Liberal Forum

Secondary access to the technology. Drivers in the developing world drive like ****. Drivers in the US have grandparents who rode in cars as children. Developing nation drivers remember a time in THEIR lifetime when a car was a rare commodity. Our grandparents grew up driving, and watching drivers.

The same thing goes for indoor plumbing.

You're pointing out that people WAY late to the gate are behind as if it is some credit to the runner who is ahead.

I understand what you’re trying to get at here. Capitalists are like women waiting at the finish line to **** the winners, while free enterprisers actually put in the hard work running the marathon.

The question is whether or not these proverbial women deserve any credit for our historically high SoL.

Bill Gates is an amazing businessman. A capitalist through and through. The poor, nerdy chap who coded the operating system and sold it to Gates for pennies on the dollar (actually it’s worse than pennies as he only got $15K I believe while Gates has a 12 figure net worth) is a free enterpriser.

You should not confuse the nobility of each individual’s motives with their contribution to the cause. Yes, free enterprisers, assuming they are not conmen, more often than not work like donkeys. They are sorely underappreciated and assume all the risks (including divorce, long hours for little gain, deteriorating health) just to try and invent something for their customers. 

The rapacious capitalist pounces on opportunities and snatches them from people who already ran 95% of the way…they run the remaining 5% and claim all the credit and wealth. 

However, it is THIS last 5% that enables corporations to grow to their massive size and reach. Deploying capital to corner markets is the capitalist way - and while it sucks, it is difficult to deny that it contributes to our rising SoL. 

I still stand by this opinion: Capitalists are borderline criminals who happen to, in their rent seeking / market cornering pursuits, raise our SoL. Or at least contribute to it by allocating capital to various enterprises so they scale to billion+ revenue size. Free enterprise lacks this capacity - or at the very minimum does not have nearly as easy of a time achieving this. 
 
I can go over more details why this is the case in another post sometime. Free enterprisers at the very high level are extremely rare and for good reasons.

Caucasians have an extremely high tendency to have both high intelligence and high creativity - and American caucasians have historically had the highest level of individualism/creativity. These things attract investment. Crediting capitalism ignores this. Race has to be accounted for - not just the economic system. A great many non-capitalist nations attract investment - just in resources other than human. It could be that ours attracts investment in human resources, because our people are natively smarter and more creative - not because capitalism.

This is true. However it does not lend support to the idea that capitalism does not deserve any credit. It merely shows perhaps a more critical factor, but it does not discredit capitalism.

I truly hesitate to use libertarian talking points, but the contrast between capitalist and non-capitalist countries (West v East Germany, South v North Korea) where the genetic makeup is virtually identical should show that capitalism is not without its dues. 

If you hold other factors constant and just compare economic systems you should arrive at the same conclusion…
 

Zeets2 » 27 Jul 2024, 8:57 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2024, 8:57 am

Whatever you choose to call a city or state is irrelevant.
It's the POLICIES that are socialist, from the open border to staunchly operating as both a sanctuary city and state with the highest taxes in the country and the most regulated state in the country that make San Francisco a socialist's dream come true.
Care to deny that?

A system is “socialist” or “capitalist” depending on which entity has more power. In a socialist state like Nazi Germany or the USSR, you’d better do what the state tells you to do if you’re the head honcho of a corporation (produce X amount of goods) or else.

Yes I’m aware San Francisco has high taxes and a large # of regulations. However the businesses and real estate are still, by and large, privately owned. The rules (like no penalty for shoplifting) suck, but that doesn’t make them SOSHALIZT. 

If you think high taxes, “DEI initiatives,” welfare spending, other “equity promoting” ideology are the basis for socialism explain why taxes were low in the USSR?

Everybody had a job in the USSR and “welfare” was legitimately only for those who needed it (disabled / too old to work). Hitler’s National Socialism put MORE THAN 20% of German working age men back to work and off of the streets / welfare / charity.
 

I am not seeing this as a defense of capitalism. Especially in light of the fact that it is poisoning our food supply and destroying the people's health. Higher PPP does not mollify me nor justify that. You have not proved the implied argument that the US being capitalist is the reason the US attracts investors. You have not argued that those investors would dry up, but for the existence of capitalism. Univariant analyses rarely render high integrity results. "We are capitalist; we attract investors" is more a recitation of observed reality than any sort of argument about how observed reality functions. You've related these facts far more casually than causally.

