Capitalism

hhiusa said:

So glad to be of service

Click to expand...

Hi hhiusa

Slightly off topic - but like your converted Coke advert

Serious question - for a balanced economy and environment - the fact that Capitalism and Socialism both have the faults and weaknesses - don't you think ideally 65-70% capitalism assisted with 30 -35% socialism - so all can enjoy the best of both worlds ??

One day you will get old - and you might need help and have had all your money taken away from you by the mafia or the other word for them - Banksters - and then you might need some support and assistance.

All humans are born different - we cannot all be super strong and super intelligent - and normally we all accept that the old and frail who fought in wars etc might need help from the young and strong and wealthy etc etc.

Do you pay for your own private Police Force ?

Do you build all your own roads and pay for them yourself ?

Do you have a private fire brigade to help you if your house sets on fire ??

I appreciate you might own a gun - but what value does that have when you are faced with a fire ??

All serious questions - posed by someone who is more right then central - but can see the argument on both sides of the fence

Enjoy your weekend


Regards


F

Forexmospherian said:

Hi hhiusa

Slightly off topic - but like your converted Coke advert

Serious question - for a balanced economy and environment - the fact that Capitalism and Socialism both have the faults and weaknesses - don't you think ideally 65-70% capitalism assisted with 30 -35% socialism - so all can enjoy the best of both worlds ??

One day you will get old - and you might need help and have had all your money taken away from you by the mafia or the other word for them - Banksters - and then you might need some support and assistance.

All humans are born different - we cannot all be super strong and super intelligent - and normally we all accept that the old and frail who fought in wars etc might need help from the young and strong and wealthy etc etc.

Click to expand...

What you say is true about getting old but not about banks. This is why it is important to save your money and not get into mortgages you cannot afford. If you already know and think the banks are mafiosos, then you should take precautions for your future. Additionally, if you know you are not "super strong and super intelligent" then a fortiori you should make even more plans for your future. Do not rely on government to completely take care of you.

Forexmospherian said:

Do you pay for your own private Police Force ?

Do you build all your own roads and pay for them yourself ?

Do you have a private fire brigade to help you if your house sets on fire ??

Click to expand...

Capitalism does not mean no taxes. I am for certain taxes that provides services that are beneficial to those that pay in. The tax money you pay in should be redirected towards your benefit not someone else's. To clarify, if California raises more taxe money than another state, California should not have to give them any money. If Newport Beach has better roads than Compton, it is because Newport Beach has more tax money to be matched with federal funds. Newport Beach should not have their tax money being spent in Compton. Tax money received from a city is partially redistributed to that state, more goes to the county and most of it goes back to the city for things like paving roads, paying the police and civil employees. We should not be paying pensions so huge that anyone can retire in their 50s with enough money to have several properties, nice cars and travel. Pensions should only be enough to make sure you are healthy and safe. They should be supplemental only.

Forexmospherian said:

I appreciate you might own a gun - but what value does that have when you are faced with a fire ??

Click to expand...

This is not a serious question. I do not own a gun. I am not pro gun but that is an argument for another thread. Until you can provide with a logical argument as to why you think I might own a gun, I will find it to be a pointless throw away statement. I do not mudsling or call people names to get my point across. You may disagree with what I say but I can always back it up with evidence or logical deductions.

Forexmospherian said:

All serious questions - posed by someone who is more right then central - but can see the argument on both sides of the fence

Enjoy your weekend


Regards


F

Click to expand...

They are not all serious questions; however, that does not matter to me. I answered the pertinent ones.

Capitalism is moral and fair.

Capitalism is defined as private ownership and control over the means of production, where the surplus product becomes a source of unearned income for its owners.

• There are no bailouts in Capitalism.
• There are no Central Bankers who try to guess what interest rates should be or which businesses get special treatment.
• True Capitalism would require sound money, not Government monopolised fiat rubbish.
• In true Capitalism, entrepreneurs go bankrupt and their resources are released and redeployed by other more competent entrepreneurs.
• Capitalism is the most moral and fair system of all because it involves no coercion.

