Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Capitalism is a Great Success. Really ?

Posted 1 year ago on May 29, 2013, 4:40 a.m. EST by ProblemSolver (79)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

There are many people on this website, in America, and around the World that feel Capitalism is the best economic system there is. They feel the Free Market drives the economy ( when in fact the Free Market kills the economy).

Please, explain why you feel Capitalism is so Great.

123 Comments

123 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

I don't think laissez-faire capitalism works at all.

Appropriately regulated capitalism was responsible for the greatest expansion of the middle-class, and the greatest reduction in general poverty levels, across most states of the U.S.of A.

If you've been following the progress of this site, you'd know that "free-market" capitalism is not popular with anyone here. We've been collectively calling for the reinstatement of the Glass-Stegal act, preventing banks from gambling with govt-insured deposits, and there's strong support for the removal of corporate personhood, with the goal of getting lobbyist dollars out of electioneering.

Third on the agenda would be the call for prosecution of those responsible for the orchestrated global financial crisis.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

I Agree .... and the problems are not just what type of system...

  • As long as we have law makers and court systems who are welling to bend the rules, side step the law and bow down to corruption... we will always have problems regardless of what social economic system the people put in place....
[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Fascist capitalism is the worst. Constitutional capitalism or spiritual capitalism was what indigenous Americans had most often. The Potlatch was a feature of their society that exemplifies spiritual capitalism.

At the Potlatch, the way a persons power was shown was by how much they had to give, and gave.

Without that kind of spirit, socialism is probably better than capitalism.

None are any good without justice.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

What is laissez-faire capitalism ?

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Laissez-faire capitalism is unregulated capitalism.

It's pretty-much where the banks make up the rules as they go along.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

From Wikipedia,

Laissez-faire (i/ˌlɛseɪˈfɛər-/, French: [lɛsefɛʁ] ( listen)) (or sometimes laisser-faire) is an economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from government restrictions, tariffs, and subsidies, with only enough regulations to protect property rights.[1] The phrase laissez-faire is French and literally means "let [them] do", but it broadly implies "let it be," "let them do as they will," or "leave it alone". Scholars generally believe a laissez-faire state or a completely free market has never existed.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

sounds ..anarchy ?

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

hehe yes it does.... but Anarchy is really something more.... Anarchy is without any rules ... no capitalistic structures ... no socialistic structures... no rules ....

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Anarchist must LOVE laissez-faire capitalism .. no rules .. no regulations no one telling you what to do .. ah yes ..an Anarchists dream !

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

sure... are you being sarcastic... or do you simply not understand ?

when the laissez-faire or any capitalists control all the money... they make the rules .... only with Anarchy is there no rules ... but Anarchy is but a dream ... a goal ... it doesn't exist... yet

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Well .. when you look at the capitalist free market system , it is free to set any price on any product.. there is no authority suggesting otherwise.. it would appear that a capitalist is also an anarchist.. they are both lovers of having no authority. am I correct in this analysis ?

A capitalist does not like to be told what to do, and neither does an anarchist.. this makes them one of the same in this aspect of their nature.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

Well .. when you look at the capitalist free market system , it is free to set any price on any product.. there is no authority suggesting otherwise..

PS... I believe you are talking about the ideals of Capitalism .... those based on free-market, private ownership, individual freedom and economic prosperity,,,,

Today's capitalists do not care about those things... today's capitalists only care about making as much money and as much power as they can....

they make the ruled for everyone else through controlling the amount of capital in circulation.... they are far far away from not having rules... from the largest banks to the smallest.... and they are far far away from free-enterprise and the free-market system...

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

It is the economic system originally established by the British empire, its "greatest" spokesperson was Adam Smith who wrote "The Wealth of Nations".

Wall Street was originally an outpost of the British empire, so when OWS opposes Wall Street, it is opposing imperialism and what is left over of the British empire.

The British system is not really capitalism in the sense that the purpose of capitalism is intended to develop "capital" which is not just money, but rather the entire "means of production", that is, both public infrastructure and private manufacturing.

British free trade tends to liquidate capital, and sell it off piece by piece to make a quick profit. It also seeks to profit by reducing the cost of labor, or through other forms of slavery, such as drug addiction, the biggest example being the British opium wars with China.

When people here speak positively about capitalism, they are usually, without knowing it, speaking about the American System of capitalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_%28economic_plan%29

It was the product of such notable Americans as Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln. FDR and JFK would also be considered proponents of American style capitalism.