@Cannonpointer  I have to separate your responses otherwise it’s too long to reply in one sitting. 

1) My understanding is that we are using some measure of economic transactions as the gauge for SoL.

Yes, that inevitably means we don’t capture nuances like broken communities, the disintegration of families and neighborly ties, the historic rates of mental illness, addiction, and depression, etc. 

We are merely entertained with the task of ascertaining capitalism’s contribution to our current levels of PPP.

2) It’s true I have not proven a causation, merely a correlation. However, I have 2 counterpoints to this:

First of all, it is difficult to prove anything. So while I may fail to satisfy this burden, it does not bother me. I merely see a strong thread of evidence that capitalism has contributed to our high PPP, irrespective of its negative attributes you mentioned.

Second, as I mentioned in a previous post, if you attempt to hold as many other factors constant, you will (usually) see capitalist countries or nations outperforming their non-capitalist counterparts.

In the same era. With the same genetic stock. Etc. 

Now if you want a more thorough proof, which I will not provide because I am on a smartphone / too tired at midnight, I would entertain the idea of Marxist theory here. Marxist economics posits that wealth accumulation hyper accelerates under the capitalist phase, as its predecessor feudalism is done away with. This allows investors, merchants, and other money grubbing facets of society to try and take as much of the pie as possible (“market expansion”). This leads to creative changes in productivity and automation since capitalists try to crank out as much products as possible to maximize profit. (Leading to the LTRPF - long term tendency of the rate of profit to fall) 

Ford was a capitalist, yes? He invented some of the most efficient production / assembly line techniques that lasted for decades. Surely that is but one example of what I’m trying to prove.

This is more of the realm of economic theory which I am rusty in, maybe @FOS  can chime in. He is not pro-capitalist but I believe he would support this contention (that the desire to corner markets would drive innovation that leads to economic profit approaching zero and consumer surplus expansion). 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 28 Jul 2024, 1:20 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2024, 1:20 am

The fact that dishonesty precedes capitalism is hardly evidence against my argument. It is not at all necessary to poison the burger. A healthy burger will sell to the same market consuming the poisoned one. It's a choice made by the capitalists, to drum up business for their medical stranglehold. That institutional criminality, sanctioned by law, compares to a short con in no way that I can discern.

This question takes a bit of unpacking, because there are embedded issues that the question brushes right past. The biggest question is what the state of knowledge might be around health if knowledge around health were not being suppressed and even outlawed by capitalism - if it were not suppressed through white noise and propaganda intended to equate the use of pharmaceuticals with good health; if it were not geared to attack our health in order to create a market for it's pills and procedures.

Then, too, the government would not be running interference for the free enterpriser,. I do not believe that the poisoner would be as immune to consequences when exposed.

There are plenty of people in today's capitalist system who read that label and eschew that poison. But that is all they can do about it. In a free enterprise system, I believe they could make a big enough stink to shut that operator down for poisoning his customers. On top of that, in a free enterprise system, without wall street's lobbyists quite literally writing our laws, there is certainly a question whether these ingredients might be outlawed.

There are just way too many mangoes and kiwis in the mix to make any sort of apples to apples argument or comparison - way too many unknowns. What IS known is that giving us these poisons in a capitalist system pays dividends by helping the med-pharm business model. And that motive is extremely unlikely to exist in a free enterprise system. It is certainly possible that other motives would still exist - the chinaman using gutter oil isn't in bed with the local shaman (I assume the chinee use shamans, as they are savages). But at least these motives would not be institutional in nature, and they could be overcome through regulation.

Most of your contention revolves around capitalism’s ill effects on society, which I do not dispute. This includes institutionalizing all kinds of fraudulent behavior.

My response is this: it must be a miracle, then, that DESPITE all these cons and roadblocks that cause so much harm to individuals (lead in gasoline, asbestos in construction, microplastics in testicles, high fructose corn syrup, GMO foods) that people are still able to live in a high SOL country that uses this despised system. Doesn’t that just strengthen my argument more? 

Now, someday the capitalist system will collapse. Most likely (98% certainty) it will. Whatever we replace it with I have no idea.

