Capitalism is a competition of “capital” by definition. Capital primarily includes “large sums of money”.
This is incorrect.
A tactic implies that there is a competition occurring. Any competition occurring implies that there is a goal. A tactic of capitalism implies that the goal is to gain capital. Every goal is sanctified in itself if nothing else. Therefore, a free-market ideology, built on a capitalistic society, assumes that the goal of gaining capital is sanctified and holy by implication. As I’ve stated, this cannot be the case for America now that the free-markets are falling by the mere mention of continued deregulation. If deregulation continues to occur as it is right now, then the stock market will crash and I am saying that there will be NO bottom to it. Secondly, the result of this will be a possible revolt by the middle and lower class. They will literally rebel and cut the heads off the rich. The American society and government are absolutely opposed to letting this happen, which is what the scramble is all about right now. The pressure is overwhelmingly a regulation of the free-market. It’s just a matter of how wide-spread it will be.
This is why I mentioned socialization. It’s inevitable as I see it.
Greed is a part of human nature. Capitalism is an expression of human nature.
I agree that socialism cannot exist without violence, but that doesn’t mean that socialism is defined by violence.
Socialism is an ideal. And I am not a socialist.
I’m personally not taking money from anybody. I make minimum wage and I’m near-broke…
I understand that governments hold guns to peoples’ heads, but that’s because they have a status quo to protect. If you take away the wealth of the middle class in the span of a week, then they will revolt, whether you want them to or not. This is what is going on right now.
Because capitalism is an extension of human nature, it must be “holy” by definition, insofar as human nature is sanctimonious and moral.
If you are an amoral philosopher, then you need to reexplain your definitions more clearly.
“Greed is of our nature” is a line used by capitalists to excuse their ideology. It’s not one of my favorites. We’re only greedy at an advantage by law which capitalism secures for the ruling class.
That’s not true. Capitalism actively seeks to intervene between monetary transactions of people in order for third-parties to profit.
It’s about making money out of nothing, but the problem for you and capitalism, nothing is free. For every price and profit, there is a cost.
No, letting people spend their money how they want is no system at all.
Capitalism is an attempt to divert and curtail the spending patterns of people in order that people in superior positions of power may profit from these exchanges. If a man trades his timber to the farmer so that the lumberjack may eat and the farmer may make a house, then the transaction is complete. This is not the case an a capitalistic society, such as ours in America, because there is taxation and regulation. Regulation was previously loose and provided the wealthy to become wealthier without responsibility. It also allowed people to take out loans to which they could not pay back without responsibility. The farmer and lumberjack both lose in a capitalistic society when most of their wealth is transfered outside of their relationship into the context of a society. The food is consumed. The value of the house goes up or down. This is responsibility. The stock market and free-market trading is something else entirely. Yet, all of this is part of a capitalistic society.
I don’t want to divert this thread into the morality of human nature if you can’t see how a particular social goal in-and-of itself in human civilization is sanctified by definition, in context, as a result of human nature.
Liberals are dumbasses for attempting to repair an unrepairable system, surely. I’m an anarchist.
And yes, everyone volunteers to slave in the back of a kitchen at minimum wage, or sew blue jeans for 10 cents an hour in a factory while the owners take phone calls on their 6 digits or more.
Churro, your definition of “socialism” is all mixed up…
A socialist society is not going to let the middle class dry up in all their lost assets as the housing market collapses.
The thing is, houseing prices are down, they are going to keep going to down, and they are eventually going to become WORTHLESS, because of how American society and global society is changing. Energy demands are making it impossible for the middle class to afford its previous lifestyle. The suburbs drop to $0.00 value, because nobody wants to live there. That is what is happening. Socialism is the driving force that seeks to protect people from danger and violence. Socialism is not what drives capital markets, by definition! Capitalism is!!!
You should be aware of the fact that I don’t think highly of either the Clinton administration or Bush administration. My definition of “socialism” stays regular between whomever is in power or whatever expression of socialism prevails as the contemporary ideology. It doesn’t matter!
You are stating that capitalism is not what is causing everything that is happening right now. Well, you’re wrong. Prove it. My explanation speaks for itself.
The housing market has no floor, because of the rise of city-states. The suburbs are going to become ghost-towns! Capitalism is in trouble, not socialism!
This has everything to do with the status quo. Socialism seeks to maintain it, when it cannot last. Capitalism is to blame and regulations are going to backlash on the previously free-markets as a result. This is the result of globalization as well as the natural progression of our present cross-cultural societies.
Capitalism does seek something by definition; it seeks to gain capital. The problem is that there is no capital gained without exploitation. This is about profiting on the work and/or suffering of others. At the basis of capitalism, where it seeks no gain and profit at all, this is a socialist society. At the extreme end of capitalism, where it seeks exponential gain and profit, this is a capitalistic society. America is and has been a capitalistic society for a long time, since at least the fall of the American Republic. Like I said, the capitalist system is falling apart at the seems and you seem to be in denial, as are many Republicans.