The American System seeks to profit through the development of science and technology, a trend consolidated by Benjamin Franklin, and by developing the workers, by paying them well and enabling them to improve their skills through education.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Capitalism fails in many ways.. one being the exploitation and oppression of the work force.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

In some forms of capitalism, that is true. In another its not. Fifty to sixty years ago, American factory workers without college educations made around four to five thousand dollars a month.

There's no reason why we couldn't have that kind of capitalism world wide today. In fact, for an economy to be sustainable, the workers need to be paid well, so that that they can buy their own products.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

fifty to sixty years ago, when the factory worker was making $5,000 per month, how much was the CEO making per month ?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I don't know, but over the past decades, its known that the pay gap between workers and management has increased dramatically.

[-] 1 points by Forward (-2) 1 year ago

I would rename this post to "Learning to ask the right question"

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

hehe ; ) ...

  • ok... so we ask "what is the right question ?"....

  • what if we asked; "can capitalism & socialism become one and the same,,, working together in harmony for a common goal ?"

  • what if we asked; "can capitalism provide the opportunities to individual freedoms while socialism simultaneously provides the opportunities to economic equality ?

  • what if we asked; "can we make the providing of economic equality a capitalistic endeavor ?"

  • what if we asked; "can we make the providing of economic equality a profitable free market system ?"

[-] 1 points by Forward (-2) 1 year ago

Does healthy capitalism resemble the true intent of socialism?

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

Does healthy capitalism resemble the true intent of socialism?

good question... imo...

  • my answer is yes, somewhat .. but only half ....
  • imo... when capitalism is healthy and non corrupt (non corporative or fascist)... enough economic activity takes place that adequate opportunity reaches the middle class to lift the overall economic position of all ....
  • however there is a lot left to account for ... ie the poor & sick are still poor & sick... and much environmental & engineered obsolescent pollution takes place...
  • those problems are generally attempted to be corrected through taxation and regulation....

if we can step back away from the propaganda and truly understand the goals of the beasts .... imo we can see seemingly opposite ideals.... with equal value in all ...

(these are the goals ... I'm not suggesting that they are fulfilled)

system A ... is designed to provide...

  • individual freedom - each and everyone's right to choose what they want to do ...
  • economic prosperity - the development of economic prosperity for all...
  • a free market, - a competitive market... such that the consumer determines the market success
  • private ownership of resources... the right for individuals to own what they develop....

system B ... is designed to provide...

  • economic freedom - freedom from economic oppression, each and everyone's right to equal economic opportunity...
  • individual prosperity - each and everyone's right to equal access to non monetary prosperity, such as healthcare, education, etc....
  • a controlled market - a market designed to produce only what is needed....
  • public ownership of resources - each and everyone's right to equal share of the resources....

if we can now agree that neither system A or system B are working at ideal levels anywhere ....

so ... what we end up with is systems working in some form of compromise ... leaning one way or the other....

what if instead of compromise ... we developed a System C that incorporated all the goals ?

system C ... is designed to provide...

  • individual freedom - each and everyone's right to choose what they want to do ...
  • economic prosperity - the development of economic prosperity for all...
  • a free market, - a competitive market... such that the consumer determines the market success
  • private ownership of resources... the right for individuals to own what they develop....
  • economic freedom - freedom from economic oppression, each and everyone's right to equal economic opportunity...
  • individual prosperity - each and everyone's right to equal access to non monetary prosperity, such as healthcare, education, etc....
  • a controlled market - a market designed to produce only what is needed....
  • public ownership of resources - each and everyone's right to equal share of the resources....
[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Balancing capitalism and socialism is a tough gig, because someone is always going to dedicate their life to making more money than everyone else, and hence we will have people with noticeably more after an entire lifetime of money management priorities.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

true... but why would we care how much wealth an individual amasses... if economic equality was a product of that endeavor ?

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

the accumulation of wealth is what leads to the inequality.

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

OTP... did you understand the question ?

  • why would we care how much wealth an individual amasses... if economic equality was a product of that endeavor ?

iow ... if "economic equality" was the product being produced ... in order for the producer to profit... he would have to create or increase "economic equality"...

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I understand what you are saying, Im just saying that its hard to mix socialism and capitalism because one requires the earner to reinvest into the community, and the other encourages the earner to invest in himself.