However it doesn’t disprove the contention that, once again, DESPITE all these sins against everything holy and sanctified, capitalism’s contribution to PPP enables fatass Americans to DoorDash their chronic illness causing fast food and to enjoy a Sunday watching ****** dribbling or throwing a ball around by paying with FRNs.

Or credit card debt…
 

Cannonpointer » 28 Jul 2024, 2:06 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2024, 2:06 am

Yeah, well wall street crashed the economy. That's about the size of it. The equivalent in today's money of trillions disappeared.

I haven't heard where they went - maybe Houdini got them.

I believe that socialism was more to be credited. But here, we start counting the angels that can fit on the head of a pin. We start looking to distinguish WHAT IS SOCIALISM. Lol.

But let's just look at what he did. He built stuff, on public credit, using private labor and a good bit of private equipment. The stuff he built was useful, and still benefits society today. That is what brought us out of the depression, I believe. I prefer hitler's method, which was objectively superior. But his method worked.

Well, no, because FDR's game rules which built the middle class and made america great again were repudiated and scrapped by reagan and all who followed.

Well, but it did, actually. I grew up on a blacktop road in a **** part of a dirty little industrial town. On my block, there were an owner/operator of a sixteen wheeler, an owner/operator of a bulldozer, a home-based tree service, a home-based upholstery business, and a home-based pest control service. There may have been other business owners I was unaware of as a child.

There were foundry workers, to be sure; there were factory workers and nursery workers and other hirelings. But there were plenty of business owners with just a high school diploma. These were the people who created jobs and drove the economy. And under FDR's game rules, they did indeed flourish.

Socialism is when the state’s power over the economy surpasses that of private corporations and investors. This is not a terribly specific definition but it works for our purposes.

Social democracy as practiced in countries like Norway are somewhere in between. I would still classify them as capitalist, since private corps (mostly) get to do what they want but have to play by a stricter set of rules. 

FDR passed policies that MIGHT be considered “socialist.” However, as evidenced by events like the passage of the Wagner Act, FDR was more ideologically aligned with labor unionization and strikes to balance out the power between labor and capital rather than a hostile takeover of capital itself. 

Remember the conjob idiots who CLAIMED that Obama was a SOSHALIZT because he took over the Big Three? Well that was a blatant lie (which YOU of all people pointed out harshly at the time) since the goal was to RETURN those corps to private investors. 

Obama SAVED capitalists as well as investors.

FDR’s actions seem like he wanted more parity within the private sector, not for the State to dictate the economy as a whole. The USA “command economy” during WW2 was perhaps the closest the USA ever got to “socialism” but it did not last.
 
 

Cannonpointer » 28 Jul 2024, 2:16 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2024, 2:16 am

Okay. We're off to a good start on this one, as I see it the same way.

In a system that concentrates wealth at the top, the size of the investment pool is hardly a justification, unless you are at the top.

THESE barriers to entry are quite natural and understandable, though. They are not the fault of capitalism. Nor are they too great to be overcome within a free enterprise model. Free enterprisers are perfectly capable of generating investment monies. Speculators still like to speculate. Capital still exists and still seeks investment opportunities.

The artificial barriers to entry in industries that do and don't require a hundred million in startup costs are the problem.

I see no evidence you have presented or argument you have made suggesting that free enterprise would not attract investors. It seems an unexamined assumption.

Free enterprise can scale without the money pile that wall street affords. Pizza Hut was at scale before it went public. So was Dominos. So was Coca Cola. American Express was founded in 1850. It went public more than a hundred twenty years later in the 1970s. Texas Instruments started in 1930 and was at scale before it ever went public 23 years later.

None of those massive, nationwide companies, built and operated within a free enterprise system, required capitalism to scale. There are dozens of other examples. So the assumption that a free enterprise economy would not attract investors has no basis that I can see your having argued. Hell, communist china OUTLAWED capitalism and still attracted investors. There were people investing in China before the Yuan was fungible on the international market. There are investors pouring money into subsaharan africa, where the economic game rules aren't even discernable. Why in the world would investors run from a well-managed, peaceful-and-predictable free enterprise market regulated by a legal system derived from business-friendly English Common Law?

This was the post I was hinting at earlier. That is, free enterprise is capable of scaling but it is nowhere as easy to do so. And it is certainly much slower.