I'm not sure why people think Capitalism has faults and weaknesses. I suppose it's because they believe whatever the television tells them.

new_trader said:

Capitalism is defined as private ownership and control over the means of production, where the surplus product becomes a source of unearned income for its owners.

• There are no bailouts in Capitalism.
• There are no Central Bankers who try to guess what interest rates should be or which businesses get special treatment.
• True Capitalism would require sound money, not Government monopolised fiat rubbish.
• In true Capitalism, entrepreneurs go bankrupt and their resources are released and redeployed by other more competent entrepreneurs.
• Capitalism is the most moral and fair system of all because it involves no coercion.

I'm not sure why people think Capitalism has faults and weaknesses. I suppose it's because they believe whatever the television tells them.

Click to expand...

I am in my early sixty's and for over 25 yrs I was a businessman and entrepreneur - and in the early 2000's my net private worth would have been over £2 million pounds

I had since university days voted more times for the Conservatives than any other party and voted for Maggie when I thought the unions had to much power

So I would say I have been in favour of capitalism - BUT - it certainly has its down side - just like socialism

Maybe this covers some of its weaknesses - although I don't think "greed" is mentioned in there ( too much)

http://listverse.com/2012/12/27/top-10-reasons-why-capitalism-sucks/


Regards


F

Forexmospherian said:

http://listverse.com/2012/12/27/top-10-reasons-why-capitalism-sucks/


Regards


F

Click to expand...

They are the Top 10 clueless left wing liberal reasons why Capitalism sucks...is this honestly the best you've got?

Forexmospherian said:

I am in my early sixty's and for over 25 yrs I was a businessman and entrepreneur - and in the early 2000's my net private worth would have been over £2 million pounds

I had since university days voted more times for the Conservatives than any other party and voted for Maggie when I thought the unions had to much power

So I would say I have been in favour of capitalism - BUT - it certainly has its down side - just like socialism

Maybe this covers some of its weaknesses - although I don't think "greed" is mentioned in there

http://listverse.com/2012/12/27/top-10-reasons-why-capitalism-sucks/


Regards


F

Click to expand...

Socialism is no more greedy than capitalism. In socialism you have people who feel they are entitled to other people's wealth just by being alive and that the government should help them when it suits them and not when it doesn't. People may be greedy in capitalism, but they are not anymore so than in socialism. At least if I am a greedy capitalist, I have to work harder to satiate my avarice. Wanting wealth that is not yours is the epitome of avarice.

Socialism has the worst kind of greed - laziness and entitlement mixed with greed.

Instead of listing an article for your point, why not post your argument here in your own words or else paraphrase the article?

new_trader said:

They are the Top 10 clueless left wing liberal reasons why Capitalism sucks...is this honestly the best you've got?

Click to expand...

The thing is n_t - I am no way left wing - as already mentioned

But is it morally right to pay kids in India a bowl of rice - or 1 dollar a day to help produce a commercial product - like trainers for example and then the mark up is 10000% + ( some of the bespoke branded individual trainers ) ??

Controlled Capitalism is acceptable - but you cannot just have a totally free capital system - with no corruption and unfairness.

Money is not GOD

The Human Beings rights and dignity and health are more important

Profit - its not a bad word - but crooks are crooks - and they should face the same penalties - whether they work in Banks or in Government or in the commercial world.

I can supply a lot more bad things about Socialism than Capitalism - but that's because I accept neither are perfect and the controllers and leaders of both wings - will no way want their ideologies watered down

Just my view


Regards


F

hhiusa said:

Socialism is no more greedy than capitalism. In socialism you have people who feel they are entitled to other people's wealth just by being alive and that the government should help them when it suits them and not when it doesn't. People may be greedy in capitalism, but they are not anymore so than in socialism. At least if I am a greedy capitalist, I have to work harder to satiate my avarice. Wanting wealth that is not yours is the epitome of avarice.