When given the free choice, people will usually go with themselves. Which is natural.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Let me just insert a this thought:

In a capitalist system , the worker does not retain the full reward for his efforts.. the capitalist owner exploits the workers efforts and keeps the profits.

But in a Socialist system where all the rewards are returned to the community , and nothing withheld by an individualist capitalist, the worker sees a higher return for his efforts ... Socialism in its truest form , is far far better than capitalism.

[-] 0 points by Forward (-2) 1 year ago

Capitalism brought you the machine you're using to post, the hardware that supports this forum. Capitalist countries provide the majority of help around the globe, from disasters to food and more. When was the last time Cuba or North korea sent aid to anyone? For that matter, the corruption found in capitalist structures is miniscule compared to the corruption in places like China and the like.

The issue in not capitalism, the issue is the human drive to always make it better. If the wannabe anarchists and academics could grasp this very basic part of our nature, they could have a greater impact. But then, this is something that requires a certain level of maturity to understand.

[-] 0 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

I’ve said this a couple of times lately. America has one of the highest living standards in the world; and has maintained it for over a hundred years. We were the envy of the world for most of the 20th century. I think you can attribute this to capitalism.

Yes, our system has been corrupted and misused, but that doesn’t mean we throw out the baby with the bath water. We just need to fix the problems. Our capitalist system has proven itself to work in all weathers, and it just keeps working.

Seems to me the people who don’t like capitalism are just saying they want everyone to be equal, to share the wealth. The problem is without capitalism you have no wealth to share. It means everyone is equally poor.

No, don’t change the system. Actually, to be honest, you won’t be able to change the American capitalist system. The masses aren’t going to allow anyone to take away their comfortable and secure lives just to experiment on some other type of system. Any serious effort to change the American capitalist system will cause a push back from the people.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

what is it about capitalism that you feel contributes to success .. that we would not otherwise have in a noncapitalist system ?

[-] 0 points by Forward (-2) 1 year ago

Any true believer in anarchism or liberalism could give the answer to this. Capitalism protects individualism. When the individual spends all their time providing for other, they cannot build themselves up, thusly they would never be in a position to do anything aside from supporting the status quo. When the individual has the time and resources, they can achieve a higher level of existence, setting the bar higher, and create a roadmap for others to achieve the same.

The problem with our current system is that it is not true capitalism. Not when institutions have the power to create artificial levels of value and curb the potential of others in a way that prohibits individual growth. Such as the Fed devaluing the dollar in favor of assets and laws that favor certain entities and/or individuals over others. Our current system is close to Mussolini's definition of Fascism.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I would just like to point out .. you mention :

"The problem with our current system is that it is not true capitalism"

Well the truth be told .. there is also no true Socialism in the world .. it is all been corrupted for power and control at the top .. but at their both truest forms.. Socialism out performs Capitalism .. by day and night comparison.

Socialism is the future of mankind..

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Capitalism depends on the selfishness within man to produce great wealth for himself. Socialism depends on the selflessness within man to produce great wealth for others. The question should not be which system is best, but which system fits the members inner motivation best.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

During the conversation with forward .. she mentions a comparison between capitalism and socialism.. and she points out that we have a corrupted capitalism ..

I was only pointing out that the socialism she is comparing capitalism with is also corrupted ..

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

But is individual growth more valued than collective growth ?

You speak of maturity, than you must see the horrible immaturity of individual greed.. maybe in the past it was celebrated as a success story , but today it is looked upon and frowned at.. especially while piles of wealth sit in the hands of a few individuals and millions whom have worked very hard , have nothing.. maturity would say ..something is wrong with the greed of individuals and it should not be allowed to continue.. IMHO

[-] 0 points by Forward (-2) 1 year ago

Correct. This is to do with the proper application of capitalism. If 1% of the population has all the money, then 99% cannot engage in capitalism, and that doesn't work. As we can clearly see. Capitalism and society is made stronger by a collection of individuals. Socialism doesn't work for the same reason. In socialism, there are few making progress and decisions for the many, curbing individual growth and consequently macro level growth.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I have to disagree. Proper Socialism is where everyone is involved in the decision making and the wealth is dispersed throughout the community.. through job creation , community growth etc. Where as in Capitalism the decisions are not made by the community but rather by the one's with all the accumulated wealth. Capitalism in fact removes individualism from those whom are poor .. and removes their voice from the decision making process.. Capitalism stifles individualism.

