The beauty of capitalism in pictures.

[quote name='momouchi']We're no where near socialism. Have you seen Wall Street, big businesses, and small businesses? They are all still viciously competing with one another. If we had a socialist country, CAG wouldn't be around because the the government would set the price for every game and it wouldn't change.[/QUOTE]

We've undeniably become more socialist over the past two years.
 
[quote name='Strell']Yar matey, they dinna call him Brownbeard for nuthin', arrrr.[/QUOTE]

Easy de-pasquale, I think Strell knows it takes a lot more than that to hurt MY feelings. And the mods rarely, if ever, police this forum.

And, unlike your infected well of fascist comrades, tattling isn't in my nature. You may like to cry to your momma, I don't stand to gain any party status by doing so.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']We've undeniably become more socialist over the past two years.[/QUOTE]
But to put it in context, no where near the level of socialism we were at at the end of King Ronnie's reign.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']And, unlike your infected well of fascist comrades, tattling isn't in my nature. [/QUOTE]

Again with the fascist communism? Do you guys even know the definitions of the words you use?
 
[quote name='speedracer']But to put it in context, no where near the level of socialism we were at at the end of King Ronnie's reign.[/QUOTE]

Assuming you mean Reagan, you're wrong. The government eats up more of GDP now than it did then:

Federal%20Spending%20as%20a%20Percent%20of%20GDP%20Web.png
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Assuming you mean Reagan, you're wrong. The government eats up more of GDP now than it did then:

Federal%20Spending%20as%20a%20Percent%20of%20GDP%20Web.png
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but military spending has also risen greatly since the 80s.
 
[quote name='momouchi']Yeah, but military spending has also risen greatly since the 80s.[/QUOTE]

Yes, in dollar terms. But no, not in percentage-of-GDP terms. After the end of the Cold War, and through the BRAC process (a rare cost-saving process put in place by Congress to close and consolidate unneeded military bases), spending has been cut as a percentage of GDP. Observe:

chart

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...gd_zs&idim=country:USA&q=us+military+spending

But regardless, military spending obviously is part of government spending, therefore your response makes no sense. I'm sure what you were getting at is military spending is too high, a point with which I agree and have long supported measures to cut it.
 
I'm late to this thread, but those pictures in the op show more the issue of exporting dirty industry than the whole "capitalism is evil thing" which you kids are into these days.

If we have tight regulations in the US, won't industry just go overseas and cause more pollution?
 
If you assume that only "tight regulations" cause the global expansion for MNCs. Which isn't a very deep, meaningful, or accurate thing to think.

You can do better than that, both in content and effort.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Assuming you mean Reagan, you're wrong. The government eats up more of GDP now than it did then:[/QUOTE]
That the government spends and what the government spends it on are wildly different things. And let's not pretend the ultra-pork-to-end-all-ultra-pork Medicare bill fits a socialism world view. We spend on propping up capitalism now. We've cut social programs across the board (especially under Clinton and Bush II) and have raided the treasury for 30 years on behalf of the rich waiting for the "trickle down". Spending as a percentage of GDP doesn't begin to illustrate the issue.

I mean yea, HHS gets more than the DoD (as long as we aren't counting the tril dropped on the wars and the VA, which is absurd not to) but let's be real. You're a reasonable guy. At this point, HHS can reasonably be pinned on "socialism", but damn near virtually every other spending bill is executive welfare and those far outweigh HHS's expenditures. Even King Ronnie didn't literally hand over cash to the private sector on the scale we have during the 00's.
 
[quote name='speedracer']That the government spends and what the government spends it on are wildly different things. And let's not pretend the ultra-pork-to-end-all-ultra-pork Medicare bill fits a socialism world view. We spend on propping up capitalism now. We've cut social programs across the board (especially under Clinton and Bush II) and have raided the treasury for 30 years on behalf of the rich waiting for the "trickle down". Spending as a percentage of GDP doesn't begin to illustrate the issue.

I mean yea, HHS gets more than the DoD (as long as we aren't counting the tril dropped on the wars and the VA, which is absurd not to) but let's be real. You're a reasonable guy. At this point, HHS can reasonably be pinned on "socialism", but damn near virtually every other spending bill is executive welfare and those far outweigh HHS's expenditures. Even King Ronnie didn't literally hand over cash to the private sector on the scale we have during the 00's.[/QUOTE]

I don't think you understand. Government spending is social spending. Hence, a bigger government means a more socialist one.

Government spending cannot "prop up" capitalism, unless you perceive capitalism to be something far different than I. Massive bailouts and government involvement in the markets is not capitalism. Obviously you are right about handing over cash to prop up banks, auto companies, insurance companies and others. This is not free-market capitalism; free-market capitalism would let irresponsible banks and non-competitive auto companies either go bankrupt or find their own ways to maintain competitive without government assistance.

