labor is warranted or required, and what needs are modest and what excessive. Is air conditioning a luxury or a need? Here in the US it's deemed a need - in many other countries, it's a luxury.

No greed? Sometimes greed is fun - gotta love a fun night at the casino once in a while... drop some coin at the craps table and let it ride, baby! Now, that's some fun...but, it is pure greed and nothing else. Sloth, too. That can be awesome - I like the occasional day of excess and laziness - lay on the couch and relax - get nothing accomplished. Invigorating. I'd hate not to be able to be slothful when I please. Or gluttonous - gotta love me some gluttony. No individualism? Sounds downright horrid. I love individualism.

Well, I should have specified that it's attractive to Eloi.

Me, I'm a Morlock.

I'm a Brutal. "You stink of despair! Fight! Fight for what you want! Fight for Death, if that is what you want!"

It's fuckwitted utopian delusion, is what Communism is.

It fails utterly every time it's been tried for the simple reason that people are not utterly altruistic saints who will give of themselves without thought of reward, according to their ability, and they are not monks who have sworn vows of poverty which induces them to only consume in accordance with their needs.

I don't think that's the exact reason it fails. Certainly some folks are not altruistic in the least. But, I have a very high opinion of people, and I have noticed that people will by and large not steal, not lie and not harm others, generally speaking, with or without laws. It's our nature as social animals. There are, of course, standard deviations from the norm, and we have sociopaths, thieves and other bad folks to contend with.

The bigger problem is that people have different ideas about what is "able" and what is "need." Is air conditioning a need? I say so. Some say no. When the State says it is, it is. When the State says it isn't it isn't. What am I "able" to give? Will I, in communism, determine that for myself? Can't be, of course, since I am also a rational being, and if I get to determine what I am able to give, then I'll determine a much lower amount than some third party would determine I'm able to give. That's the simple, basic reality - if I am going to give money for something I will try to give as little as possible. If someone else is going to get money for something, I am going to try to get as much as possible. Same thing with "effort" - if I have to work, I'd like to commit to working the least amount possible. That way, if I choose to work more, I can, and if I'm tired of it, I won't.

The fundamental failure of Communism is that people care first and foremost about their own needs, then about the needs of their family and perhaps their friends. Only far down the road, after their needs, and their desires, have been met do they even begin to think about the needs of others, generally speaking. It may be easily observed that the vast majority of people, when faced with economic or physical crisis like shortage of food or other basic needs, will, in the end, fight tooth and nail for their own survival and comfort.

Communism wrongly assumes that people will work hard for the benefit of the collective without prospect of recognition or reward for that industry.

Communism also must assume a state of plenty. By that, I mean a situation where there is enough for everyone to go around. Anyone who ever took economics 101 class in college will remember that the main idea behind free market capitalism is the efficient allocation of SCARCE resources. Capitalism recognizes the fundamental reality that resources are scarce. Communism assumes that they aren't.

Procommunist folks will knee-jerk respond to me and deny that. But, it must be the case. It can't be otherwise. Why? If communism were to assume that resources were scarce, like food, water, shelter, etc., then it would assume everyone would die. If resources are scares, and they have to be allocated EQUALLY, then everyone is starves. How can it be otherwise? If there is enough for everyone to have everything they need, then resources aren't scarce, are they? And that's a basic assumption of communism. So, it must assume that resources aren't scarce, but we all know they are.

[Coito ergo sum]

Isn't it just. For my take on it, which I'll import to another thread presently, you can visit The Broadside.

I need to address this:

The reason why atheism is not a belief SYSTEM and that the "dictionary atheists" are correct is because to say that atheism has principles outside of "no god" that must be adhered to to be an atheist would necessitate the nonsensical possibility that a person who does not believe in gods is, in fact, not an atheist.

If I do not believe in gods, I am an atheist. No matter what else I may be - communist - philanthropist - masturbator - misgynist - or platonist - or whatever - I'm still an atheist.