[-] 0 points by Forward (-2) 1 year ago

I was waiting for that exact reply. Let me now reply with what was prepared seconds after my last comment.


The idea that there could be a country with no government is academic nonsense, not reality.

PS, that's what democracy is for. Again, tilted by laws that favor some over others.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

But you are comparing Capitalism to places like North Korea and China .. of course these places make Capitalism look like worlds best system.. but We are now considering Capitalism for what it really is .. and how if the whole world was capitalized , and all systems were as they are in the good ol USA, than what would have ?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I was thinking more along the lines of extreme wealth and extreme poverty.. world wide..

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Is it my imagination .. or are there less exclamation points every time I look at this ?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Forward (-2) 1 year ago

Ok, make your own comparison. Pick a socialist country and discus.

Secondly, show me where I said America or US?!?

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I wasn't really discussing Socialism with this post.. I was looking for your opinion on Capitalism and why you believe it so great.

[-] -1 points by Forward (-2) 1 year ago

It supports individualism. Maybe you should be asking why all of these countries tout capitalism when they are clearly engaging in fascism.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

What would you do to improve capitalism ?

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Decentralize into community, let the people figure it out. When the cause stays local, people are willing to work together.

[-] -1 points by Forward (-2) 1 year ago

Remove every single law that favors any individual and/or institution over another. Remove any institution that has the ability to manipulate value, currency or assets and replace them with reporting(ONLY) agencies.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

So what parts of Capitalism don't you like ?

[-] 1 points by Forward (-2) 1 year ago

Consider what I said about the strength of capitalism relying on a collective of individuals. Also what I said about having the time and resources to progress. There are some aspects of society and nature that impair these things. Illness, health and mental, homelessness, roadblocks to basic employment and nutrition. These things impair an individual and thereby impairing their abilities as an individual to progress, weighing on society as a whole. It is in our interest as a society to remedy these obstacles as quickly as possible. It is in these areas and some others where capitalism should be set aside in order to bring them back in to collective progress. Aside from the moral argument, sometimes capitalism needs to be set aside to strengthen society and the capitalist economy. As you may agree, an ounce of prevention... I would recommend the deprivatization of the following industries.

  1. Water & Sewage
  2. Agriculture
  3. Shelter
  4. Health Care

This is not to say none of these things can exist in the private sector. A base level of existence brings individuals closer to returning to a state of progress from a state of hardship, and/or alleviates mundane and pointless expenditures.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Forward (-2) 1 year ago

In fact, your reply is exactly what I'm talking about. No ability to separate anecdotal data from progress and real applicable solutions. I'm not sure if it's a lack of maturity, you're a life long academic, (I'll stop there).

[-] 0 points by Forward (-2) 1 year ago

When that sub makes it to wide spread use without the aid of capitalism, please feel free to return to this thread.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

You have a good point shooz .. I must admit.. capitalism will squash out the little ideas that pose a threat to the rich mans wealth.. how many ideas have been destroyed..? I once heard a carburetor was invented to make automobiles get 200 mpg.. that carburetor was bought by the oil companies and destroyed secretly..

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

yeah .. I kinda thought so .. .. a myth huh .. do you have links ?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

links to the carburetor myth.. it was my attempt at humor .. zoom zoom

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

:-]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

You're not asking for too much .. is there air in the tires ?

[-] 0 points by Forward (-2) 1 year ago

Ok. So show where this is held true. Give us an example.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Forward (-2) 1 year ago

So England was a socialist country at one point?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Forward (-2) 1 year ago

You failed to show an example of a product that became a useful widespread part of society in a socialist country. You actually just strengthened my argument... Thanks, I guess.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Whetherman1968 (-67) 1 year ago

Man has been in some sort of forced servitude for 1000s of years, until the advent of capitalism. Everyone in capitalism has a chance to plot his/her own future, be the captain of their own ship. Capitalism values the mind, the ingenuity that lies in active human minds free to create and grow. All other systems, socialism, communism, libertarian anarchy chain the mind, crush it, sap it's vitality.

Many here might not be old enough, but it impossible to imagine how much better cars are as inventors create new and better ways to travel. People hate fracking, by looked at as simply an invention, it's incredible.

Sony competes against Pioneer who competes against Phillips who competes against Every other electronics makers to bring us better electronics. Boeing competes against Airbus. Dell competes against Apple and HP.