Maybe this statement will show more of where I stand: I'm far more pissed about TARP/stimulus/auto bailouts than I am about the health-care bills in Congress, as bad as those are. I don't like either, but I'm less upset about "help for homeowners" programs than I am the $42 million paid out recently in bonuses to the top 10 executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The rich and powerful control both political parties, and thus our government. Thus, a bigger government will always be in favor of the rich and powerful, who pay too little in taxes while making lots of money due to government favoritism or government contracts.

I support a much smaller government (around 5% of GDP would be ideal, as opposed to 25-30% right now) and much less government spending, balanced budgets and paying off our debt. Neither of the two major parties can credibly pretend to support these goals. America must rid herself of the corrupt and incompetent Republicans and Democrats if we are to be a better society.
 
I don't believe in fairies, I don't believe in Santa, and I don't believe in free market capitalism. You can call it socialism to support a world view but if there was a human being, a single human being on the planet that we could point to as the captain of capitalism, who would that be?

Wouldn't the top... probably 20 picks be people that are ACTUALLY IN CHARGE (and this from the more "socialist" party!?)?

Sure, argue that the pure movement has been abandoned by the people at the top. But man, when a movement starts sounding like the Russian communists at the end of their run, you know you're in trouble. Everyone knew but them.

Everyone knows the deal is rotten.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']I don't believe in fairies, I don't believe in Santa, and I don't believe in free market capitalism. You can call it socialism to support a world view but if there was a human being, a single human being on the planet that we could point to as the captain of capitalism, who would that be?

Wouldn't the top... probably 20 picks be people that are ACTUALLY IN CHARGE (and this from the more "socialist" party!?)?

Sure, argue that the pure movement has been abandoned by the people at the top. But man, when a movement starts sounding like the Russian communists at the end of their run, you know you're in trouble. Everyone knew but them.

Everyone knows the deal is rotten.[/QUOTE]
Capitalism means we are all Captains.

The problem with you socialist monkeys is that you're always looking for a leader, or someone to be in charge to make sure the plan is being implemented.

You can't deal with the fact that everyone is entitled to make their own plan. And that if you make the wrong choice, you must face the consequences without someone to save you. Socialism is just like being a Christian. In fact, it's exactly the same model in almost every aspect. Submit for salvation, sacrifice your self for the good of others. One man speaks for the common god, er... I mean common good.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You can't deal with the fact that everyone is entitled to make their own plan. [/QUOTE]

I can't deal with this if someone's plan includes firing a few thousand workers to a) appease a few shareholders and b) so they can buy a second swimming pool inside their existing swimming pool.

I sometimes think about the adage of money not buying happiness. These fuckers are prime examples, wiping their asses with the faces of people struggling to make a buck.
 
Why is it always idealized capitalism vs. worst-case (or, if you want to be generous, realistic) socialism?

People don't like capitalism because everyone gets to make their own plan? Where the fuck is this? Are there unicorns there too?
 
[quote name='SpazX']Why is it always idealized capitalism vs. worst-case (or, if you want to be generous, realistic) socialism?

People don't like capitalism because everyone gets to make their own plan? Where the fuck is this? Are there unicorns there too?[/QUOTE]

Haha.

Old quote, probably heard it before but this is how I feel when these clowns talk about freedom: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France
 
[quote name='SpazX']Why is it always idealized capitalism vs. worst-case (or, if you want to be generous, realistic) socialism?

People don't like capitalism because everyone gets to make their own plan? Where the fuck is this? Are there unicorns there too?[/QUOTE]

It's kind of a false dichotomy anyway.

A false dichotomy that makes me wish the closest IKEA wasn't in Pittsburgh. That's a 4-hour drive.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Why is it always idealized capitalism vs. worst-case (or, if you want to be generous, realistic) socialism?

People don't like capitalism because everyone gets to make their own plan? Where the fuck is this? Are there unicorns there too?[/QUOTE]

It's all trendy now to not like capitalism because that's what we supposedly have so that's what gets blamed when people are unhappy. The same would apply to any form of government when it's shine tarnished.
 
[quote name='Strell']I can't deal with this if someone's plan includes firing a few thousand workers to a) appease a few shareholders and b) so they can buy a second swimming pool inside their existing swimming pool.

I sometimes think about the adage of money not buying happiness. These fuckers are prime examples, wiping their asses with the faces of people struggling to make a buck.[/QUOTE]

It's just the will of the market.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think that deserves a "wat."

So...

wat.[/QUOTE]

Sorry for the delay in response.....

I simply mean the root of the problem is corruption. Not our form of government. Forms of government attempt to make corruption harder to persist - but as long as greed exists, corruption will always find a way into government. The entire premise of the op seems to overlook this.