If you say that other than not believing in gods, atheists must hold the following worldviews: X, Y and Z - then you create a situation where a person who doesn't believe in gods is not an atheist because they reject worldviews X, Y and Z. See?

Many Marxists are atheists - but not all atheists are Marxists.

Many Objectivists are atheists - but not all atheists are Objectivists.

Objectivists and Marxists can hardly be LESS alike. How can one say that an atheist must be one or the other? How can one argue that one must be anything at all, other than a nonbeliever?

[Seth]

[
You've nailed the root cognitive disconnect. Communists, when challenged with the evidence of history, resort to "dictionary Communism" much like atheists resort to "dictionary atheism" as a way to avoid culpability or recognition of the fundamental failings of the ideology.

I thought you were an atheist. I guess not, ay?

Absolutely not. I'm a non-theistic Tolerist™

Atheists can be non-theistic tolerists, so the fact that you are that doesn't really relate to whether you're an atheist or not. Do you think that gods don't exist? If you think not, then you're an atheist.

No, it means that my belief/practice system is a-theistic.

If you think you can't know whether there are any gods, then you're an agnostic. Or, colloquially, some folks suggest that if you seriously doubt there are any gods, but don't feel sure enough to say you don't think they exists, then you're an agnostic too.

So, are you an atheist as well as a non-theistic tolerist? The non-theistic part - no god - implies atheism to me. Can you clarify the difference?

Well, perhaps I should have specified that I'm not an "Atheist." Certainly I'm dictionary-variety a-theistic in my beliefs, but as I say, I choose to be identified as a non-theistic Tolerist™ in order to clearly distinguish myself from Atheists, and "atheism," which term implies some sort of organized system of beliefs and practices.

I don't know if I fall into the agnostic camp because my understanding is that agnostics feel they will never really know if God exists, whereas I say that we absolutely WILL know whether God exists or not...when our understanding and knowledge of the universe(s) is perfect.

These various ambiguities are why I developed Tolerism™ as my self-stated religion.

But, atheism is not an ideology. I'll just correct you right there. Atheism is one thing: lack of belief in gods - atheists hold every conceivable ideology on the planet from libertarianism or objectivism to platonism to epicureanism to Marxism to fascism to anarchism to whatever. Atheism is a belief, or lack thereof. It can be religious (some Buddhists are atheists, for example) or non-religious. But, that's another thread...

Isn't it just. For my take on it, which I'll import to another thread presently, you can visit The Broadside.

Link doesn't seem to work.

http://thebroadside.freedomblogging.com ... -religion/

Should work. I'll transfer it to a new thread right now... and then come back to comment on the rest of your post...

[JimC]

Read about the current trouble in Egypt. You'll find the government is using the military to "protect" the instruments of power,they have surrounded the key buildings with tanks, ie all the government departments.

You won't find a better current example of the use of force to keep an exploited and abused population down.

I don't see why I should limit examples to current events. So, what about Tiananmen Square? East Germany, 1953? Hungary 1956? Czechoslovakia 1968? ...

You are conflating totalitarianism , a political system, with communism, an economic system. ( though they weren't communist, they were statist)

The trouble is that virtually every case of attempting to establish a communist state has lead inexorably to one form of totalitarianism or another...

The left is still in denial about this...

Just as the right are in denial about the predatory nature of unchecked capitalism, and the need to balance it with strong unions, a cynical free press, and governments capable of robust but intelligently applied regulation...

Yeah, except the right is NOT in denial, and has NEVER denied that reasonable regulations in exercise of legitimate police power objectives are necessary for capitalism and free markets to function. This is a base canard that the left drags out as some sort of asinine attempt to paint Libertarians and conservatives as greedy anarchic ogres, but it's a flat-out lie.