The top 4 countries in creating patents are Japan, USA, China, and South Korea. They produce an astonishing number of patents relative to the dead zones of socialized Europe. Socialism crushes ambition and creativity as clearly, statistically and Inarguably proven by how few patents come from brain dead Europe.

There is no arguing that socialism destroys the dynamic life. It's horrible, ugly, tyrannical and dehumanizing.

[-] 1 points by CFRcontrolsYOU (7) 1 year ago

Whetherman, you need to stop thinking in the past. Try not to let indoctrination mold your thoughts. Free your mind and try if you can to think in the future. Capitalism is in it's death throes. There was a time when it was a great system. Technology has changed the feasability of capitalism. It has gone past the tipping point. Each year more and more human labor is displaced by technology. Try to imagine in 100 years where capitalism will be. In 100 years artificial intelligence, robotics, etc, will dominate labor. There will no longer be use for human labor. Machines will be far superior brain surgeons, engineers, scientists, judges, etc.

A time will come when paying humans to do inferior labor will be illogical. Where will capitalism be then? It will be unable to sustain society.

[-] -3 points by Whetherman1968 (-67) 1 year ago

It's illogical NOW. So that's why it's so critical every American get a highly technical, rigorous scientific degree. We won't need dumb laborer s. we will still need beautiful women and men of intellect but the rest will be replaced.

[-] 1 points by CFRcontrolsYOU (7) 1 year ago

Whetherman, you're demonstrating for me just how feeble the human mind is. Your solution is absurd and unrealistic. It goes without saying, "every American" cannot get a highly technical science degree. Those require a high IQ with associated mental and cognitive capacities.

You must try to think on a higher level. Stop thinking Industrial age and try thinking Computer age. Technology is evolving exponentially, humans are not. A human can get PhD's, but we are quickly approaching a time when even the most educated human will be vastly inferior to technology.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by Whetherman1968 (-67) 1 year ago

In the future, yes beauty need only apply. I and you can't change our genetics. 100 years from now, if you are ugly and uneducated, there won't be use for you.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

ah but there in lay the kicker. what if say I WANT TO COMPETE with pioneer or phillips just how exactly do i do that with the current monopolies and trusts??? you see this is not capitalism this is fascism and the absence of choice disguised like a liberal democracy. industry could not exist without the tax hand outs from uncle sam. big business can not survive on it's own.

[-] -1 points by Whetherman1968 (-67) 1 year ago

You can't. You could invent a new technology if you put your mind to it. What is stopping you from creating a new operating system or software code?

[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

if there is a lack of competition that is not capitalism at all.

[-] -1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

Free markets don't kill the economy. Manipulation of free markets is what killed the economy. These manipulators have controlled the economy and congress for several decades and most are still in congress getting rich on their manipulations.

While some regulations are necessary for safety and other protections, excessive govt intervention in the free market is what caused the crisis and keeps perpetuating it. The gov't repeal of parts of Glass Steagle (1999) is what led directly to the banking crisis. The housing bubble was also a direct result of the govt interfering with the free market. The Community Reinvestment Act (late 1990s-started in 1977 but changed & enforced throughout the 90s) forced the banks to loan to high risk clients. As with most bad legislation, good intentions lead to unintended consequences. Obama himself led the first case against Citibank in 1998 to force the bank to loan to a high risk client. When Citibank lost the case and the banks were forced to do this, they came up with a way to hedge their risk by bundling high risk loans and selling them. This started the toxic derivative market. When new laws with bad consequences are imposed on a business, they either must come up with a way to survive or they go out of business. Profit drives the free market but all the manipulations are driven by greed. There is greed in every economic system but in true free market system, bad behavior is punished not rewarded. The business goes away and doesn't survive. The govt interfered with the free market and caused the crisis.

2 of the congressmen that led on reversing Glass Steagle were Senators Dodd and Schumer as well as Rep Frank. The entire congress was at fault, both sides of the aisle did this damage to the financial market. I only bring up those names because when legislation was drawn up to fix the crisis, they put the same people in charge that brought it down, Dodd and Frank. The entire congress has been manipulating every market for their own advantage for decades. They have made a lot of money on the laws they've passed and the insider trading they do. The "Dodd-Frank" bill has been watered down to be of no consequence. No one has been punished for bringing down the financial market, no one on Wall Street and no one in Congress. People that hurt our economy have been rewarded instead of punished. Franklin Raines, who oversaw Fannie Mae was given millions in bonuses after the housing bust that Fannie Mae was a big part of and he was responsible for. Congress, who broke the system, was perpetually re-elected to further corrupt the system for their own benefit. The banks were bailed out and bonuses were given to the criminals with taxpayer money. The banks and govt have been working together thru Clinton, Bush and Obama's administrations. Same people have worked in all 3 admins and have been running the Fed and Treasury. They've all come from the banks (mostly Goldman Sachs) and have saved the banks they came from. And they are still working for the banks as they further manipulate the system in their favor.

