Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  The Case FOR Capitalism (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   The Case FOR Capitalism
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 4543
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 15, 2011 01:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Moral Case For Capitalism
And why it must be made
John Hayward
12/14/2011

The Obama 2012 campaign will be a profoundly moralistic enterprise. Its practical components have recently been field-tested. The President himself turned up on “60 Minutes” last weekend to unveil the latest updated version of his “Blame Bush” strategy, in which the horrible numbers swirling around his moribund economy are actually the fault of his predecessor, who left him such a mess that we should be congratulating Obama for his incredible skill at making things as good as they are. He even brought back the “jobs created or saved” concept, which should have gotten him laughed off the national stage the first time he tried it.

Meanwhile, on Monday we had DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz​ angrily denying that unemployment has increased under Obama at all. Voters will be hit with a blast of weaponized ignorance in 2012, and told to forget everything that has actually happened since 2008.

But these elements are not the core of the President’s re-election strategy. They’re meant to confuse voters and soften them up for the real sales pitch, which will be entirely moral in character. It doesn’t matter if the things Obama has done didn’t work, or even – as in the case of ObamaCare –achieved exactly the opposite results from what Obama promised. We are morally obliged to follow such policies in the interest of “fairness,” “compassion,” and so forth, even when their failure is obvious.

Most importantly, the free-market alternatives will be rendered literally unthinkable, and Obama’s critics portrayed as little more than heartless monsters. So what if growth-oriented tax reforms would produce general prosperity and create thousands of jobs? If “fat cats” would be enriched in the process, it’s a non-starter. We will all be made to suffer, until the “One Percent” are made mildly uncomfortable.

The Republican candidate must boldly make the moral case for capitalism, as well as offering a practical critique of the Obama record. Entering an election like 2012 without moral artillery is suicide. A substantial number of voters are prepared to forgive considerable degrees of empirical failure, if they are persuaded that more efficient strategies are ethically unacceptable. That’s why collectivism still exists as a significant political force at all. It leaves poverty and rubble everywhere it’s tried, but people – especially young people – still find its moral arguments compelling. Trading grubby responsibility for glittering arrogance always sounds like a good deal.

Capitalism is the practical expression of liberty. Without private ownership of capital, all other expressions are merely indulgences permitted by the government. We understand instinctively that the suppression of free speech indicates a dangerous lack of respect for individuals by the State, but we have been conditioned to forget that a lack of respect for property is at least as disturbing. Once property is gone, speech is not very difficult for the State to control, or ignore.

Recognizing the ownership of property is a vital component of respecting individuality. You obviously don’t want people wandering into your house whenever they feel like it, or helping themselves to your car. If you purchase a sandwich at a street vendor, a passing hungry person is not morally entitled to seize it from you. They’re not entitled to seize food from the sandwich vendor, either.

The thief is, in a sense, enslaving you. You spent a certain number of hours to work for money you planned to use for your own needs, but it turns out you were really working for the thief instead. Your right to decide how your capital should be invested was suppressed by force.

These are simple ideas, but they extend far into the economic stratosphere. If stealing your sandwich is clearly wrong, and robbing the sandwich shop is also obviously wrong, robbing the corporate offices of the sandwich franchise must also be wrong. Respect for the property rights of law-abiding citizens cannot be allowed to atrophy based on the amount of property involved, or else it ceases to be a “principle.”

A nation is always in trouble when abstract, malleable imperatives are allowed to transcend clearly defined and absolute principles. The concept of “progressive taxation” has mutated to the point where 47% of the populace pays no income taxes, while the tiny minority that pays the bulk of the taxes is perpetually told it is “greedy” and condemned for refusing to pay its “fair share.” The imperative of “fairness” has trumped property rights… which grants immense power to those who get to define, re-define, and re-re-define what “fairness” means.

This extends to ownership of your own labor, and your own time. Again, we instinctively understand that slavery and indenture are wrong, but we have been taught to accept the seizure of our labor, because it has been made relatively painless through the medium of money. You work for the government roughly four months out of every year, but that no longer involves being marched off to a government work camp in January and returned home in April. You don’t have to hand over a bag of coins to your master’s tax collector. Most people don’t even have to write a check and mail it to the IRS, as their labor is siphoned away invisibly through payroll deductions.

The anesthetic of money is also the indispensible tool that allows our current state of prosperity to exist. It is profoundly immoral that this vital tool has been corrupted to steal our labor. It is despicable that so many of us have been conditioned to rely upon the government for sustenance… and to view ballots cast once every year or two as the sum total of our “freedom.”

Independence flourishes only under capitalism! Nothing could be less expressive of individuality that trooping into a voting booth periodically, to vote for or against a handful of people who will be judged according to many different policies, casting your ballot onto a pile of thousands or millions. The more power your “representatives” accumulate, the less accurately their performance can be measured. And if the vote doesn’t go your way, you have very limited options to walk away from the unsatisfactory results.

The true freedom expressed through hundreds of decisions you make every day in the free market, with trading partners you have the power to abandon when they don’t live up to your expectations, is far more precious. Trading that level of control over your life for ballots is a foolish bargain.

Capitalism doesn’t require the absence of government. On the contrary, it requires clear, firm, and impartial laws to flourish. Contracts must be honored, obligations must be met, and property rights must be secured. The truly “free” market is safe, well-lit, and filled with confidence. That’s a role government plays from the day it banishes bandits from the roads, and pirates from the seas.