Socialism has the worst kind of greed - laziness and entitlement mixed with greed.

Instead of listing an article for your point, why not post your argument here in your own words or else paraphrase the article?

Click to expand...

Hi hhiusa

What I find interesting is that i was like you over 30 yrs ago - before the kids and travelling the world and meeting lots of different nationalities - and spending time with both the very rich ( I worked for 3 yrs with Richard Branson at a Director level) and the very poor - 3 weeks in Gambia and another few weeks in other poor areas of Africa

I have changed - you may not think today - you ever will - but I am sure that could happen - maybe by a totally unexpected experience

Regards


F

Why do we get back the merits of capitalism. People keep bringing up "greedy capitalist". I have yet to hear you say anything capitalism does wrong that socialism would do better. Your prior arguments about India are irrelevant to the merits of capitalism. How India chooses to treat their citizens has nothing to do with the pitfalls of capitalism.

Forexmospherian said:

Hi hhiusa

What I find interesting is that i was like you over 30 yrs ago - before the kids and travelling the world and meeting lots of different nationalities - and spending time with both the very rich ( I worked for 3 yrs with Richard Branson at a Director level) and the very poor - 3 weeks in Gambia and another few weeks in other poor areas of Africa

I have changed - you may not think today - you ever will - but I am sure that could happen - maybe by a totally unexpected experience

Regards

F

Click to expand...

What I find most interesting about you is your continuing faulty deducation about me. You state that travelling the world changed you as if I haven't travelled before. That's faulty assumption number one. How does spending time with rich people and poor people add any credence to your argument. An ad verecundiam and abusive ad hominem argument is faulty deduction number two. The fact that someone has not done the things you mentioned, would not decrease the validity of their claim. Additionally, said fallacy commits another faulty assumption that I haven't spent any time with very rich or very poor people. The statements you have provided as evidence, however laudable, are irrelevant to this debate. If you think this sounds condescending then you should read your statement below.

Forexmospherian said:

I have changed - you may not think today - you ever will - but I am sure that could happen - maybe by a totally unexpected experience

Click to expand...

I find it quite condescending to say that someone's view is beneath you because you are older.

Forexmospherian said:

The thing is n_t - I am no way left wing - as already mentioned

Click to expand...

hhiusa said:

Why do we get back the merits of capitalism. People keep bringing up "greedy capitalist". I have yet to hear you say anything capitalism does wrong that socialism would do better. Your prior arguments about India are irrelevant to the merits of capitalism. How India chooses to treat their citizens has nothing to do with the pitfalls of capitalism.

Capitalism as lead to 1% of the richest people owning 50% + of the world's wealth. 85 of the richest people own the same as in total 3 billion + of the poorest people in the world. To me - that needs a change - and I don't mean the other extreme - but simply something to ensure over the next century that's more in favour of the majority than a very very small minority.

For you to discount how India treats its citizens having nothing to do with the pitfalls of capitalism is wrong - its a classic example of exploitation - its a throwback to the days of slavery - as a Capitalist myself I don't want that and I am sure many other don't

We don't just have a choice of Capitalism or Socialism - or black or white - there are other colours as other economic systems - please remember that



What I find most interesting about you is your continuing faulty deducation about me. You state that travelling the world changed you as if I haven't travelled before. That's faulty assumption number one. How does spending time with rich people and poor people add any credence to your argument. An ad verecundiam and abusive ad hominem argument is faulty deduction number two. The fact that someone has not done the things you mentioned, would not decrease the validity of their claim. Additionally, said fallacy commits another faulty assumption that I haven't spent any time with very rich or very poor people. The statements you have provided as evidence, however laudable, are irrelevant to this debate. If you think this sounds condescending then you should read your statement below.