We still keep voting the criminals back in. 2 of them finally retired but we need to fire everyone in Congress who has been there more than 8 years. If congress won't vote for term limits, we must enforce them with our ballots. If there were more citizens in congress and less politicians, we would have a better government. Is anyone aware that they're back to making high risk loans, toxic derivatives are still being created, the fed has inflated the stock market, the banks have gotten even larger?

There's nothing wrong with capitalism until it becomes distorted. The problem is with people that manipulate capitalism and thereby distort it for their own gains. Capitalism is the only economic system that gives people the incentive to better their economic environment. It allows people to aspire to more and better. It allows creative people to invent new and better ideas and profit from them. Anyone can have a dream and then fulfill it with hard work. Anyone can start their own business if so driven and work hard in a field they love. The most successful businesses started in garages. The free market is a competitive market. The costs come down as more competition is created. If you come up with an idea for a product or service that people can use, you can make a good living from it. As competition keeps prices down, everyone can benefit from it. That is why we were always a leader in ideas, products and services throughout our history.

The people who are against capitalism are angry at what it has become as am I. Crony capitalism is what we have now. That is not the free market system as intended. It is a distortion of it. It is everyone's fault for electing these crooks and then falling asleep while they've ruled the country for decades destroying the best markets in the world. We must wake up and change things by first getting rid of all career politicians and putting citizenry in congress. The disparity in our country is a direct result of govt intervention. We must demand Glass-Steagle's reinstatement and prosecution for all those involved in the financial crisis. We must stay vigilant over who we elect and keep their feet to the fire. We must take control of our govt not let the govt take control of us.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

Actually, in the infancy of this country, the market was a free market driven only by competition of supply and demand. Through the many years, the gov't has made it a controlled market. So it is not a myth...it's just been taken over by govt as with everything else including our liberties of late and so it has become a distant memory.

I would prefer a free market because every time the govt gets involved in regulating the market, they cause damage to it by manipulating it to benefit their donors, lobbyists and their own pockets. The govt picks the winners and losers. It's not left entirely up to the consumer anymore.

So again, it's not a myth...It's just been a very long time since it was reality. A truly free market should have no regulations, however, most people don't mind smart safety regulations but that should the extent of it.

[-] 5 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

You. Are clearly confused.

'in the infancy of this country, the market was a free market' - You're wrong. In the infancy of the country, the dominant economic theory and system was Mercantilism. Not anything near a 'free market'. It wasn't even capitalism yet. Let alone a 'free market'. It was Mercantilism. Throughout Europe and including the US. Criticism of, and alternatives to, the Mercantile system were just developing. Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776. Laissez faire capitalism was just being written and discussed. It wasn't until the mid 1800's, the Industrial Revolution, that our economy began evolving towards capitalism. Taking on more capitalistic attributes and less Mercantilistic attributes.

Before that time, corporate charters were a privilege. Granted by the State. Corporations served at the pleasure of the State to serve the interests of society. Most corporate charters were granted for a limited and specific purpose, for a limited time period. Corporations did not exist in perpetuity. They were granted existence by the State to perform specific tasks for the government. Like building roads or bridges. Corporations weren't people, and didn't have access to the Bill of Rights. That didn't happen until much later when corporations hijacked the 14th Amendment in a grab for corporate power.

For the most part, our Founding Fathers didn't even give much thought to our economic system. Let alone a 'free market'. As they envisioned a mostly simple agrarian society. They were mainly concerned about property rights as it related to, and the basis of, a prosperous self sufficient agrarian society. Not the economic system. To the extent that they did, they were extremely wary of corporations. Especially Jefferson. He wrote a lot about the evils of corporations. See: East India Company. That they would be an evil scourge over the democracy they envisioned. The largest privately owned corporation in the early 1800's, the Second Bank of the US, was intentionally destroyed by the Federal government. Because the State believed it had become too powerful, commercially and politically. The Federal government threatened revoking it's charter and withdrew federal funds from the bank. Which led to it's demise. Not a 'free market'.