What Barack Obama has practiced is not “capitalism.” He’s commonly accused of “crony capitalism,” a term of convenience I’ve often used myself - but it’s an outrageous insult to capitalism. Command economics, markets reshaped by compulsive force, vast subsidies seized from taxpayers and given to a favored few, winners and losers chosen by the State... these are not the hallmarks of a “free market.” Together they define a system where the means of production are privately owned, but the owners must act according to official decree. There is a name for that system, but it is not “capitalism.”

Likewise, if the government nationalizes the means of production – on behalf of “the people,” of course! – and contracts with private citizens to manage their use, the proper name of the resulting system is not “capitalism.” The true names of both systems I have described are ugly words, well known for their bloody legacies. Most of us acknowledge that it would be horrible to embrace them in full. Why should they be any more acceptable in controlled doses? Why would anyone familiar with the past century believe the dosages can be controlled?

Betraying the morality of capitalism, and denying its unbreakable connection to liberty, has empowered the State to become its own special interest. When property rights are fully respected, and all other rights are thus properly illuminated, public officials become public servants. Have a look at the full transcript of Obama’s “60 Minutes” interview, and ask yourself if the man considers himself a “servant” in any meaningful sense.

The arbiters of fairness cannot be the servants of those they judge. Players with an active hand in the game can’t be impartial referees. A government empowered to compromise the rights of some, while it serves the interests of others, is necessarily lacking in humility. That doesn’t change when the interests it serves are portrayed as noble and deserving.

Listen to the venom in the voice of Obama or other statists when they rail against “millionaires,” “billionaires,” and other class enemies. Shouldn’t the officials of a lawful government be the public servants of all, and the enemies of none? Shouldn’t a billionaire be able to expect the same respect for his rights as a pauper? If your answer is “no,” you should carefully consider the size of the door you are opening, and what lurks on the other side. At the very least, look at how fluid the definition of a “millionaire” has become in Obama’s hands. Hint: it does not refer exclusively to people who have over a million dollars.

If you would refuse to be a servant of the State, you will find robust free-market capitalism is the only tool that has any chance of instilling the proper humility in government. It is also the only environment in which you can develop healthy relationships with your fellow citizens, who will not be able to dream of assembling into a bloc and voting you beneath their collective heels. You are surrounded by people who want something from you, including vast numbers you’ll never meet in person. Either you make them pay you for your time and goods, or you don’t. How much injustice and poverty have we been forced to tolerate because that simple formulation sounds… crass?

Freedom means choice, does it not? A free man chooses how to use his time, and dispose of his property. In other words, a free man owns his capital. Ask the people who spend their days denigrating capitalism to refute that simple truth, and watch the supposed moral superiority of collectivism dissolve before your eyes.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48144

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 7377
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 17, 2011 03:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45699229/ns/today-books/t/stephen-king-raises-pay-mainers-oil-bills/#.TuzNX3pIGuI

i hate to disagree with you jwhop, as you know, but i do. i think it is far more responsible for EVERYONE to pay into a pot which ensures the poor will not freeze, which BENEFITS EVERYONE, doesn't it?

than to go the traditional capitalist route, where the poor are dependent on charity from the rich (stephen king above being a GREAT example). while i have no problem with rich people giving to the poor, i would think it much more responsible for everyone to pay into a society where the poor are not dying in the streets for lack of basic amenties.

and in case you have never filed for unemployment, it is TAXED, so please don't say the poor don't pay taxes so they wouldn't be contributing. many of the poor were working middle class not long ago. why should they not reap the benefits they have been paying for for years, some for decades?

charity puts the poor completely at the mercy of the rich. all they have to do to receive is open their hands. unlike our current system where the handouts are tied to at least looking for work, community service and educating oneself to become more productive.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 7377
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 18, 2011 12:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
it is unfortunate really that a FEW capitalists have given it a bad name. i hate to give the impression that i want the government running everyone's lives, but some people are OCD when it comes to making and HOARDING their money for the power it gives over others. this is not conducive to freedom for the rest of us. period.

we have currently a bunch of self-identified KINGS who may be great capitalists but when they whine that they might have to pay a few thousand out of their millions/billions so those who have not had their success will have enough to keep them(the kings) rich (after all paupers and debtors prisons COST money when you're honest about it, and those on food stamps and welfare pay into the economy - every penny they receive comes back!)

however having paid taxes for decades i do not fancy (if i were to become unable to work) having to go to some rich dude for food money because he is averse to paying a tiny fraction of his wealth into the general pot.

at the same time, generosity cannot be legislated, nor can seeing the big picture. it is probably going to have to be through a major breakdown that people are brought to the point of helping those less fortunate than themselves, just as it looks like it will take many deaths from poisoned water, earth and air to convince the profiteers that a dead public cannot buy anything...

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 4543
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 26, 2011 09:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Always in support of Socialists and Socialism eh katatonic! And with hyperbolic bullshiiit...starving and freezing people... which are not the hallmark of Capitalist nations but are easy to find in nations with Socialist systems you crave.

The systems you...and others here tout...Collectivism...Marxism, Socialism, Progressivism cannot exist for long without the engine of Capitalism bailing them out with infusions of Capitalist produced wealth at every turn.

From what pit of ignorance did these dead end socio-economic-governmental systems spring?

They all came straight out of the ass of Karl Marx, the 5th rate thinker from the 19th Century...though to call Karl Marx a "thinker" tortures the English language.

