Capitalism

[Pat494]

A very successful - rich and clever entrepreneur - was he maybe in the minority? - giving Capitalism a bad name and 90% of all other entrepreneurs being advised would not have pulled off these tactics ??


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just the sort of heartless swine who encourages revolutionaries.

 

[hhiusa]

A very successful - rich and clever entrepreneur - was he maybe in the minority? - giving Capitalism a bad name and 90% of all other entrepreneurs being advised would not have pulled off these tactics ??


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just the sort of heartless swine who encourages revolutionaries.

As if that makes any kind of sense.

What is with your use of

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[hhiusa]

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.
- Ayn Rand

Basically, capitalism allows for all other types of force including monopolistic practices except for brute physical force.

 

[Forexmospherian]

Weak government is exploited by clever capitalism

If you want examples - just ask Goldman Sachs how they do it for their clients.

You need the best brains on both sides of the two groups . Normally best brains follow money

You need powerful governments to control powerful Capitalist - unfortunately over the past 50 yrs or so - there as been no contest. Normally governments play by the rules ( maybe not in Russia and some other communist countries ) but large Capitalist groups are able to navigate around the normal rules - and near enough write their own

You have said of socialism - quote -

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

Do you honestly think that a work shy lazy man on benefits can do the same damage as my ex friend who bought the garage chain and made 300+ people redundant - just so he could make a few extra million - when he did really need the money anyway ? - whereas the work shy lazy guy on benefits only needs enough to stay alive and maybe kill himself dabbling in drink and drugs ?

The effect on your fellow human beings in a town or a state surely as some importance to Capitalists ??

I think you know were I am coming from - but you will "stone wall " it - that's no problem - I have loads of different examples - its finding the ones that might cause you to look at things from another direction

Regards


F

 

[hhiusa]

Weak government is exploited by clever capitalism

If you want examples - just ask Goldman Sachs how they do it for their clients.

You need the best brains on both sides of the two groups . Normally best brains follow money

You need powerful governments to control powerful Capitalist - unfortunately over the past 50 yrs or so - there as been no contest. Normally governments play by the rules ( maybe not in Russia and some other communist countries ) but large Capitalist groups are able to navigate around the normal rules - and near enough write their own

You have said of socialism - quote -

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

Do you honestly think that a work shy lazy man on benefits can do the same damage as my ex friend who bought the garage chain and made 300+ people redundant - just so he could make a few extra million - when he did really need the money anyway ? - whereas the work shy lazy guy on benefits only needs enough to stay alive and maybe kill himself dabbling in drink and drugs ?

The effect on your fellow human beings in a town or a state surely as some importance to Capitalists ??

I think you know were I am coming from - but you will "stone wall " it - that's no problem - I have loads of different examples - its finding the ones that might cause you to look at things from another direction

Regards


F

That is the epitome of an argumentum ad consequentiam statement. Appealing to good consequences does not make a valid statement. Government does not need to control capitalism. The only restraint upon capitalism should the be the use of brute force.

As for your friend, good business is good business. It is the responsibility of the employee's responsibility to remain valuable. Getting an education or becoming your own boss is a way to avoid that.

 

[Forexmospherian]

That is the epitome of an argumentum ad consequentiam statement. Appealing to good consequences does not make a valid statement. Government does not need to control capitalism. The only restraint upon capitalism should the be the use of brute force.

As for your friend, good business is good business. It is the responsibility of the employee's responsibility to remain valuable. Getting an education or becoming your own boss is a way to avoid that.

Hi Hhiusa

I agree it was good business for him - he made a few million pounds profit over 2 years - and then sold the profitable garages off later to other companies.

Trouble is - it was good for him - as one capitalist entrepreneur - but - did he add to the economy? - No - he did not pay his fair wack in Capital Gains and Tax - he did over 300 + people out of their proper pay offs - ( top lawyers play hardball far better then the local solicitors representing the employees etc)

Its a great example of the strong intelligent and rich - exploiting normal joe public as well as other businesses and also the UK government - its causes hatred and resentfulness and as far as I am concerned - it stinks.