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” - Thomas Jefferson.

Do you understand what crushing corporations means? Not a 'free market'. Our Founders, in no way shape or form, wanted or advocated a 'free market'.

A 'free market' has a specific meaning. It means corporations be unregulated. That kind of economic theory is only found in three places that I know of. Rightwing neo-liberal economic theory, Libertarianism and Anarcho-capitalism. Those three economic theories are all in the same ballpark of beliefs. Anarcho-capitalism being the furthest right, Libertarianism a little left of Anarcho-capitalism. And right wing neoliberalism, a hop left of Libertarianism.

A 'free market' has a specific meaning in right wing neo-liberal economic theory and Libertarian economic theory. Glass Steagall was repealed based on right wing neo-liberal economic theory of deregulation. And right wing neoliberalism is way way right of Adam Smith and laissez faire capitalism. It's laissez faire on steroids.

How you possibly get the notion that a 'free market' existed at the time of the founding of our country, is beyond me. Really. You're confused.

[-] 1 points by cubedemon (185) 1 year ago

Buttercup, you are so correct on everything you say here. Our founding fathers felt the corporation was a part of the tyranny they were fighting against. After the 13 colonies received their independence from England it was an agrarian society.

Our constitution was a compromise and not an unanimous agreement. Our founding fathers had many disagreements over the structure and scope of our government. Even James Madison wanted a stronger government then what was crafted during that time.

In fact, James Madison thought our constitution would eventually fail after about a 100 years. The constitution was created because of the Articles of Confederation's Failure. I believe the Articles of Confederation was the closest we got to have a libertarian type government. The problem was nothing could get done and war debts could not get paid because one had to have a yes vote from all of the 13 states at the time. It failed.

As it stands today, the corporation is a government created entity. If right wingers want less government then my question is this. Why can't we get government out of the business of creating corporations and take away all of these corporation's charters?

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

No need to be rude...you're entitled to your opinion but an intelligent conversation is a much better dialog than insults and baseless statements.

People in business are not playing games, they are trying to make a profit on the product or service they have invested their time and money in. If they don't make a profit, they go out of business as they should. But we have a govt that rigs the market to prop up certain businesses (cronyism) over another with taxpayer dollars (usually to line their own pockets and the pockets of their donors) which distorts and corrupts the market (sometimes causing bubbles) as the govt takes over more and more control of it.

Free market capitalism is an easy concept until govt complicates it. I design a product, make it, market it and sell it. I use the money to pay my overhead, costs and eventually make a profit. If the consumer likes it, they buy more allowing me to expand and hire people. If they don't, I fail and go out of business. If someone else finds a way to produce it for less, they sell it for less providing competition. Competition keeps the costs down. It's a simple concept. The only time the public gets screwed is when the govt gets involved or when a company vital to the public becomes a monopoly.

I don't understand why some people would prefer a govt run society where that govt controls every aspect of your life rather than a free market society where you have choices in every aspect of your life. The former demands govt control and loss of choices and liberties, the latter demands personal responsibility and freedom of choice. I prefer personal responsibility and freedom.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

SV...

I think we all agree mostly with that sentiment .... except in reality ...

we realize that we do need some sort of government or democracy intervention.... the majority of business owners are hard working honest and non-greedy people... that is usually the middle class...

however there are those who will rape, pillage, creates wars & kill all in the effort to make more profits....

we cannot bring productive change focusing on simplistic ideals of "get government out of business" ... it simply is not that simple...

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by Whetherman1968 (-67) 1 year ago

Japan, USA, China, and South Korea produced 1.3 million patent applications in 2010. The entire rest of the earth didnt even total 400,000. All those patents were created to make the world better.

Capitalism is human beauty, the beauty of the free mind. Socialism clearly scorns the free human mind. Socialism is pure hate.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Whetherman1968 (-67) 1 year ago

Patent applications are definitive proof of intellectual dynamism. Clear unblemished statistical fact. You can argue with insult, I have black and white proof and that trumps everything.

Sorry but you are wrong.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Whetherman1968 (-67) 1 year ago

Witness fracking drilling, saving America.