Now, the lying Marxist Socialist Progressive ignoramus O'Bomber is busily screwing up America. But not for much longer.

12/22/2011
The Way The World - And Free-Market Economics - Works
Peter Ferrara

In President Obama’s now notorious December 6 Hugo Chavez speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, he characterized the alternative to his redistributionist Obamanomics as, “The market will take care of everything. If only we cut more regulations and cut more taxes – especially for the wealthy – our economy will grow stronger. Sure, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everyone else. And even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, they argue, that’s the price of liberty.”

But this is just shadow boxing with strawmen. Free market economics is not about a few winners doing really well and then prosperity trickling down to everyone else. President Kennedy understood what the miseducated Obama doesn’t. As Kennedy explained the American experience since the early 1700s, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” The booming economic growth of the free market is the only means of benefitting working people and the poor, far more effective than counterproductive redistribution, which only retards the prosperity of working people, and consigns the poor to a lifetime of dependency.

But Obama says of the free market, “It doesn’t work. It’s never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible post-war boom of the 50s and 60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade.”

So America suffers with a President who completely misconceives the foundation of the world leading prosperity of his own country, and the very source of its superpower standing, now rapidly declining under his misleadership. Exactly to the contrary, the free market is exactly what worked for over three hundred years to make America the richest, most prosperous nation in the history of the world, a veritable workers’ paradise in fact, until Obama came along, carrying the misconceptions of his father’s overt Communism, and his mother’s hippie anti-Americanism.


Why It Worked

As Brian Domitrovic explained in his highly insightful economic history Econoclasts, “The unique ability of the United States to maintain a historic rate of economic growth over the long term is what has rendered this nation the world’s lone ‘hyperpower.’” How that was achieved is well-explained, among many other places, in Jude Wanniski’s highly readable book, The Way the World Works.

The key to understanding the impact of taxes on the economy is to focus on tax rates, particularly marginal tax rates, defined as the tax rate that applies to the last dollar earned. The tax rate determines how much the producer is allowed to keep out of what he or she produces. For example, at a 25% tax rate, the producer keeps three-fourths of his production. If that rate is increased to 50%, the producer keeps only half of what he produces, reducing his reward for production and output by one-third. Incentives are consequently slashed for productive activity, such as saving, investment, work, business expansion, business creation, job creation, and entrepreneurship. The result is fewer jobs, lower wages, and slower economic growth, or even economic downturn.

In contrast, if the tax rate is reduced from 50% to 25%, what producers are allowed to keep from their production increases from one-half to three-fourths, increasing the reward for production and output by one-half. That sharply increases incentives for all of the above productive activities, resulting in more of them, and more jobs, higher wages, and faster economic growth.

Moreover, these incentives do not just expand or contract the economy by the amount of any tax cut or tax increase, as a Keynesian stimulus purports to do. For example, a tax cut of $100 billion involving reduced tax rates does not just affect the economy by $100 billion. The lower tax rates affect every dollar and every economic decision throughout the economy.

That is because every economic decision is based on the new lower tax rates. Indeed, the new lower tax rates affect every dollar, or unit of currency, and every economic decision throughout the whole world regarding whether to invest in America, start or expand businesses here, create jobs here, even work here, because all these decisions will be based on the new lower tax rates. Tax rate increases have just the opposite effect on every dollar and economic decision throughout the economy and the world.

In addition, marginal tax rates do not just affect the incentives of those to which the rates currently apply. They also affect those to which the rates may apply in the future. For example, consider a small business owner. If he invests more capital in the business to expand production, or hires more workers to increase output, that may result in higher net taxable income. It is the tax rate at that higher income level, not at his current income level, that will determine whether he undertakes the capital investment, or hires more workers.

These are the reasons why reductions in tax rates promote economic growth and prosperity, and why increases in tax rates retard economic growth and prosperity. Contrary to Obama’s Brave New World memory hole, experience follows the logic, as sharp rate reductions produced dramatic prosperity in the 1920s, the 1960s, and the 1980s through the mid 2000s.

Sometimes, there is a full Laffer curve effect, and cutting tax rates actually leads to higher tax revenues. That is why every time the capital gains tax rate has been cut in the last 40 years, capital gains revenues have gone up, not down (and every time the capital gains tax rate has been raised, capital gains revenues have gone down, not up). Such a Laffer curve effect will be seen more the more years after a rate cut, the analysis goes. In other words, more rate cuts will be seen to lead ultimately to higher revenues than otherwise several years after the cut, as the resulting economic growth effect gains momentum.

The Cost of Regulation

Similarly, regulations impose increased costs on businesses and consumers, and sometimes flat out prohibit productive economic activity altogether. See, e.g., the Keystone pipeline. Academic studies estimate the total costs of regulation in the economy to be rapidly rising towards $2 trillion per year, or $8,000 per employee. That is close to 10 times the corporate income tax burden, and double the individual income tax. When the resulting effects on the economy are considered, the total losses due to regulatory burdens may total $3 trillion, or one fifth of our entire economy.

These regulatory burdens increase the cost of production, and consequently reduce the net return to the producers, reducing the reward for production quite similarly to taxes. They consequently also slash the incentive for production, reducing economic growth and prosperity. Alternatively, reducing regulatory burdens reduces the cost of production, increasing the net return to producers, and so adds to the incentives for production. The result is increased economic growth and prosperity.