If that's the type of world you want and you think its good - then one day - i will tell you now - you could be on the receiving end of a trickster like this.

What pleased me about 3 yrs later - he got caught out badly on another deal - after someone else - stitched him up big time and he lost quite a lot of money.

Sometimes in life - "what goes around - come around"

Capitalism would be great if everyone sung off the same hymn sheet - but like so many things theory and reality -it's just so different


Regards

F

 

[Atilla]

Hi Hhiusa

I agree it was good business for him - he made a few million pounds profit over 2 years - and then sold the profitable garages off later to other companies.

Trouble is - it was good for him - as one capitalist entrepreneur - but - did he add to the economy? - No - he did not pay his fair wack in Capital Gains and Tax - he did over 300 + people out of their proper pay offs - ( top lawyers play hardball far better then the local solicitors representing the employees etc)

Its a great example of the strong intelligent and rich - exploiting normal joe public as well as other businesses and also the UK government - its causes hatred and resentfulness and as far as I am concerned - it stinks.

If that's the type of world you want and you think its good - then one day - i will tell you now - you could be on the receiving end of a trickster like this.

What pleased me about 3 yrs later - he got caught out badly on another deal - after someone else - stitched him up big time and he lost quite a lot of money.

Sometimes in life - "what goes around - come around"

Capitalism would be great if everyone sung off the same hymn sheet - but like so many things theory and reality -it's just so different


Regards

F

I agree totally with your sentiment FM.

It's about an entrepreneur taking a risk, in time T, arranging resources of production and producing a good or service which adds value in T+1.

However, we have people like in investment banking, basically simply not producing anything, but in the name of providing a service take the cream of profits.

If anything these very much shark like predatory businessmen attack what might be a perfectly good business, shred-it to pieces and walk away with a handsome profit and get applauded.


The invisible hand and the neo-classicals can come up with all SORTS of clever arguments about allocation of resources - to where they are best utilised and think nothing of structural and social costs. These are external costs and indeed very difficult to quantify in an environment of many contributors.


Moving to market structures, it is clear that successful business and some market dynamics lead to oligopolistic business; where we have a few to many; buyers or sellers.

In these markets companies prefer to deal in product differentiation as opposed to price competitiveness. Moreover, whether by design; colluding & cartels or by means of establishing natural price leaders the neo classical models of perfect competition and the invisible hand fails in these and many other local markets imo.

Where the invisible hand does take part like on the golf course, it is deemed to be good gentlemen's behaviour talking shop as one does. Look I'll take North of England you take the South and I won't attack your market share if you promise not to encroach on mine.


Exactly as you rightly point out; anyone with any experience of real business rather than theoretical, will appreciate the finer differences.

One is not proposing red tape and big G-hand but raising of concerns that not all is what it seems in these utopian capitalist visions of how wonderful it all is.


Personally, I have respect for good common sense but have learnt not to waste time on people who simply lack souls, empathy and have buckets full of self importance.

 

[hhiusa]

Hi Hhiusa

I agree it was good business for him - he made a few million pounds profit over 2 years - and then sold the profitable garages off later to other companies.

Trouble is, it was good for him as one capitalist entrepreneur, but did he add to the economy? No. He did not pay his fair wack in Capital Gains and Tax

How is it that you believe he didn't pay his fair whack in capital gains? He used his business and legal acumen to pay less tax. There is no such things as his fair whack in taxes. Concerning a lesser note, what is with all the hyphens?