The title of this thread is a bit silly. You could swap out the word 'capitalism' for 'abortion' or 'guns' and produce ugly pictures accordingly. None of which actually address the root of the problems.
 
I think the crucible of the issue, of most issues, is real vs nominal cost.
Most of the stuff we buy, use, do has a smaller nominal cost. The dollar menu appears to be cheap, but is far more expensive when you factor in environmental costs, health costs, land use, farming, subsidies, etc, etc.
It's difficult for people to understand longterm costs, and it is extremely difficult to understand costs that you and I pay for unknowingly, or in super microtransactions that seem to be nothing, but in the aggregate, are terribly huge.
Capitalism does an awful job of properly tabulating all expenses to the truly responsible parties, that's one of its biggest flaws. And probably irreconcilable with its basics tenets.
You'd almost need to step out into a Randian/Objectivist justification of capitalism, start saying stuff like killing and cheating one's customers, and destroying natural resources ultimately results in longterm ruin. It's immoral to pollute the rivers and oceans, because the costs will come due, and my shortterms profits will be wiped out by that bill.
Many American capitalists now are driven to take as much as they can, as quickly as they can. And it's tough to blame that mindset because so many do it, and there isn't any punishment system in place. Or even strong social condemnation. Rather a kind of mind-spirited envy and petty jealousies arises.

and shouting, lots of shouting, namecalling and finger pointing
 
[quote name='vherub']Capitalism does an awful job of properly tabulating all expenses to the truly responsible parties, that's one of its biggest flaws. And probably irreconcilable with its basics tenets.[/QUOTE]

I don't know about that. You do bring up an interesting point, and one that is a partial refutation of the libertarian viewpoint.

Firstly, I would say that the biggest factor in warping cost/benefit in our system is the government, through (as you aptly note) things like subsidies, favorable regulations and the like. The first step toward a more accountable and transparent capitalist system is to remove these sorts of distortions. Of course, they were put in place in an attempt to perpetuate our political parties, but that's going a little OT.

Secondly, your points about pollution and the like are well-taken. Things like that are why we need a government. The government's job is to enforce law and order (among other things), and that includes protecting common property such as the air we breathe and water resources. This is where traditional laissez faire capitalism fails, since it's just too easy for the unscrupulous individual or company to get rich by screwing the rest of us. Therefore, it is the responsibility of government to make sure this doesn't happen through the force of law.

Bottom line is I do believe that free-market capitalism is very good (and better than other systems) at matching true costs, when it is not manipulated through politics (i.e. where we are now).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']Sorry for the delay in response.....

I simply mean the root of the problem is corruption. Not our form of government. Forms of government attempt to make corruption harder to persist - but as long as greed exists, corruption will always find a way into government. The entire premise of the op seems to overlook this.

The title of this thread is a bit silly. You could swap out the word 'capitalism' for 'abortion' or 'guns' and produce ugly pictures accordingly. None of which actually address the root of the problems.[/QUOTE]

capitalism ≠ our form of government.

democracies don't have to have capitalist economies. look at much of Europe - there's the ever-nagging Sweden that's highly capitalist, highly socialist, and highly democratic.

capitalist economies don't require democracies. there's always China, whose cheap labor, lax environmental regulations, and lax human rights considerations have become the new home to manufacturing jobs globally.

So I'm even less uncertain over what your point is after you attempted to clear it up.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Why is it always idealized capitalism vs. worst-case (or, if you want to be generous, realistic) socialism?[/QUOTE]
Because it doesn't fit into their tidy paradigm of ignorance that way.

[quote name='UncleBob']I did that... No one wanted to take that bait. It was too obvious how stupid this thread is...

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6517488&postcount=36[/QUOTE]
Everything has its pros and cons. Only the simple and the inane need to obfuscate the issue by changing the subject as a sort of "gotcha". If the externalities of capitalism make you uncomfortable, that's your problem.

People have taken shots at the topic over and over, ranging from "but then we can't have big tvs and xboxs!" to "but see what something else does too!". All of these are generally true. Would a replacement system be better? Maybe. Maybe not. But that doesn't change that fact that one of capital's dirty little secrets of externalities can be easily seen by the open and the honest.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Because it doesn't fit into their tidy paradigm of ignorance that way.


Everything has its pros and cons. Only the simple and the inane need to obfuscate the issue by changing the subject as a sort of "gotcha". If the externalities of capitalism make you uncomfortable, that's your problem.

People have taken shots at the topic over and over, ranging from "but then we can't have big tvs and xboxs!" to "but see what something else does too!". All of these are generally true. Would a replacement system be better? Maybe. Maybe not. But that doesn't change that fact that one of capital's dirty little secrets of externalities can be easily seen by the open and the honest.[/QUOTE]

And even more easily seen, instead of glossed over and blanked out which you conveniently do above, is that with your new and improved replacement system, no one WILL be getting a big screen or an xbox for Christmas. We'll be lucky to get enough rice for our steamers and a gas ration to get to work. And don't think you'll be wiping your asses with double-ply, quilted Charmin either.