But Barack Obama does not understand any of this. He dismisses any concern over the costs of regulation by saying simplistically that businesses are always complaining about regulation. But the result shows up in unemployment, declining real wages, increased poverty, and less economic growth and prosperity. Those effects will only worsen the more Obama’s regulatory tsunami is allowed to grow.

Of course, some regulations are necessary, just as some taxes are necessary. Some regulation is essential to protect the public health and safety, or to prohibit some conduct analogous to fraud, theft and invasion of property rights. The point is to repeal unnecessary regulatory burdens, and to minimize regulatory costs, to maximize economic growth and prosperity.

A Sound Dollar

A third component of pro-growth economic policy is restrained monetary policy to maintain a stable dollar without inflation, or deflation. The more certainty that the dollar will be stable, the greater the incentive for investment and increased production, because investors and entrepreneurs know their investment and business returns will not be depreciated by inflation or a declining dollar, or destabilized by wild swings of the business cycle.

Those whom I respect as the best economists argue that this is the most important factor of all in promoting booming and lasting economic growth and prosperity. Failure on this component can consequently undermine the success of the other components. For example, President Bush and his weak Treasury Secretaries promoted a cheap dollar monetary policy in the 2000s, with Fed appointments to carry that out, worst of all being “Helicopter Ben” Bernanke, who seems to think dropping dollars out of a helicopter is a pro-growth policy.

The necessary monetary stability used to be provided by the gold standard. The question now is whether the same stability can be achieved by restricting the Fed’s discretion to following a “price rule” in its conduct of monetary policy. The Fed’s monetary policy would be guided by prices in real markets, particularly the most policy sensitive commodity prices, such as oil, silver, copper and other precious metals, but most especially gold, the most policy sensitive commodity of all given its ancient tradition as a store of value and money in itself.

When such prices start to rise in markets, that signals the threat of inflation is rising, and the Fed should tighten monetary policy and the money supply. When such sensitive prices start to fall, that signals the threat of deflation and recession, and the Fed should ease monetary policy. Following such monetary policies would avoid inflation and deflation, and cyclical bubbles and recessions, and maintain a stable value of the dollar.

But this issue doesn’t even seem to come up on Obama’s radar screen. He is a true believer in the outdated Keynesian discretionary monetary policy of Bernanke, which was thoroughly discredited by the 1970s. But experience with Obama by now should have taught us that Obama does not learn from experience, with a mind totally captivated by pure theory and a priori moralism.

Spending, Deficits and Debt

The final component of pro-growth economic policy involves government spending, deficits and debt, which drain the private sector of the resources for savings, investment and production to provide economic growth and prosperity. Perversely, Obama is locked in an antediluvian, unreconstructed, sophomoric, Keynesian mindset stuck in the delusion that runaway government spending, deficits and debt are the foundation of economic growth and prosperity. That is what he says in his Kansas speech, and what he has been saying since he was elected.

But the truth is just the opposite. Minimizing government spending, deficits and debt to the essentials is what maximizes economic growth and prosperity.

These pro-growth, free market economic policies are the opposite of trickle down economics. They all involve decentralized markets, with prosperity welling up from the people to create a rich and prosperous nation. Trickle down economics is really what Obamanomics is all about, sprinkling government spending across the economy, and expecting that to trickle down to benefit working people and the poor. The fallacy is to overlook that the money has to come from out of the private economy first to finance all that runaway government spending, failing to see the counterproductive effects of drawing that money out in the first place.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/12/22/the-way-the-world-and-free-market-economics-works/

IP: Logged

Ami Anne
Moderator

Posts: 24806
From: Pluto/house next to NickiG
Registered: Sep 2010

posted December 26, 2011 10:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ami Anne     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by jwhop:
[b]The Moral Case For Capitalism
And why it must be made
John Hayward
12/14/2011

The Obama 2012 campaign will be a profoundly moralistic enterprise. Its practical components have recently been field-tested. The President himself turned up on “60 Minutes” last weekend to unveil the latest updated version of his “Blame Bush” strategy, in which the horrible numbers swirling around his moribund economy are actually the fault of his predecessor, who left him such a mess that we should be congratulating Obama for his incredible skill at making things as good as they are. He even brought back the “jobs created or saved” concept, which should have gotten him laughed off the national stage the first time he tried it.

Meanwhile, on Monday we had DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz​ angrily denying that unemployment has increased under Obama at all. Voters will be hit with a blast of weaponized ignorance in 2012, and told to forget everything that has actually happened since 2008.

But these elements are not the core of the President’s re-election strategy. They’re meant to confuse voters and soften them up for the real sales pitch, which will be entirely moral in character. It doesn’t matter if the things Obama has done didn’t work, or even – as in the case of ObamaCare –achieved exactly the opposite results from what Obama promised. We are morally obliged to follow such policies in the interest of “fairness,” “compassion,” and so forth, even when their failure is obvious.

Most importantly, the free-market alternatives will be rendered literally unthinkable, and Obama’s critics portrayed as little more than heartless monsters. So what if growth-oriented tax reforms would produce general prosperity and create thousands of jobs? If “fat cats” would be enriched in the process, it’s a non-starter. We will all be made to suffer, until the “One Percent” are made mildly uncomfortable.