Capitalism is a system by definition. It is an ideology and extension of human nature based on how civilizations have built and traded currencies.
Socialism diverts spending patterns in order to equalize monetary value across every person.
Capitalism seeks to create a disparity in monetary assets, because of greed and profit. I already said that this is a part of human nature.
I believe that America has been a capitalistic society for a long period of time, but now it is going to become socialist before our eyes.
Nothing you nor I can do will stop it from happening.
I see that you tie socialization with Clinton. I do not.
Socialism means more than one U.S. president. Your definition of “socialism” is way-off, in outer space.
You probably tie socialization into Liberals as well. I do not.
That is an ignorant statement.
You are ignoring the fact that some people gain in giving out bad loans. This is the driving force of capitalism itself, to make money from nothing.
Your definition of “capitalism” is wrong.
Yes, it is. A capitalist is defined by his or her ability to gain a profit from monetary transactions.
Maybe they cannot be in the first place, but they can be in the second place. American capitalism arrived from somewhere.
It is the result of internalized colonization and the fall of feudal monarchies.
Yes, a capitalistic society can be blamed for its capitalistic ideologies.
You have failed at defining socialism and capitalism.
What seems to be missing in this “philosophical” discussion is the the bailout isn’t just to reward wall street, but to protect jobs - maybe your job. It’s damned difficult to get any calories out of philosophy. By all means, stand on your principles to deny “creeping socialism”. The soup kitchen line is a great place to stand while contemplating the evils of socialism…
Aren’t we all overreacting just a tad? Rewind this conversation to before the bickering about what is and isn’t capitalism. This drop-off in prices is about a third of the single-day drop-off (in terms of percent) that was seen in the late seventies. It’s not as big as all that. A bubble burst, and the pendulum is swinging back; the market has temporarily over-corrected. In two years, the housing market might still suck, but a lot of people (who reinvested at the right time) will have made a lot of money. If any government plan is passed, the markets will rebound like crazy. Look how they performed last week at the mere mention of a bailout.
Also, bailouts have precedent, and in the past they’ve generated revenue for the government. They’re not a big new evil that’s been conjured up by the unholy bedfellows of business and government. The boom we’ve experienced for the last 2 years is largely due to their success, and essentially everyone in the US has benefitted from that boom.
Rainey, I’m curious why you think that the sub-prime crises that led to this is due to overregulation. The sub-prime crisis as understand it is caused by underregulation, allowing financial institutions to trade an asset at a much higher rate than it was worth. When the true value of the asset was forced to the fore (because the housing bubble burst), those institutions lost a ton of money. What overregulation was involved?
The Fed (the perfect example of governmental oversight of the economy) kept interest rates artificially low to ostensibly diminish the fallout of the dot-com collapse, thus causing an artifical rise in home values, a rise not necessarily tied to the natural forces of supply and demand, but a rise caused instead by the government unwittingly (does the government act in any other way?) propping up values to an unjustified level.
But we want the government involved even more. We get what we deserve.
Yeah, I believe that it is an overreaction, but it’s not if you own a house in the burbs. I do not, but I understand the others’ plight.
Essentially, a huge majority of the middle class are losing their assets left and right, and all they’re left with are debts that they need to pay off. Now, what happens when people decide they don’t want to pay off these assets? Are you going to throw them into over-crowded jails? Are they going to seize the (worthless) homes and cars? That is the crisis at hand as I see it.
Say you own a $500,000 house in the burbs, a boat, an SUV, have 2-4 kids, and commute to the city for work everyday of the week. Your house price just got cut in half, your boat value is the same or higher actually, your SUV is garbage because of gas prices, and the college loans that your kids are going to inherit may be tied down with huge interest rates if the loans are privatized. What a beautiful picture…? Now, you wonder why there is a panic? This is happening to God-knows how much of the middle class, the majority, if not almost everyone of them?
Thank God I’m poor and homeless, renting a room in a basement, otherwise I’d be pretty bummed out right now. It’s all about perspective.
My point is, the middle class is panicking, because it is in their interest to panic. I imagine that there is going to be a lot more social regulation of the free-market as a result of this. People want to blame somebody and the CEOs and profiteers are perfect targets. However, they are not truly to blame, even though their practices may be despicable in-and-of themselves. The blame is more than that; it is about the devaluation of houses in general as cities suck up more population into their centers, becoming city-state entities. The burbs become ghost towns, because forces of the markets are compelling families to move closer to their jobs, live smaller, and consume much, much less. The future has no place for excess consumerism. Now that the market sees and knows this, it is punishing all else who couldn’t foresee it. It’s a witch-hunt, but the real blame still goes by largely unnoticed.
I think that all the fingerpointing, the multiple philosophic positions can be discussed at some point, but at the moment, it is going to cost jobs and only exacerbate the problem if something isn’t done quickly. The downward spiral can be cussed and discussed till hell freezes over, but a credit freeze eliminates jobs like nothing else. Like all first aid: Stop the bleeding first, then discussing how to patch the wound can be dealt with later.