There's simply no incentive to make a PS3 without capitalism - period. There's no incentive to make anything, for that matter, so the only things that DO get made will be those that are for the public good. Determined, of course, by the party plan and it's administrators. And before you get all huffy and start crying to your momma that I'm going all extreme on your socialism and shit, realize that every statement you make about capitalism is even more reactionary than my extrapolated slippery slope.

You want to talk about externalaties? Let's talk about IN-ternalities and unmeasured wealth of capitalism that everyone gets to enjoy. The intrinsically unmeasurable value that lines our shelves and provides us with the availability of goods and services - even if you're poor. Chicken that's 99 cents a pound. 15 brands of toilety paper to choose from. 12 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity. Gasoline on every other street corner with Stop & Shops in between. Drinkable water from every tap, sans cholera. There is no waiting, no rationing, no starvation, no mass strife here compared to the rest of the world. Even the poorest of poor in America lives like a king compared to a majority of the planet - externalities and all



And Myke:

Democracy != our form of government
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']Mommy, what's an externality?

http://arstechnica.com/science/news...den-120-billion-cost-of-us-energy-economy.ars[/QUOTE]

Thanks for posting that. I thought the article was absolutely fascinating and would recommend everyone read it. Why aren't we focused on these costs instead of the debatable and/or negligible costs of global warming? It's quite upsetting that our priorities and rhetoric are so out of whack.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']There's simply no incentive to make a PS3 without capitalism - period. There's no incentive to make anything, for that matter, so the only things that DO get made will be those that are for the public good. Determined, of course, by the party plan and it's administrators. And before you get all huffy and start crying to your momma that I'm going all extreme on your socialism and shit, realize that every statement you make about capitalism is even more reactionary than my extrapolated slippery slope.[/quote]

This is sheer blithering idiocy. You're on the internet, the greatest bastion of financial-incentive-free creativity, and you're arguing that if it weren't for financial incentives, nothing would be created?

You believe the sky is green. Pardon me for a moment, I'm going to go download some open source software, read some blogs, browse craigslist for freebies and google for Scott Baio slashfic. I'll be back in a bit once I find these items clearly created with financial incentives.

You want to talk about externalaties? Let's talk about IN-ternalities and unmeasured wealth of capitalism that everyone gets to enjoy. The intrinsically unmeasurable value that lines our shelves and provides us with the availability of goods and services - even if you're poor. Chicken that's 99 cents a pound. 15 brands of toilety paper to choose from. 12 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity. Gasoline on every other street corner with Stop & Shops in between. Drinkable water from every tap, sans cholera. There is no waiting, no rationing, no starvation, no mass strife here compared to the rest of the world. Even the poorest of poor in America lives like a king compared to a majority of the planet - externalities and all
Click to expand...

He hits me now and then, but it's because I deserve it. Otherwise, he treats me real good. I'd never leave him.

And Myke:

Democracy != our form of government
Click to expand...

You got a hard on for me, darlin, if you want to keep picking on iotas of comments instead of responding writ large. Comments that are absent the context of someone else's comments that help make sense of my word choice. But, hey, the first comments didn't come from you this time, so perhaps that means you're improving.

By the by, I'll be in Detroit tomorrow if you wanna buy me a drink. You've got enough of a fuckin' crush on me anyway, why deny fate?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']This is sheer blithering idiocy. You're on the internet, the greatest bastion of financial-incentive-free creativity, and you're arguing that if it weren't for financial incentives, nothing would be created?

You believe the sky is green. Pardon me for a moment, I'm going to go download some open source software, read some blogs, browse craigslist for freebies and google for Scott Baio slashfic. I'll be back in a bit once I find these items clearly created with financial incentives.[/quote]

I actually pay for my internet access. I don't have the pleasure of living on an academic campus where internet access is as palpable and prevalent as the cloud of communism that pervades your ivy justice league. And, as I stare at the advertisement at the top of this page, I can't help but wonder if you're going to include free television and radio broadcasts in your next defense of socialism.

And I'd love to extend my charity in liquid form one of these days, but I'll be very far from the Detroit area this weekend and most of next week.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I actually pay for my internet access. I don't have the pleasure of living on an academic campus where internet access is as palpable and prevalent as the cloud of communism that pervades your ivy justice league. And, as I stare at the advertisement at the top of this page, I can't help but wonder if you're going to include free television and radio broadcasts in your next defense of socialism.[/quote]

Wat.

Did you type this sober?

You've avoided the dismally inaccurate statement of yours that the only incentive in this world is a financial incentive, and still trying to hold it up as a genuinely contestable fact.

Chairman Mao supports open-source software!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top