The Republican candidate must boldly make the moral case for capitalism, as well as offering a practical critique of the Obama record. Entering an election like 2012 without moral artillery is suicide. A substantial number of voters are prepared to forgive considerable degrees of empirical failure, if they are persuaded that more efficient strategies are ethically unacceptable. That’s why collectivism still exists as a significant political force at all. It leaves poverty and rubble everywhere it’s tried, but people – especially young people – still find its moral arguments compelling. Trading grubby responsibility for glittering arrogance always sounds like a good deal.

Capitalism is the practical expression of liberty. Without private ownership of capital, all other expressions are merely indulgences permitted by the government. We understand instinctively that the suppression of free speech indicates a dangerous lack of respect for individuals by the State, but we have been conditioned to forget that a lack of respect for property is at least as disturbing. Once property is gone, speech is not very difficult for the State to control, or ignore.

Recognizing the ownership of property is a vital component of respecting individuality. You obviously don’t want people wandering into your house whenever they feel like it, or helping themselves to your car. If you purchase a sandwich at a street vendor, a passing hungry person is not morally entitled to seize it from you. They’re not entitled to seize food from the sandwich vendor, either.

The thief is, in a sense, enslaving you. You spent a certain number of hours to work for money you planned to use for your own needs, but it turns out you were really working for the thief instead. Your right to decide how your capital should be invested was suppressed by force.

These are simple ideas, but they extend far into the economic stratosphere. If stealing your sandwich is clearly wrong, and robbing the sandwich shop is also obviously wrong, robbing the corporate offices of the sandwich franchise must also be wrong. Respect for the property rights of law-abiding citizens cannot be allowed to atrophy based on the amount of property involved, or else it ceases to be a “principle.”

A nation is always in trouble when abstract, malleable imperatives are allowed to transcend clearly defined and absolute principles. The concept of “progressive taxation” has mutated to the point where 47% of the populace pays no income taxes, while the tiny minority that pays the bulk of the taxes is perpetually told it is “greedy” and condemned for refusing to pay its “fair share.” The imperative of “fairness” has trumped property rights… which grants immense power to those who get to define, re-define, and re-re-define what “fairness” means.

This extends to ownership of your own labor, and your own time. Again, we instinctively understand that slavery and indenture are wrong, but we have been taught to accept the seizure of our labor, because it has been made relatively painless through the medium of money. You work for the government roughly four months out of every year, but that no longer involves being marched off to a government work camp in January and returned home in April. You don’t have to hand over a bag of coins to your master’s tax collector. Most people don’t even have to write a check and mail it to the IRS, as their labor is siphoned away invisibly through payroll deductions.

The anesthetic of money is also the indispensible tool that allows our current state of prosperity to exist. It is profoundly immoral that this vital tool has been corrupted to steal our labor. It is despicable that so many of us have been conditioned to rely upon the government for sustenance… and to view ballots cast once every year or two as the sum total of our “freedom.”

Independence flourishes only under capitalism! Nothing could be less expressive of individuality that trooping into a voting booth periodically, to vote for or against a handful of people who will be judged according to many different policies, casting your ballot onto a pile of thousands or millions. The more power your “representatives” accumulate, the less accurately their performance can be measured. And if the vote doesn’t go your way, you have very limited options to walk away from the unsatisfactory results.

The true freedom expressed through hundreds of decisions you make every day in the free market, with trading partners you have the power to abandon when they don’t live up to your expectations, is far more precious. Trading that level of control over your life for ballots is a foolish bargain.

Capitalism doesn’t require the absence of government. On the contrary, it requires clear, firm, and impartial laws to flourish. Contracts must be honored, obligations must be met, and property rights must be secured. The truly “free” market is safe, well-lit, and filled with confidence. That’s a role government plays from the day it banishes bandits from the roads, and pirates from the seas.

What Barack Obama has practiced is not “capitalism.” He’s commonly accused of “crony capitalism,” a term of convenience I’ve often used myself - but it’s an outrageous insult to capitalism. Command economics, markets reshaped by compulsive force, vast subsidies seized from taxpayers and given to a favored few, winners and losers chosen by the State... these are not the hallmarks of a “free market.” Together they define a system where the means of production are privately owned, but the owners must act according to official decree. There is a name for that system, but it is not “capitalism.”

Likewise, if the government nationalizes the means of production – on behalf of “the people,” of course! – and contracts with private citizens to manage their use, the proper name of the resulting system is not “capitalism.” The true names of both systems I have described are ugly words, well known for their bloody legacies. Most of us acknowledge that it would be horrible to embrace them in full. Why should they be any more acceptable in controlled doses? Why would anyone familiar with the past century believe the dosages can be controlled?

Betraying the morality of capitalism, and denying its unbreakable connection to liberty, has empowered the State to become its own special interest. When property rights are fully respected, and all other rights are thus properly illuminated, public officials become public servants. Have a look at the full transcript of Obama’s “60 Minutes” interview, and ask yourself if the man considers himself a “servant” in any meaningful sense.

The arbiters of fairness cannot be the servants of those they judge. Players with an active hand in the game can’t be impartial referees. A government empowered to compromise the rights of some, while it serves the interests of others, is necessarily lacking in humility. That doesn’t change when the interests it serves are portrayed as noble and deserving.

Listen to the venom in the voice of Obama or other statists when they rail against “millionaires,” “billionaires,” and other class enemies. Shouldn’t the officials of a lawful government be the public servants of all, and the enemies of none? Shouldn’t a billionaire be able to expect the same respect for his rights as a pauper? If your answer is “no,” you should carefully consider the size of the door you are opening, and what lurks on the other side. At the very least, look at how fluid the definition of a “millionaire” has become in Obama’s hands. Hint: it does not refer exclusively to people who have over a million dollars.