He did over 300 + people out of their proper pay offs - ( top lawyers play hardball far better then the local solicitors representing the employees etc)

Again it sounds as if you are complaining because he can afford better lawyers. This is an appeal to justice fallacy. this is not a valid argument against capitalism just because it is unfair. fairness is neither a logical argument or legal argument. Are you going to address the fallacies you keep committing or just posit new ones? I am happy to converse with you about capitalism if you have more valid points. Did he do anything illegal? Laws are for prosecuting people when they do something illegal. They are not there to force people to not do illegal things as that is not freedom. Capitalism should be unrestrained and the abusers should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Its a great example of the strong intelligent and rich - exploiting normal joe public as well as other businesses and also the UK government - its causes hatred and resentfulness and as far as I am concerned. It stinks.

If that's the type of world you want and you think its good - then one day - i will tell you now - you could be on the receiving end of a trickster like this.

I do not want to live in a world where intelligence, entrepreneurialism, and strength are stifled. Similarly, this is an ad baculum fallacy. The threat of a negative consequence does not make an argument valid. The resentment you feel is entirely up to you.

What pleased me about 3 yrs later, he got caught out badly on another deal, after someone else stitched him up big time and he lost quite a lot of money.

Sometimes in life "what goes around, comes around"

Capitalism would be great if everyone sung off the same hymn sheet - but like so many things theory and reality -it's just so different

All of your arguments thus far have been socialist ones. The idea of stifling the economy so that the people that do not put in the effort do not get hurt and benefit just as much as the intelligent and entrepreneurial would. The idea that everyone should pay the same amount of taxes. What goes around, comes around is just another ad baculum argument. Threats are not arguments.

You are either a closet socialist or a socialist that doesn't know he is one yet.

 

[Forexmospherian]

How is it that you believe he didn't pay his fair whack in capital gains? He used his business and legal acumen to pay less tax. There is no such things as his fair whack in taxes. Concerning a lesser note, what is with all the hyphens?.

OK - this is how I would resolve the grey area on taxation. The rich capitalist businessman used his money and intelligence to hire the best tax accountants and lawyers to ensure the deal was set up so to make sure he paid the very minimum in any tax. Tax avoidance in the UK is legal - tax evasion is illegal.

My answer there is that the Governments needs to tax the "capitalist parasites more" so that the business man spends more money on having to pay the top "parasite" and then they have to pay an extra 10 or 15 % to the government - so that in the end its nullifies the evasion part.

ie The Government and controllers need to be sharper - they need to understand that maybe 50 -75% of all entrepreneurs play by the "rules" that people like you - don't want. However the so called smarter,richer. stronger entrpreneurs need more controls in place - just like naughty school kids need more controls etc



Again it sounds as if you are complaining because he can afford better lawyers. This is an appeal to justice fallacy. this is not a valid argument against capitalism just because it is unfair. fairness is neither a logical argument or legal argument. Are you going to address the fallacies you keep committing or just posit new ones? I am happy to converse with you about capitalism if you have more valid points. Did he do anything illegal? Laws are for prosecuting people when they do something illegal. They are not there to force people to not do illegal things as that is not freedom. Capitalism should be unrestrained and the abusers should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

What you say here is a ridiculous theory - it would only work if people were not involved.

In the UK the Law is like the Ritz Hotel ( or maybe the Beverly Hills Hotel ) - its open to all - but only the very rich can afford all its services.

The law needs updating and changing - we no longer live in the 19th Century - we need 21st century law. I know and you know - its possible to get off illegal acts on many technicalities - the type my capitalist entrepreneur. Yes of course he broke the law - but he used technicalities to get around any prosecutions

So in theory - he did not break any employment laws - in reality - he put 2 fingers up to them and drove a 40 ton truck over them - but remained legal.



I do not want to live in a world where intelligence, entrepreneurialism, and strength are stifled. Similarly, this is an ad baculum fallacy. The threat of a negative consequence does not make an argument valid. The resentment you feel is entirely up to you.

