Disaster capitalism

[Seth]

Optimal allocation of resources, just as Adam Smith described.

Well I wouldn't call it optimal - resources are allocated to wherever they are most profitable to those who are already wealthy. Those who find themselves in trouble are forced by their desperation to allow themselves to be screwed over more than they otherwise would be - and the system gets more and more unbalanced. You may well call that neutral, it's certainly very natural - Darwinian even - but in the 21st century with all our science, technology, and understanding of the world - how much longer should we put up with that?

I'll readily admit that money makes it easier to accumulate more money, and also that people with power (money being a form of power) may use that power to accumulate more power at the expense of those without power. Humans aren't omnibenevolent beings.

However, the default economic transaction is one where both parties profit. Of course this is a simplified representation of economic reality, but in most cases the simplification is justified. No market is perfect, however, and those imperfections can be exploited for profit at the exense of others. Those cases should be prevented by adequate oversight, which is why we have governments. I don't think investing in a disaster struck region of the world is such an abuse of market imperfections. All parties involved will benefit from such transactions.

The invisible hand isn't an ideal. It isn't "the way it should be". It's the way rational agents act in an environment with limited resources. It applies to capitalist systems, but it applies to other systems as well. It is simply the way things work. We may not always like the result, but we're stuck with it, because we are at least partially rational agents, and the world we inhabit has limited resources. We can, however, use our non-economic resources - like the political power we wield through democratic representation - to offset the undesirable results of the allocation of our economic resources. We can use progressive taxation to offset the concentration of wealth to a few fortunate people, and we can enforce laws to prevent the powerful to enrich themselves at the expense of the powerless. We do that all the time, though maybe not to the extent I would like.

In tis specific case, though, the result of our economic system is pretty good. Japan gets rebuilt, and the investors supplying the means to do it get a nice revenue. Sometimes capitalism actually works.

And more importantly, ALWAYS socialism DOES NOT work. Capitalism is the worst of all possible economic models...except for everything else.

[.Morticia.]

bunch of fucking parasites.

Warren Buffett: Japan Disaster Presents A 'Buying Opportunity'

So...let's see, you'd rather people with capital to invest NOT invest in Japan, in spite of the obvious fact that Japan is going to need all the capital and investment from outside the country they can possibly get in order to recover from this disaster? Yeah, that sounds mindlessly Marxist all right.

You evidently would rather that the Japanese suffer and starve in Marxist solidarity than for Capitalism to once again, as it always does, prove just what a bunch of morons Socialists and Marxists actually are. Let the proletarian working class starve to death and suffer privation and poverty in order to maintain the purity of the ideology and the political high-horse of the Marxist elite. Yah, now THERE'S a great way to help Japan recover from the disaster. I keep saying it, Marxism and Socialism are ideologies and architects of death and destruction on a massive scale, and whenever they rear their ugly heads, people die for the cause, even when they don't want to sacrifice themselves. Marxists are always happy for OTHER people to die for the cause. Selfish pricks never put themselves on the line though.

Marxism is SUCH an idiotic economic theory...

as far as I know there is no such thing as "marxist economic theory"

unless you mean his analysis of capitalism

sure, he wrote tons of stuff, he was encyclopedic ( I've seen that , it's about 40 big volumes I aint read it ), but as far as I know it's mostly analysis

he did write some stuff on rights and social programs

most of which has been implemented in modern capitalist societies

things like education for children'

no child labour

suffrage

that kind of thing

[.Morticia.]

Optimal allocation of resources, just as Adam Smith described.

Well I wouldn't call it optimal - resources are allocated to wherever they are most profitable to those who are already wealthy. Those who find themselves in trouble are forced by their desperation to allow themselves to be screwed over more than they otherwise would be - and the system gets more and more unbalanced. You may well call that neutral, it's certainly very natural - Darwinian even - but in the 21st century with all our science, technology, and understanding of the world - how much longer should we put up with that?

Forever, because the alternative is universal poverty, starvation, misery and death on a global scale, if Marxism or socialism prevail.

prove it

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Won't work.