If you would refuse to be a servant of the State, you will find robust free-market capitalism is the only tool that has any chance of instilling the proper humility in government. It is also the only environment in which you can develop healthy relationships with your fellow citizens, who will not be able to dream of assembling into a bloc and voting you beneath their collective heels. You are surrounded by people who want something from you, including vast numbers you’ll never meet in person. Either you make them pay you for your time and goods, or you don’t. How much injustice and poverty have we been forced to tolerate because that simple formulation sounds… crass?

Freedom means choice, does it not? A free man chooses how to use his time, and dispose of his property. In other words, a free man owns his capital. Ask the people who spend their days denigrating capitalism to refute that simple truth, and watch the supposed moral superiority of collectivism dissolve before your eyes.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48144 [/B]


IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 7377
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 26, 2011 03:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
ami your copying skills don't need any more practice FYI.

why jwhop, it seems to me that not so long ago it was the SOCIALISTS bailing out the CAPITALISTS. you don't recall? GW Bush gave them more than obama, by the way! all those capitalists had to have our taxpayer money to stay in business.

it's a two way street with the pot of gold on one end only at the moment.

i don't hear any venom in obama's voice when he lays out the MATH in place today. but then i understand that every dollar the poor recieve goes right back to the big businesses! why do you think walmart is so huge? because RICH people shop there?

no, rich people pay for the constant onslaught of ads that drill into people that they MUST have THINGS they can't afford. unless they buy the chinese facsimile at walmart!

so the waltons, among the richest of the rich, OWE their fortunes to the POOR. why on earth would they want more rich people, when those who can afford the real deal don't patronize their stores?

IP: Logged

Ami Anne
Moderator

Posts: 24806
From: Pluto/house next to NickiG
Registered: Sep 2010

posted December 26, 2011 03:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ami Anne     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Kat, I make my contribution when I can.
I need to keep my energies in PR where I am appreciated for my viewpoints. I don't have Jwhop's patience for you all

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal


http://www.mychristianpsychic.com/

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 14359
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 26, 2011 04:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Excuse me? Everyone shops at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart managed to take away the stigma that K-Mart had with a "poor" image (pun intended).

------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark

IP: Logged

Ami Anne
Moderator

Posts: 24806
From: Pluto/house next to NickiG
Registered: Sep 2010

posted December 26, 2011 04:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ami Anne     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Randall:
Excuse me? Everyone shops at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart managed to take away the stigma that K-Mart had with a "poor" image (pun intended).



Yep My contribution to GU is gonna be thumbs up and that is it
------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal


http://www.mychristianpsychic.com/

IP: Logged

emitres
Moderator

Posts: 375
From:
Registered: Aug 2010

posted December 26, 2011 09:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for emitres     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Randall:
Excuse me? Everyone shops at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart managed to take away the stigma that K-Mart had with a "poor" image (pun intended).


sorry...just had to jump in here... i do not shop at Wal-Mart... and neither do a number of my colleagues and friends for reasons which need not be aired here...

while i do not completely disagree with the first article jwhop posted it is, as with any one-sided opinion, not well rounded enough... a little too much not seeing the forest for the trees syndrome... kat has a far more accurate, and "global", grasp of things...

------------------
" Some define good as that which preserves, and evil as that which destroys; but destruction can be cleansing and purifying, for there is such a thing in both men and races as spiritual constipation, which comes from too much preservation of the status quo." ( Dion Fortune )

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 14359
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 26, 2011 09:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I know people have various reasons for not shopping at Wal-Mart. When I said "everyone," it is meant to refute her claim that the wealthy do not shop there.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 4543
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 27, 2011 12:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I suppose it's a bridge too far to expect you know anything about Capitalism katatonic.

When banks were bailed out, it was not Capitalism or Capitalists being bailed out by Socialists or Socialism.

Since 1913...through the offices of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, banks...American banks have been members of a banking cartel called the Federal Reserve System.

This is not a Capitalist enterprise. It's a monopoly.

A Capitalist deal/business transaction takes place when 2 or more items of equal value..but often dissimilar in nature takes place between consenting parties who agree they are exchanging items of equal value.

When one party to a transaction "creates" out of thin air, a fictional item..a series of electronic digits which doesn't reduce the balance in the bank's internal accounts but which they intend to exchange for a note and mortgage from a "borrower"...that's not Capitalism. In fact, that note and mortgage becomes an "asset" on the books of the bank and they got it...and 30 years of future principal and interest payments to the bank by spending a few minutes on a computer and printer.

Credit card accounts are "created" out of thin air in exactly the same way. Suddenly, a "card holder" has a fixed limit drawing account representing an amount of "money" which didn't exist before and did not reduce the bank's balance in any of it's internal accounts.

That's not "Capitalism".

Btw, the Constitution did not make paper money legal tender. It speaks of gold and silver coin and Congress having the power to coin money and regulate it's value. Btw, they had printing presses in 1791 and could have printed all the paper money they wanted to print but, they knew gold and silver coin is a storehouse of value and paper money has NO intrinsic value.

The "money of account" for the United States IS gold and silver coin.