If you take a random sample of, say, 50 of the largest 20,000 companies today, I can assure you the VAST majority are not “free enterprise.” They are investor backed, publicly traded, or State owned. 

It goes back to something FOS mentioned to LibDave in their debate. The modern corporation (let’s define modern as anything past 1900) is not about profits. It’s just about power. Controlling market share and squeezing out competitors using any / all techniques available so only a few corps remain is their goal. 

Free enterprise MAY achieve scale, but it is much faster to have deep pockets (whether from some Jewish oligarchs or taxpayer funds) finance your enterprise. 

As for your examples, yes those were FE at some point in their lives. But they all converted to the Dark Side eventually…just ask Ray Kroc and his “vision” for Mickey D’s. 

Anyway, I think this has strayed away from the main subject at hand so I will not pursue this line any further. Even if you are right on point here, it doesn’t affect the outcome of the debate. 
 

Sumela » 28 Jul 2024, 8:35 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2024, 8:35 pm

Last legs?  The Tranny States of ***? :rofl:  
 

You converted from an Earth's Angel since conceived to a devil's advocate after birth. And your pride shows in every post.

LowIQTrash » 29 Jul 2024, 12:53 am » wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2024, 12:53 am

Most of your contention revolves around capitalism’s ill effects on society, which I do not dispute. This includes institutionalizing all kinds of fraudulent behavior.

My response is this: it must be a miracle, then, that DESPITE all these cons and roadblocks that cause so much harm to individuals (lead in gasoline, asbestos in construction, microplastics in testicles, high fructose corn syrup, GMO foods) that people are still able to live in a high SOL country that uses this despised system. Doesn’t that just strengthen my argument more?

Not at all. Lifespans are diminishing. SOL is diminishing. It wasn't until Reagan that the muzzle started coming off, and it wasn't until the very end of clinton that glass-steagall was repealed. We're talking 1999, taking effect in 2000 I believe.

In truth, they have moved with alarming speed in deconstructing the middle class. They've created an entire industry out of slave labor in our prisons - which they fill to capacity and beyond. They're neutering children and sponsoring street riots. They're destroying society right before your eyes. They're putting women into rape rooms as often as they can and with growing frequency.. We are sick and fat and dysfunctional on every level. If you consider the fact that we are not YET starving a high SOL, you definitely need to get a passport and go to some "poor" countries. What they lack in consumer goods they make up for in leisure time and in almost every other metric.

LowIQTrash » 29 Jul 2024, 12:53 am » wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2024, 12:53 am

Now, someday the capitalist system will collapse. Most likely (98% certainty) it will. Whatever we replace it with I have no idea.

However it doesn’t disprove the contention that, once again, DESPITE all these sins against everything holy and sanctified, capitalism’s contribution to PPP enables fatass Americans to DoorDash their chronic illness causing fast food and to enjoy a Sunday watching ****** dribbling or throwing a ball around by paying with FRNs.

Or credit card debt…

Yeah, I'm not really seeing the value in this. What we HAD under FDR's muzzling of the capitalists and freeing of free enterprise was stay at home moms, because one job bought a house and a car and medical care and a reasonable amount of leisure and consumer goods. We could go to the doctor and pay him for his work - like they can in Mexico. We had bridges and schools and government institutions that could be trusted We had the rule of law. We had stable employment that paid a living wage. I don't think replacing that with door dash and subsidized sloth is something to marvel at or count as a positive "achievement" of capitalism.
 

LowIQTrash » 29 Jul 2024, 1:05 am » wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2024, 1:05 am

Socialism is when the state’s power over the economy surpasses that of private corporations and investors. This is not a terribly specific definition but it works for our purposes.

Social democracy as practiced in countries like Norway are somewhere in between. I would still classify them as capitalist, since private corps (mostly) get to do what they want but have to play by a stricter set of rules. 

FDR passed policies that MIGHT be considered “socialist.” However, as evidenced by events like the passage of the Wagner Act, FDR was more ideologically aligned with labor unionization and strikes to balance out the power between labor and capital rather than a hostile takeover of capital itself. 

Remember the conjob idiots who CLAIMED that Obama was a SOSHALIZT because he took over the Big Three? Well that was a blatant lie (which YOU of all people pointed out harshly at the time) since the goal was to RETURN those corps to private investors. 