I have no resentment - remember I was a capitalist entrepreneur - but mainly played by the rules - thats why maybe I am not worth $50 or $100 million. I am not saying all capitalist entrepreneurs break the law and rules - maybe only 20 -40% and imagine what would happen if Capitalism had more freedom

With regards to you not wanting intelligence, entrpreneurialism and strength stifled - so you would allow a raging American Pit Bull dog to have its freedom - and not control it. The dog could be super intelligent -certainly strong - a leader of the pack in the dog world - and you would give him freedom - lol



All of your arguments thus far have been socialist ones. The idea of stifling the economy so that the people that do not put in the effort do not get hurt and benefit just as much as the intelligent and entrepreneurial would. The idea that everyone should pay the same amount of taxes. What goes around, comes around is just another ad baculum argument. Threats are not arguments.

You are either a closet socialist or a socialist that doesn't know he is one yet.

I am certainly not in favour of people paying the same tax - that's silly - everyone is different. It should be progressive and never be over 50% of the businessman income - even if he earns $100 million per year.

Why should a person who earns $20 million a year pay more more tax than another person only earning $1 million a year - simple answer - he can afford to - and is still better off.

Now the people only earning a more normal income - say in the US - $40 - 80K - then they would not pay as much tax as the multi millionaires

People do not have to work 70 or 100 hrs a week - but if they do - its normally because they will earn more - but it should still be progressively taxed to go towards your states services etc.

We live in a small world nowadays - countries need a more equal tax system - similar to a standard banking system etc etc

My main idea or way - is not to make all people equal - and dull down the clever and strong - its to reward honesty, integrity, hard work, loyalty. etc - but to punish all the sins - one of them being greed.

Now shall we get on to Banksters - the ultimate Capitalist parasites

Regards


F

 

[hhiusa]

I am certainly not in favour of people paying the same tax - that's silly - everyone is different. It should be progressive and never be over 50% of the businessman income - even if he earns $100 million per year.

Why should a person who earns $20 million a year pay more more tax than another person only earning $1 million a year - simple answer - he can afford to - and is still better off.

Now the people only earning a more normal income - say in the US - $40 - 80K - then they would not pay as much tax as the multi millionaires

People do not have to work 70 or 100 hrs a week - but if they do - its normally because they will earn more - but it should still be progressively taxed to go towards your states services etc.

We live in a small world nowadays - countries need a more equal tax system - similar to a standard banking system etc etc

My main idea or way - is not to make all people equal - and dull down the clever and strong - its to reward honesty, integrity, hard work, loyalty. etc - but to punish all the sins - one of them being greed.

Now shall we get on to Banksters - the ultimate Capitalist parasites

Regards


F

I have addressed the points you have provided, however fallacious they are. You continue to gloss over mine. You still have not succeeded in positing a cogent argument against capitalism.

Why should a person who earns $20 million a year pay more more tax than another person only earning $1 million a year - simple answer - he can afford to - and is still better off.

This is such a socialist statement. No right wing capitalist would ever say this or even this.

You are obviously not as old as you claim, judging by your syntax. I think this is where we are running into trouble with your arguments. I tried to have a logical debate with you but you keep positing these fallacious appeal to emotion and appeal to force arguments.

I am not entirely against your view; however, I will need to see real arguments from you.

 

[Atilla]

I am certainly not in favour of people paying the same tax - that's silly - everyone is different. It should be progressive and never be over 50% of the businessman income - even if he earns $100 million per year.

..

..

Now shall we get on to Banksters - the ultimate Capitalist parasites

Regards


F

Did you say vampire banks?

Whistleblower: how RBS 'deliberately destroyed' firms


But they survived right and still get to pay tax payers money out as bonuses.

Hang on a minute... this is not capitalism but big G supporting and proping banks it should allow to fail.

It's only capitalism when they make money and then not so capitalism when they have to pay tax to big G.


Can't have it both ways.

Actually, a capitalist will tell you that you can if it was TRUE capitalism.

Lives destroyed. Money stolen as legitimate bonus. This would not happen under pure capitalism but it's all big G's fault.


Perhaps if we had no regulation or taxation at all things may just work better.