Andrew Jackson fought against the 2nd Central bank..and vetoed the Congressional bill to extend it's charter. Jackson called paper money "Pernicious".

Abraham Lincoln was likely assassinated for having "Greenbacks" printed and issued by the US treasury...instead of using paper notes issued by banking interests.

Louis McFadden attempted to expose...and did expose the Federal Reserve in the 1930's.

Henry Ford said:
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

I have my suspicions that John F Kennedy was assassinated because he intended to expose the Federal Reserve...and start issuing US Treasury Notes to replace Federal Reserve Notes...which are in no way Federal..meaning federal government notes..at all.

There's lots of places to read about the Federal Reserve and it's 12 branches.
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=McFadden1932
http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com/2011/07/andrew-jackson-on-paper-money-system.html

Banking is not a Capitalist enterprise. The current banking system is based on a fraud..in fact, a whole series of frauds and that's not the "something for something" which is the backbone of Capitalism.

Were it up to me, every living Federal Reserve Chairman and every living President of the 12 Federal Reserve branches would spend the rest of their lives in a maximum security prison.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 7377
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 27, 2011 02:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
no disagreement on the fed from me madeira.

however, when capitalism is unchecked, MONOPOLIES tend to be the result. sometimes they hide behind a few varied names under the umbrella of one big corporation.

i have no problem with private property (i would love my own manor thank you!)

i have no problem with people being rich as croesus - how many times do i have to say it?

i have a problem when big money takes over the government, the market, the banks and everything else and the rest of us are left in the dust and begrudged even unemployment benefits. and i have a problem with people who want even LESS regulation in the midst of this scenario!

i have a problem when people who point out the inequities currently in place, largely down to consolidated big money and corporations (and banks) are called SOCIALISTS.

but it's a nice day out, so enjoy calling me names and feeling superior. it's all good.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 4543
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 27, 2011 05:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Wrong again.

Capitalism does not create monopolies.

Capitalism creates competition in free markets...just the opposite of monopolies.

The essence of Capitalism is to do it...whatever...cheaper, faster, better or a combination of all three.

Free market Capitalism tends to lower product prices through competition and innovation and monopolies tend to raise prices because the element of competition is not present.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 7377
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 27, 2011 07:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
so you think rockefeller, jp morgan, and hearst were not capitalists? sorry, jwhop, but they were. and they ATE competition for dinner. there are plenty of them still around, and a few new ones too. the donald is trying, but seriously i don't think he has what it takes.

rupee murdoch is doing his best to replace jr hearst in the media monopoly game. to many he is just an insatiable capitalist. to push his "product" (rush limbaugh and that whole line of thought) he takes over every organ and station he can, and with his superior buying power, that is plenty.

as i said, i have nothing against capitalism. BUT there has to be something that can say HALT when it gets to the point of swallowing all competitors.

i hear sears and k-mart are in trouble now. is that walmart breathing down their necks?

many capitalists are FORCED by these giants to cut corners, axe quality and concentrate ONLY on the bottom line. when this happens, the free market is DEAD. and we are ever so close right now, with all the crowing for MORE deregulation.

washington lobbyists spend more money swinging politicians than they save in taxes. ironic on the surface, wouldn't you say?

this is RUNAWAY CAPITALISM and becomes monopolization very quickly. where do you think they got the idea for the name of the game MONOPOLY?

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 7377
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 27, 2011 08:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
gary allen's book which i linked several times and believe you ignored studiously, is all about the fed and the BIG capitalists who are really practicing anything but.

i am not against capitalism EXCEPT when it becomes a hiding place for monopoly games. i am really surprised that you have failed to notice this in all this time.

government has proven to be the ONLY strong enough deterrent to these voracious moguls and corps, so when you push MORE deregulation, you are really just letting the sell off of the government continue apace. we are within a hair's breadth of being completely owned by the few and YOU mewl about socialism when people try to pull the wool from your eyes!

the monies LENT to companies like GM were LOANS. paid or being paid back. ANY lender will want what they consider a VIABLE BUSINESS PLAN before they fork out.

one of your other favourite shooting targets, solyndra, was also LOANED money. but you see it only as a stumping point to ridicule the administration.

i realize that voting is next to meaningless, especially with the new attempts to play foul with people's ID, make them PAY for voter ID (ie make them pay for the right to vote) etc,

but THAT is what the founding fathers set in place. not a democracy, but a representative government where we VOTE for the people we think will represent us. to denigrate it as a useless pastime is dangerous in the extreme. to allow those reps to be bought and paid for by big business is just as bad.

i am tired of products made shoddy by "capitalist" cost-cutting practices, and sick to death of a "capitalism" that is about NOTHING BUT the bottom line.

so i do without a lot of stuff. and there are plenty like me! another factor in the downturn of our economy. who wants to buy baby food made in china when it might kill their child? more to the point, who wants fluoride in their water so its creators can make money getting rid of this waste product?

the NEAR GUARANTEE of safe and sufficiently sound goods that USED to be a hallmark of the american marketplace, a byproduct of REGULATION, has been KILLED by the multinationals and other robber barons. we are back to feudal times and you keep trying to push it further.

IP: Logged

Node
Knowflake

Posts: 1733
From: 1,981 mi East of Truth or Consequences NM
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 27, 2011 08:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Node     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Very well articulated Kat. Thank you, for being you.

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

I believe we are now in a struggle over whether or not we are going to save America.

Newt Gingrich

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 4543
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 27, 2011 09:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What the hell is wrong with you katatonic?