Once again, Libertarians and conservatives distinguish between necessary regulations that keep the markets from engaging in fraud and force, exercises of the police power to make sure that everyone deals honestly, and REDISTRIBUTIVE regulations that attempt to regulate what may be sold, who it may be sold to, under what conditions it may be sold and how much can be charged or paid that are intended to select economic winners and losers in the market through regulatory manipulation for the purposes of Progressive social engineering.

The Community Reinvestment Act, and everything that followed from it that resulted in the housing market meltdown that triggered this recession is the quintessential example of why such social-agenda redistributive regulation is improper, imprudent and dangerous.

The whole housing meltdown was proximately caused by the liberal notion that everybody ought to own a house, and that government should meddle in the housing markets to force banks to loan money to people who had no business whatsoever borrowing money to buy a house. Absent Carter's meddling, which was horrifically exacerbated by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who are almost singlehandedly responsible for the recession through their coercive actions that caused banks to make toxic loans, the housing bubble would never have occurred, and the collapse would not have occurred because none of the banks involved would ever have made the toxic loans that got "securitized" and sold as investment vehicles in the first place.

It's not government's job to try to manipulate the markets to achieve social engineering goals, and every single time it tries to do so, it goes badly in the end.

So please quit trotting out this asinine claim that Libertarians and conservatives want market anarchy, it's simply not true and never has been. It's a polemic argument that only an idiot or an ideological hack makes, and I don't think you're either.

You misunderstand me. I was not saying that you advocated zero regulation, nor was I constructing a leftist strawman about free-marketeers (although there are purists out there who would call you a bit pink for even wanting some minimal set of regulations). Probably I would advocate a more regulated system than you, but I am also mindful that over-regulation can have negative effects.

My point is that capitalism itself is essentially predatory, and left unchecked, treats its workers in horrible ways. The industrial past of the west is littered with such examples. Third world countries today with free market economies, but without the web of counterbalances we have evolved over the years to counteract the rapacious reality of capitalism, are truly dreadful places to be a worker... In our past, companies did not quietly evolve into being more caring and sharing; they were dragged kicking and sceaming to improve their treatment of workers, partly because of heroic efforts by unions, and partly by democratically elected governments, often centre left, who were not beholden to the monied classes.

With all of that, it is also true that capitalism delivers efficiencies, motivations and innovations that simply do not emerge in planned economies. The trick is to find a balance that works. Possible in many places, but globalised corporations hunt for places they can let their true nature shine, though, with friendly, bribable governments and not a union in sight...

[Hermit]

the guy calls himself a libertarian, and apparently he really is pro-Life - so, o.k. - that puts him in the statistical minority of libertarians and is not in accord with the Libertarian Party in the US. So, he's a fringe libertarian. Good enough?

Just half a step away from the "true Scotsman" strategy. We'll just add this to all those christians that deny that the other sects are not true christians (or fringe, or pure christians, if you prefer), the communists that deny that the other factions are not true communists, and so on.

[.Morticia.]

What about Franco's Spain. That was Capitalist.

Err....Franco's Spain was a fascist economy and an autarky, not a capitalist economy. Fascism is centrally planned - the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. All private enterprise is contingent on service to the State.

Capitalist, my ass.

More fine examples of how Capitalism ALWAYS devolves into totalitarianism and militarism as the system becomes more and more unsustainable and the masses harder and harder to exploit.

Well, we know that capitalism doesn't always devolve into totalitarianism. We haven't yet been given an example of a communist state that hasn't devolved into totalitarianism.

fascism is a style of governance, but Spain was still capitalist , albeit a very highly controlled one

and there are no examples of communist states that haven't devolved into totalitariansim because there haven't been any communist states

Russia was Statist for example, not even socialist.

The Paris Commune was a good example of a nascent socialist society. Unfortunately they were all slaughtered before they could establish themselves.

[Boyle]

The Community Reinvestment Act, and everything that followed from it that resulted in the housing market meltdown that triggered this recession is the quintessential example of why such social-agenda redistributive regulation is improper, imprudent and dangerous.