"From each according to his willingness, to each according to his greed." That's real world.

[Wumbologist]

Optimal allocation of resources, just as Adam Smith described.

Well I wouldn't call it optimal - resources are allocated to wherever they are most profitable to those who are already wealthy. Those who find themselves in trouble are forced by their desperation to allow themselves to be screwed over more than they otherwise would be - and the system gets more and more unbalanced. You may well call that neutral, it's certainly very natural - Darwinian even - but in the 21st century with all our science, technology, and understanding of the world - how much longer should we put up with that?

Forever, because the alternative is universal poverty, starvation, misery and death on a global scale, if Marxism or socialism prevail.

prove it

Ask Josef Stalin. Or Mao Zedong. Or Pol Pot. Or Kim Il Sung.

[sandinista]

Optimal allocation of resources, just as Adam Smith described.

Well I wouldn't call it optimal - resources are allocated to wherever they are most profitable to those who are already wealthy. Those who find themselves in trouble are forced by their desperation to allow themselves to be screwed over more than they otherwise would be - and the system gets more and more unbalanced. You may well call that neutral, it's certainly very natural - Darwinian even - but in the 21st century with all our science, technology, and understanding of the world - how much longer should we put up with that?

I'll readily admit that money makes it easier to accumulate more money, and also that people with power (money being a form of power) may use that power to accumulate more power at the expense of those without power. Humans aren't omnibenevolent beings.

However, the default economic transaction is one where both parties profit. Of course this is a simplified representation of economic reality, but in most cases the simplification is justified. No market is perfect, however, and those imperfections can be exploited for profit at the exense of others. Those cases should be prevented by adequate oversight, which is why we have governments. I don't think investing in a disaster struck region of the world is such an abuse of market imperfections. All parties involved will benefit from such transactions.

The invisible hand isn't an ideal. It isn't "the way it should be". It's the way rational agents act in an environment with limited resources. It applies to capitalist systems, but it applies to other systems as well. It is simply the way things work. We may not always like the result, but we're stuck with it, because we are at least partially rational agents, and the world we inhabit has limited resources. We can, however, use our non-economic resources - like the political power we wield through democratic representation - to offset the undesirable results of the allocation of our economic resources. We can use progressive taxation to offset the concentration of wealth to a few fortunate people, and we can enforce laws to prevent the powerful to enrich themselves at the expense of the powerless. We do that all the time, though maybe not to the extent I would like.

In tis specific case, though, the result of our economic system is pretty good. Japan gets rebuilt, and the investors supplying the means to do it get a nice revenue. Sometimes capitalism actually works.

And more importantly, ALWAYS socialism DOES NOT work. Capitalism is the worst of all possible economic models...except for everything else.

overused, lame, bs quote alert!! Capitalism never works...except for the rich.

[Wumbologist]

overused, lame, bs quote alert!! Capitalism never works...except for the rich.

Marxism never works, except for the people who aren't in the mass graves. And it's not even all that great for them.

[.Morticia.]

it worked in the Paris Commune

it worked so well that the federal government committed genocide to quash it

that was a true socialist economy, even though it was only nascent

the crap that the reactionaries keep repeating about stalin etc is lies. Not a lie that they didn;t commit mass murder and were tyrants. The lie is that they were socialist.

I find the lies and mythologies about politics and economics to be very similar to those about religion.

The lies both serve religious organisations and those who would vilify them ( ie other religious organisations) . Of course, the people not served by the lies are the masses.

[Wumbologist]

it worked in the Paris Commune

it worked so well that the federal government committed genocide to quash it

that was a true socialist economy, even though it was only nascent

For two months? I can buy a used car with a warranty longer than that.

[normal]

Norway

[Wumbologist]

Norway

Taiwan

[normal]

Norway

[Wumbologist]

Norway

Panama

[normal]

Norway

[.Morticia.]

Norway

norway isn't socialist

it has good social programs ie, it is liberal