Rockefeller, Morgan and Hearst DID NOT create monopolies. They bought competitors at prices agreeable with the sellers...or there would have been NO SALE.

Murdock has found a market for his services...simple as that and again, there's no monopoly involved.

If Sears and KMart fail it will be because they failed to market their images, their products or prices in competition with other retailers. No monopoly involved.

Sorry, but I'm not buying your BS of out of control capitalists creating monopolies. Competition is the essence of Capitalism. Monopolies are the essence of systems closed to competition.

You and some others here are all for government control of private enterprise and out of control regulation of private enterprise and that's Socialism. Then, you biatch, moan, groan, screech, whine and shriek when corporations take their acts on the road and go where they can make a reasonable return on their invested capital.

There are states and cities in the US where private enterprises have told the Socialist Governors, mayors and city councils to take their high taxes and out of control business regulations and stuff them where the sun don't shine. It's no secret those Governors, mayors and city councils are for the most part...demoscats. After having driven their tax bases out, they're on the verge of state, county and city bankruptcy.

You should know. You live in one of those states from which businesses and productive citizens have fled to greener pastures.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 7377
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 28, 2011 12:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
really..i live in one of the richest, greenest counties in the country. unemployment here is around 4% last i heard.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/30/258388/corporate-profits-recovery/

“Between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010, real national income in the U.S. increased by $528 billion. Pre-tax corporate profits by themselves had increased by $464 billion while aggregate real wages and salaries rose by only $7 billion or only .1%. Over this six quarter period, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income. …The absence of any positive share of national income growth due to wages and salaries received by American workers during the current economic recovery is historically unprecedented

but then, californians are more likely to shrug off the loss of a job and go MAKE one for themselves than a lot of populations, i must admit.

times are changing. a lot of jobs just aren't coming back because robots and machines can do them now. entrepreneurs don't really mind this.

and the corporations you feel so sorry for are doing just FINE thank you.

as to murdoch, many of his purchases were NOT at prices the seller approved of, however they were squeezed into accepting them. when you have enough money to buy blanket airtime on 900 stations and float your program despite lack of sponsorship, or give away advertising to keep your sponsors, that is unfair competition.

meanwhile he has perverted the whole concept of "news" to suit his own ends. because, as he has said, there is NO LAW that says "news" has to be made up of FACTS.

of COURSE people like this hate regulations.

now the fact that i think there are TOO MANY regulations doesn't even register with you, does it? too many of the wrong KIND for sure and not enough of the right kind.

of COURSE the general population is entitled to LISTEN or NOT listen if they don't like rupee's team...but in many of his strongholds there isn't much else on!

kind of like the old soviet union where you were entitled to VOTE, but there was only one party so it didn't make much difference did it?

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 7377
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 28, 2011 01:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
it's just not as simple as socialism vs capitalism at this point, jwhop. why not broaden your periscope view?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 4543
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 28, 2011 02:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From which Cracker Jacks box did you get your 4% unemployment number for California katatonic.

There is nothing you say that can be taken at face value.

There is no county in California with an unemployment number even approaching 4%.

In fact, the unemployment number for the state of California is 10.9% for November 2011...the last month for which numbers are available. That's from the:

State of California
December 16, 2011
Employment Development Department
Labor Market Information Division
http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/countyur-400c.pdf

Hopefully, you won't force me to tell you what you can do with the George Soros funded "Think Progress".

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 7377
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 28, 2011 03:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
you know what? you are right. it is just under 7% here. update as of DEC '11.

that means employment (and much self-employment) is at 93%.

don't really care what you think of think progress. YOU quote the american thinker and ann coulter! lmao

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 7377
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 29, 2011 06:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Frank Luntz's talking points to Republican governors:
1. Don't say 'capitalism.'
2. Don't say that the government 'taxes the rich.' Instead, tell them that the government 'takes from the rich.'
3. Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the 'middle class.' Call them 'hardworking taxpayers.'
4. Don't talk about 'jobs.' Talk about 'careers.'
... 5. Don't say 'government spending.' Call it 'waste.'
6. Don't ever say you're willing to 'compromise.'
7. The three most important words you can say to an Occupier: 'I get it.'
8. Out: 'Entrepreneur.' In: 'Job creator.'
9. Don't ever ask anyone to 'sacrifice.'
10. Always blame Washington

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/republicans-being-taught-talk-occupy-wall -street-133707949.html

"If you talk about raising taxes on the rich," the public responds favorably, Luntz cautioned. But "if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no. Taxing, the public will say yes."

notice, jwhop, he does not say the LEFT will respond favourable, but the PUBLIC.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 7377
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 29, 2011 07:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
the great thing about FOX news and its hilarious pundits is that FINALLY people are beginning to be IMMUNE to this sort of babblegabble.

i hear rush's ratings have plummeted this year.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 4543
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 29, 2011 10:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Btw, Frank Luntz is a very minor player in Conservative circles.

The Occupy Wall Street crowd should be called exactly what they are by Republican Conservatives...which Frank Luntz IS NOT:

Marxists
Socialists
Progressives and
Anarchists

engaged in the reelection effort for the Marxist Socialist Progressive O'Bomber.

If anything, Republican Conservatives should be preparing the ground for the coming rampage through the streets of America by screeching, howling, shrieking useful idiots of Socialism so voters will understand exactly what they're seeing.

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2012

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a