The CRA did not cause the housing market crash. Predatory lending did, which the CRA was specifically designed to prevent. Specifically, it requires institutions to operate in a "safe and sound manner". Predatory lending is not safe nor sound for business. As well, lenders that were CRA bound contributed little to the crisis.

Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes.

Citations:
CRA
The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis

That's really my only problem with the thread so far. Carry on arguing about the finer points of capitalism and communism.

[Seth]

The Community Reinvestment Act, and everything that followed from it that resulted in the housing market meltdown that triggered this recession is the quintessential example of why such social-agenda redistributive regulation is improper, imprudent and dangerous.

The CRA did not cause the housing market crash. Predatory lending did, which the CRA was specifically designed to prevent. Specifically, it requires institutions to operate in a "safe and sound manner". Predatory lending is not safe nor sound for business. As well, lenders that were CRA bound contributed little to the crisis.

Hogwash. The CRA was a liberal Democrat program begun by Jimmy Carter intended to increase the level of home ownership in the US as part of a liberal Progressive social engineering program. The CRA specifically prohibited "redlining" which is a practice that banks and mortgage lenders had used for decades to deny home loans to applicants in poor communities because the banks saw such communities as having inordinately high risks of default and low levels of equity in the assets to protect the banks.

The CRA not only made redlining illegal, it required banks to "improve" their minority lending practices, which is Progressivespeak for "lend more money to poor people even if they cannot possibly pay the loans back." To get this to happen, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created to back the mortgage loans with government guarantees.

Predatory lending emerged only in the last decade or so, as the government meddling in the markets, and actions by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to coerce banks to make ever-more risky loans that were immediately bought up by Fannie and Freddie, skewed the housing markets more and more. Government guaranteed loans drove a housing construction boom and that's when predatory lending, which is knowingly lending to unqualified applicants who have no chance of repaying the loans at low initial rates with huge balloon payments down the road, began. Government was complicit in this, as were Frank and Dodd, who ignored the warnings given them by economic experts and declared the housing market to be stable mere months before the collapse.

But the whole problem ORIGINATED with the liberal Progressive CRA, which was intended as a SOCIAL ENGINEERING PROGRAM, not as a rational economic program. The purpose was completely political, and it's purpose was to pander to the working poor who dreamed of owning a home in return for their votes. But Jimmy Carter couldn't pull that off, and Reagan took over in 81, but the CRA, like most Progressive cancers, was never excised, and the result is today's recession. And Jimmy Carter is to blame, along with a host of other Progressives since who have protected that Progressive pork project as a way to pander to the working poor while putting them further in the poorhouse, and then out on the street, as their mortgages become unaffordable and they lose every dime of equity (if any) they built up.

Sure, predatory lending, securitizing of toxic mortgage paper and many other misdeeds on the part of the mortgage and banking industries and the government occurred, like the failure of the SEC to regulate "credit default swaps" and other derivatives, but it all started with the Progressive notion that everyone ought to be entitled to own a home and the efforts to pander to working poor and middle-class voters in exchange for government-backed largess.

And when it all came crashing down, did government help the homebuyers? Nope. TARP money flowed out of the US and into the hands of foreign investors who should have lost their asses for investing in toxic mortgages in the first place like a breach in Hoover Dam. The entire CDS/derivatives market, and every investor and bank involved in the toxic mortage mess should have been allowed to go bankrupt, and any TARP money, if it was appropriated at all, should have gone to paying off the REDUCED VALUE (after the bubble burst) of the homes that were the subject of predatory lending. Better yet, any consumer who can prove predatory lending, which means material misrepresentations about the mortgage terms, should be awarded their home free and clear, as a penalty to the lender.

On the other hand, any homeowner who falsified a financial statement, even at the urging of a mortgage lender, should not only lose their home, they should go directly to federal prison for perjury regarding a federally-secured loan.

Any homes forfeited by mortgage lenders for predatory practices should be given to poor people for free, by lottery.