I find it quite condescending to say that someone's view is beneath you because you are older.

Click to expand...

Sorry - not wanting to sound condescending - experience is an important factor in any discussion or debate - and normally experience comes from time - and its no fallacy that you have told me you are a lot younger than me - but that still does not mean you cannot be clever - richer - stronger - more handsome - better than me at 95% of everything etc etc - see I am humble - a capitalist with a conscious

Have a good weekend


Regards


F

mike. said:

Here's a idea hyabusa, start a thread about how superior the US is compared to the rest of the world ? instead of wrecking every other one with your drivel..

Click to expand...

he has hasn't he ?

All Facts -


Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years.

The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012.

In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.

So we all know Capitalism as its faults - but there again nothing is perfect

ie Maybe the 90% of workers in the US who have lost out since 2009 on post financial crisis growth just don't work hard enough etc etc ( lol)

Maybe they are just not as clever as the other 10% ?

In any democracy - and of course the USA is the country of democracy and freedom - then a minority should not have all the benefits the overwhelming majoity of others would truly like ?

We accept that life is not fair and always just - and why should it be many might say - but philanthropy is sometimes just a cop out - OK you are helping and giving something back to society - which is very good - but do more - try and change the world to a better place - and kick out all the wall st cr@p of the 80's that "greed is good" and Goldman Sachs are a truly great company - because they are not

Back to the main thread here

As a true capitalist I now want to try and borrow $50 million over the next 20 yrs - to spend and create now businesses etc etc - and i want the main 80% repayment debt to be dated for approx 1 week after my funeral.

If anyone here can help me with this idea ( please not from Greece) just get in touch and i will give you a $50k on completion of the deal to my liking



Regards


F

Problem with both capitalism and communism is that they are the polar opposite mirror images of each other.

However, it's proponents talk of them when applied in their pure form as leading to some utopian world which doesn't exist.

The strengths of one is the weakness of the other.

That is why through time and application; the world's so called leading and successful economies use a combined mixed version of the two.

Forexmospherian said:

All Facts -


Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years.

Click to expand...

This is not a fault of capitalism. So what? Business is for making money. The law is for justice.

Forexmospherian said:

The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012.

Click to expand...

This is also not a fault of capitalism. Income inequality will always exist. It sounds to me that you are more socialistic if you are worried about income inequality. The rich have more money to work with, which makes it easier to make more money. All your arguments are socialistic. You have basically stated that it is inherently bad that these people are richer than others. There is no injustice in anyone being richer than someone else. The law should be taking care of the injustices not the economic policy. The problem with many countries, including those in Africa, India, Russia, etc. is that they have terrible jurisprudence.

Forexmospherian said:

In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.

So we all know Capitalism has its faults - but then again nothing is perfect

Click to expand...

You still have not listed any faults with capitalism. Free entreprise will always lead to income inequality. What you have listed are the faults in these countries' legal systems.

Forexmospherian said:

i.e., Maybe the 90% of workers in the US who have lost out since 2009 on post financial crisis growth just don't work hard enough etc. ( lol)

Maybe they are just not as clever as the other 10%?

Click to expand...

You even said it yourself earlier. Some people are stronger, more intelligent and more handsome or more beautiful. 95% of the population is of average intelligence anyway. The average IQ of a Caucasian person according to WAIS-IV is 105. There is a standard deviation of 15 and; thus, 95.5% of that population will be between 75 and 135. So 90% of the population will have an IQ less than 124 and 10% will have an IQ greater than 124. It does seem most likely they are more intelligent, at least in their field.

Forexmospherian said:

In any democracy - and of course the USA is the country of democracy and freedom - then a minority should not have all the benefits the overwhelming majoity of others would truly like?

Click to expand...