 

[hhiusa]

Did you say vampire banks?

Whistleblower: how RBS 'deliberately destroyed' firms


But they survived right and still get to pay tax payers money out as bonuses.

Hang on a minute... this is not capitalism but big G supporting and proping banks it should allow to fail.

It's only capitalism when they make money and then not so capitalism when they have to pay tax to big G.


Can't have it both ways.

Actually, a capitalist will tell you that you can if it was TRUE capitalism.

Lives destroyed. Money stolen as legitimate bonus. This would not happen under pure capitalism but it's all big G's fault.


Perhaps if we had no regulation or taxation at all things may just work better.

Appeal to consequences, appeal to justice and ad hominems galore. :whistling

It is no surprise to me why the Conservatives were elected. The socialists want to tax everything to death.

 

[Forexmospherian]

I have addressed the points you have provided, however fallacious they are. You continue to gloss over mine. You still have not succeeded in positing a cogent argument against capitalism.

Why should a person who earns $20 million a year pay more more tax than another person only earning $1 million a year - simple answer - he can afford to - and is still better off.

This is such a socialist statement. No right wing capitalist would ever say this or even this.

Of course no right wing Capitalist would ever say a person cannot afford to pay the extra tax because he is on $20 million - we agree

BUT

I made my wealth over 25 + years by being a Capitalist

I started businesses - I employed at one time 70 people - who paid taxes etc - ie helped fund the UK economy - I bought and sold businesses - I made large profits and must have contributed over several million via income tax/ corporation tax / capital gains over the period.

I am proud of that

I was / am a good citizen - I am a Capitalist - I made excellent profits and lived a very comfortable lifestyle

BUT

I have said it

You just cannot get you head around that can you - just cannot comprehend - ie a Capitalist who is not saying "me first - F u - everybody else behind me"

I am not religious - I have no mental disorders - I work hard - I put my family first - but I have compassion - I care - I don't kick the weak when they are down - i don't turn the other cheek - I don't think I should be treated as "better " than any other person

I realise you just cannot comprehend this mode

To you - I must be a 62 yr old nutter going senile ( lol)- because you just don't understand "real life" - community - normal people who are not Capitalists in a capitalist environment. There are a lot more workers than owner / capitalist - why should bosses have it all their own way - surely having a high income / wealth etc and a better life style is enough ??

Do you think you could ever see the other side of "your world" - or not ??

Please don't go on about me not answering your points - it would be a waste of time because of the reasons I have mentioned

Regards


F

 

[hhiusa]

Of course no right wing Capitalist would ever say a person cannot afford to pay the extra tax because he is on $20 million - we agree

BUT

I made my wealth over 25 + years by being a Capitalist

I started businesses - I employed at one time 70 people - who paid taxes etc - ie helped fund the UK economy - I bought and sold businesses - I made large profits and must have contributed over several million via income tax/ corporation tax / capital gains over the period.

I am proud of that

I was / am a good citizen - I am a Capitalist - I made excellent profits and lived a very comfortable lifestyle

BUT

I have said it

You just cannot get you head around that can you - just cannot comprehend - ie a Capitalist who is not saying "me first - F u - everybody else behind me"

I am not religious - I have no mental disorders - I work hard - I put my family first - but I have compassion - I care - I don't kick the weak when they are down - i don't turn the other cheek - I don't think I should be treated as "better " than any other person

I realise you just cannot comprehend this mode

To you - I must be a 61 yr old nutter going senile ( lol)- because you just don't understand "real life" - community - normal people who are not Capitalists in a capitalist environment. There are a lot more workers than owner / capitalist - why should bosses have it all their own way - surely having a high income / wealth etc and a better life style is enough ??

Do you think you could ever see the other side of "your world" - or not ??

Please don't go on about me not answering your points - it would be a waste of time because of the reasons I have mentioned

Regards


F

It is not about not understanding what you say. It is your constant use of fallacies as arguments. Fairness is not an argument. You just don't understand logic do you?