You Lose.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Whetherman1968 (-67) 1 year ago

You can certainly argue about the risks of fracking.but taken by itself, the idea of drilling thousands of feet under the earth and ocean and be accurate in the drill path to an inch is mind boggling. Human ingenuity, the human free from the stultifying effects hateful socialism, freed to create by capitalism is beauty, pure.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Whetherman1968 (-67) 1 year ago

Well I guess the Japanese are very good at making things a bit better. The French don't care, socialism protects them from having to be creative. It numbs them. Socialism is tyrannical, hateful and dehumanizing.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Whetherman1968 (-67) 1 year ago

They used to be patent competitive, but now socialism has crushed French ingenuity. In 2011 the French were granted 10213 patents. The Japanese 238000. Mexico had more granted patents than France.

I have proven socialism crushes ingenuity. Please stop arguing and learn, open your mind.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Whetherman1968 (-67) 1 year ago

You proved that you can link biased opinions. Wow. BFD.

Try using facts, not opinions. I did. You didn't. I win this round, you lose. Simple as that. You can win the next with facts. like me.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Whetherman1968 (-67) 1 year ago

Nope, you are wrong, but that's OK. He was appointed because the city management team didnt do its job.

You wrong again, but don't take it personal.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Whetherman1968 (-67) 1 year ago

It's isnt the states problem. Sorry. And it isnt tyranny.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Whetherman1968 (-67) 1 year ago

You first. Why should Grand Rapids be concerned about Detroit being dysfunctional?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Whetherman1968 (-67) 1 year ago

Why is Benton Harbor or Traverse City responsible for Detroit and its overblown budget.?

[-] 1 points by CFRcontrolsYOU (7) 1 year ago

The french are eating magnificent breads, cheeses and wines as you're choking on your Mcdonalds "happy meal". I think they are laughing at your low grade capitalism, as you imagine how great it is.

[-] 0 points by Whetherman1968 (-67) 1 year ago

That's your answer? Bread and cheese? Wine? America has far better wine than France, as does Chile and Australia. And ANYONE can start a vineyard in America. France does not allow new vineyards. YOU proved my point. Capitalism is beauty, purity. Socialism is crippled, ugly.

Foolish, in a thread of real intellect.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Are you a virus? Or a disease?

Quote your sources for these outlandish claims.

[Removed]

[+] -7 points by randydandy4 (-12) 1 year ago

America...greatest country on Earth..founded on free market capitalism, with people streaming in from all over the globe trying to get in.

Case closed you stupid fucking asshole.

[-] 9 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Now you don't know what you're talking about. Capitalism didn't even exist when the country was founded. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that advocates for capitalism, free market or otherwise. The Constitution doesn't address an economic system. At all.

Many of the Founders despised corporations. Most didn't support capitalism. Let alone a 'free market'. lmao. Particularly, but not limited to, Jefferson. Let alone 'free market capitalism'. Which is a much more recent concept. That didn't even exist at the time! Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans platform and beliefs included practically the opposite of capitalism. The Democratic Republican Party believed in agrarianism. Decidedly anti-business, anti-corporations, anti-industrialization. Pretty much anti-capitalism. Check history Hon.

“I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson.

What part of 'crush ..corporations' are you confused by? Does that sound like he was a fan of 'free market capitalism' to you? Where does this scream 'free market capitalism' exactly?

Where on earth do you get the completely ridiculous idiotic idea that the country was founded on 'free market capitalism'? Or capitalism at all?? Frighteningly stupid.

Just because the word 'free' appears in the Constitution, and the word 'free' also appears in the term 'free market capitalism' - does not mean that the country was founded on free market capitalism! My gawd. Frighteningly stupid. And yet amusing.

[-] 4 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

'Congress Puts Out For Wall Street' - http://www.nationofchange.org/congress-still-puts-out-wall-street-1369922584 & very nice comment 'teacher' :) - Never Give Up Exposing & Explaining! Re-Occupy Wall Street - http://occupywallst.org/forum/reoccupy-2013/ & Solidarity.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Wasn't agrarianism kind of a pro-slavery movement? Are you anti-industrialization?

[-] 0 points by hamletandcornell (-27) 1 year ago

You're totally off the mark. Wikipedia is your friend. Start there, then follow the many references for further reading and education. There's also a lengthy further reading list at the bottom of the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarianism

Hint: Agrarianism is not pro-slavery, It's the opposite! it's about giving more power and control to the farmer. It's about egalitarianism towards farmers.