What does this have to do with capitalism? You can argue about minority rights in another thread.
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/foyer/207038-minorities-democracy.html#post2571538

Forexmospherian said:

We accept that life is not fair and always just - and why should it be many might say - but philanthropy is sometimes just a cop out - OK you are helping and giving something back to society - which is very good - but do more - try and change the world to a better place - and kick out all the wall st cr@p of the 80's that "greed is good" and Goldman Sachs are a truly great company - because they are not

Back to the main thread here.

As a true capitalist I now want to try and borrow $50 million over the next 20 yrs - to spend and create now businesses etc etc - and i want the main 80% repayment of the debt to be dated for approx 1 week after my funeral.

If anyone here can help me with this idea ( please not from Greece) just get in touch and i will give you a $50k on completion of the deal to my liking

Click to expand...

We have made it to the part where you have stopped making sense and are complaining more about your own situation.

Regards, my closet socialist friend.

Socialist in everything but name

Forexmospherian said:

All Facts -


Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years.

Click to expand...

Yes, and as I keep pointing out, there is a direct correlation between abandoning the (semi) gold standard in 1971 and the growth in income inequality. Anyone who can read a chart would see that the blame does not lie on Capitalism, it is a direct consequence of being on a completely fiat monetary standard.

Forexmospherian said:

The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012.

Click to expand...

Agree. What we have is CRONY capitalism where a Central Bank rather than the free-market allocates money.

Forexmospherian said:

In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.

Click to expand...

Once again, correct and I agree and once again, this is crony capitalism where a Central Bank embarks on an inflationary policy in order to boost asset prices because they believe it will 'stimulate' the economy. Their policies have failed and have only served to enrich the asset owning classes by inflating bubbles. I've been arguing AGAINST a central bank having control of the money supply for YEARS...ever since the GFC. Your SOCIALIST buddy Atilla was all in favour of it...how ironic that he likes your posts !

Forexmospherian said:

So we all know Capitalism as its faults - but there again nothing is perfect

Click to expand...

Incorrect. What we have is much closer to Fascism than Capitalism.

Forexmospherian said:

In any democracy - and of course the USA is the country of democracy and freedom - then a minority should not have all the benefits the overwhelming majoity of others would truly like ?

Click to expand...

The Framers didn't want the USA to be a democracy, that's why they created the Constitution and the Bill of rights. The framers KNEW how destructive a democracy is and wanted to avoid the USA becoming one. What they created was a Constitutional Republic where EVERYONE has equal rights. In a democracy, the majority get to vote away the rights of the minority.

Forexmospherian said:

As a true capitalist

Click to expand...

You are not a true Capitalist. Like some other people I could name in this forum, you either begin or end your post with "I am not a Socialist" and then everything else you write is straight out of the Communist Manifesto! You are a Socialist in everything but label.


Finally:

In time I hope to address the list of '10 things that suck about capitalism', but I will do so in my journal.

When you have time, can you at least, IN YOUR OWN WORDS (no Googling or Wikipedia) Answer the following questions in regard to 'Monopolies' that was one of the 10 things that suck about capitalism.

1) Give me your theory on Monopolies. i.e./ Are they good, bad, how they arise
2) How is Capitalism conducive to monopolies
3) Who is Hurt most by monopolies AND in what way
4) Provide an example where you personally feel you are being hurt by a monopoly (not something you heard from a Government watchdog bullsh!t). A personal example.


[Apologies to itspossible!]

new_trader said:

When you have time, can you at least, IN YOUR OWN WORDS (no Googling or Wikipedia) Answer the following questions in regard to 'Monopolies' that was one of the 10 things that suck about capitalism.

1) Give me your theory on Monopolies. i.e./ Are they good, bad, how they arise
2) How is Capitalism conducive to monopolies
3) Who is Hurt most by monopolies AND in what way
4) Provide an example where you personally feel you are being hurt by a monopoly (not something you heard from a Government watchdog bullsh!t). A personal example.


[Apologies to itspossible!]

Click to expand...