Regards my socialist friend

 

[Forexmospherian]

It is not about not understanding what you say. It is your constant use of fallacies as arguments. Fairness is not an argument. You just don't understand logic do you?

Fairness - can be measured - and normally is in all forms of life

Certainly measurable in the UK - ie recent General Election

The type of Capitalism you are after is "fair" for maybe between 5 and 10% of the working population - ie the right wing view

50 - 70% + would not say it is "fair" - ie the majority

Similarly - the left wing socialist argument of workers come first and larger government - more taxes across the board etc etc - did not even get 36% of the vote in the UK - showing 64% maybe thought that was not "fair"

Fairness is normally "mid ground" - not extremes - the "middle area" - so not right wing capitalist and certainly not left wing communists / marxist etc

So - I put it back to you - my type of debate is different to the "black or white" debates you are familiar and happy with

Unfortunately - "theory " and "reality" are very difficult concepts and certain type of people - think they are the same

See you tomorrow

Got to rest my blue eyes and get my beauty sleep ;-)


Regards


F

 

[hhiusa]

Fairness - can be measured - and normally is in all forms of life
Certainly measurable in the UK - ie recent General Election
The type of Capitalism you are after is "fair" for maybe between 5 and 10% of the working population - ie the right wing view
50 - 70% + would not say it is "fair" - ie the majority
Similarly - the left wing socialist argument of workers come first and larger government - more taxes across the board etc etc - did not even get 36% of the vote in the UK - showing 64% maybe thought that was not "fair"
Fairness is normally "mid ground" - not extremes - the "middle area" - so not right wing capitalist and certainly not left wing communists / marxist etc
So - I put it back to you - my type of debate is different to the "black or white" debates you are familiar and happy with
Unfortunately - "theory " and "reality" are very difficult concepts and certain type of people - think they are the same
See you tomorrow
Got to rest my blue eyes and get my beauty sleep ;-)
Regards
F

My statements are not theory, they are the reality. The US is not a democracy per se. It is a constitutional republic. We do not elect by the popular vote.

Adam Smith
Capitalism is thus a system of social organization by which private money-making (the build-up of capital, of “herds” of money) is its chief end. Adam Smith defended this way of organizing human affairs, not just on pragmatic terms, but on moral ones, upending millennia of religion-based admonitions that one should aver selfishness.

George Reisman (Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics)
capitalism is characterized by saving and capital accumulation, exchange and money, financial self-interest and the profit motive, the freedoms of economic competition and economic inequality.

Dictionary

“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”
- Milton Friedman

 

[Oscar Reed]

Interesting

I have sky blue eyes - and at the age of 62 - neither require reading glasses or glasses for driving etc. I have never wanted to wear glasses - as always been sporty - and have been able to improve my own eyesight over the last 5 years - using techniques that are used on fighter pilots who require the very best eyesight possible. My Optician friends don't normally talk about these techniques - I wonder why - lol

Off for Sunday Lunch - back later

What sort of eye exercises do you use, if you don't mind me asking.
Having problems with the small print at the supermarket.

Sorry to go off subject.

 

[Fugazsy]

capitalism is good when the first priority is to look after the sick, the weak and the elderly.

 

[Pat494]

Capitalism is grossly unfair and everyone knows it.
There are a few that benefit enormously and try to support it.

Experiments with apes have shown that even they know the concept of fairness.

Having huge gaps between rich and poor is a recipe for trouble and has caused many a rich man to lose all his wealth. It is a much better life philosophy to spread the wealth around but keep enough for oneself too.

Was it seeing supposedly rich foreigners enjoying the beach in Sousse that set off the gunman to massacre 30 people ? A probable part cause but no excuse.

 

[Fugazsy]

Poor people in decent countries are given a chance, then is up to them......to became successful and make money is not easy......a lot of tenacity is needed as in trading.