Amen to that

new_trader said:

When you have time, can you at least, IN YOUR OWN WORDS (no Googling or Wikipedia) Answer the following questions in regard to 'Monopolies' that was one of the 10 things that suck about capitalism.

1) Give me your theory on Monopolies. i.e./ Are they good, bad, how they arise

Monopolistic situation is where one party has dominant buying or selling power as in one to many type scenarios.

I suspect you are trying to suggest it is big G legislation and/or interference that leads to super profits and monopolies.

In general monopolies are bad but there are some industries which produce better efficiency being a monopoly. Pipes to a house, rail or road networks.

Then there are literally 000s of telephone masts emiting dangerous microwave signals for mobile phones. Some say killing out the bee population. We'll get to find out in another 10-20 years maybe???


2) How is Capitalism conducive to monopolies
The big fish swallow up the little fish. If you look at Cisco it bought up much of the competition and integrated their operating system code and thus why in the IOS there are all sorts of similar syntax but not quite the same.

In some cases if not for the Euro Airbus venture, how many business can enter the industry and compete with Boeing??? Barriers to entry size and infrastructure just being one of them.

3) Who is Hurt most by monopolies AND in what way

The many are always hurt by the one in a monopoly as price always ends up being higher than in other market structures like Oligopilistic or perfectly competitive one. ie many to many type scenarios.

4) Provide an example where you personally feel you are being hurt by a monopoly (not something you heard from a Government watchdog bullsh!t). A personal example.

Permitted Development and Planning Laws. Big G has monopoly on where, what and how you can build. I like to build off-grid but can't.

Let's say - if I have 10 acres of land I should be able to build what I like on 5% of that land without having to jump through usage hoops.

Click to expand...

I am not a socialist and never saw my self as one.

I'm not going to call you names but I am going to call you a NAME CALLER


All off the top of my head.

Atilla said:

I am not a socialist and never saw my self as one.

I'm not going to call you names but I am going to call you a NAME CALLER


All off the top of my head.

Click to expand...

Firstly, you are a namecaller as you called @new_trader and I "cowboy" and "old windbag" multiple times not to mention a few others, but that is neither here nor there. Just clarifying the facts.

I will get to the problems with your argument in due time.

I look forward to answering both n_t and hhiusa points in more detail later today and over the weekend

I must admit I have to laugh with you both calling me a socialist - its so far off the mark - its as bad has me presuming hhiusa owns a gun being an American

Just to wet you appetite - just a couple of things that I have achieved over the last 15 years - buying and selling 4 companies - one being a small company that had cash flow problems for approx $7500 - investing $30K in it over 2 years and then within another 2 years - selling it for close on $720K - hardly the work of a closet socialist - lol

Also one of my recent holidays included a 4 night stay in one of the only 6 /7 star hotels in the world - the Burj Al Arab in Dubai - yet again not normally associated with closet socialists - lol

One of the problems of Capitalism is the owners and senior management of successful companies and businesses - They like all of us are human - and have human faults and so there is a percentage of them who I will say lack integrity and maybe are too street wise for their own good - (Goldmans sum them up brilliantly )

Certain groups of business owners and management basically deceive - lie - misinform and take advantage of their workforce and their customers.

The capitalism model depends on rules and regulations to work effectively - without them - the guys like the "Wolfs of Wall st" - who create nothing - but just take - take take - and maybe have no morals etc cause hatred and discredit business.

Maybe 80% of all Capitalists play by the rules - I have been fortunate to have worked with those who do - and also those who don't - and they are the ones who exploit capitalism and basically get away with murder .

I have been there - done it - got the t - shirt - I am not some longed haired 25 yr old hippy who is just jealous of the rich and the people with wealth and want a revolution whilst studying all of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenins work for a doctorate.

I look forward to answering points on monopolies - as I was unfortunately involved with a management group who have suffered at the hands of the UK's late Monopolies and Mergers commission - and it cost me personally a lot of money in 1998

More to follow later


Regards


F