Obama SAVED capitalists as well as investors.

FDR’s actions seem like he wanted more parity within the private sector, not for the State to dictate the economy as a whole. The USA “command economy” during WW2 was perhaps the closest the USA ever got to “socialism” but it did not last.

I never intended to imply that the US is or has ever been socialist.

FDR's intention was to save capitalism FROM socialism - which actually posed a threat when FDR came to power. Folks were miffed and peeved at the recent - and ongoing - *** ****.. FDR got real busy real quick un-***-**** the white population. Blacks were in check, so they got nothing from him as far as I know. 
 

LowIQTrash » 29 Jul 2024, 1:14 am » wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2024, 1:14 am

This was the post I was hinting at earlier. That is, free enterprise is capable of scaling but it is nowhere as easy to do so. And it is certainly much slower.

In general it is slower - but so what? If conditions require free enterprise to get to scale quickly, it can do so. That's what happened when the TVA and Bay Bridge and Hoover Dam needed building.

LowIQTrash » 29 Jul 2024, 1:14 am » wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2024, 1:14 am

If you take a random sample of, say, 50 of the largest 20,000 companies today, I can assure you the VAST majority are not “free enterprise.” They are investor backed, publicly traded, or State owned.

Investor-backed is not outside of free enterprise. There are thousands of free enterprise companies that are investor backed. Hell, most mom and pops have a mother in law in the woodpile.

LowIQTrash » 29 Jul 2024, 1:14 am » wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2024, 1:14 am

It goes back to something FOS mentioned to LibDave in their debate. The modern corporation (let’s define modern as anything past 1900) is not about profits. It’s just about power. Controlling market share and squeezing out competitors using any / all techniques available so only a few corps remain is their goal.

Are you DEFENDING capitalism, or joining my team, here?

You just bit your own argument in the arse with both teeth, sir.

LowIQTrash » 29 Jul 2024, 1:14 am » wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2024, 1:14 am

Free enterprise MAY achieve scale, but it is much faster to have deep pockets (whether from some Jewish oligarchs or taxpayer funds) finance your enterprise.

And faster is better becaaaause...???

Having someone monopolize the market is not a positive thing. Having competition - REAL competition - is what makes the market, and those it serves, healthy and happy and positive for society. I really cannot see where these arguments bolster your case that capitalism comes with benefits that free enterprise cannot provide. Killing free enterprise is NOT a benefit. Scaling to corner the market is NOT a benefit. It is NOT good for the country or its people. It removes choice and with it, freedom.

LowIQTrash » 29 Jul 2024, 1:14 am » wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2024, 1:14 am

As for your examples, yes those were FE at some point in their lives. But they all converted to the Dark Side eventually…just ask Ray Kroc and his “vision” for Mickey D’s. 

Anyway, I think this has strayed away from the main subject at hand so I will not pursue this line any further. Even if you are right on point here, it doesn’t affect the outcome of the debate.

I think it does, though. You just acknowledged that everything capitalism brings to the party is negative. Unless you can name something capitalism brings that doesn't suck, I don't think you have defended it.

And please, be clear: Pointing out that capitalism and high PPP exist in the same time/space, and proving a causal relationship, are two very different things. You have done the one, but if you have done the other, I missed it entirely.
 

Cannonpointer » 29 Jul 2024, 7:47 am » wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2024, 7:47 am

Not at all. Lifespans are diminishing. SOL is diminishing. It wasn't until Reagan that the muzzle started coming off, and it wasn't until the very end of clinton that glass-steagall was repealed. We're talking 1999, taking effect in 2000 I believe.

In truth, they have moved with alarming speed in deconstructing the middle class. They've created an entire industry out of slave labor in our prisons - which they fill to capacity and beyond. They're neutering children and sponsoring street riots. They're destroying society right before your eyes. They're putting women into rape rooms as often as they can and with growing frequency.. We are sick and fat and dysfunctional on every level. If you consider the fact that we are not YET starving a high SOL, you definitely need to get a passport and go to some "poor" countries. What they lack in consumer goods they make up for in leisure time and in almost every other metric.


Yeah, I'm not really seeing the value in this. What we HAD under FDR's muzzling of the capitalists and freeing of free enterprise was stay at home moms, because one job bought a house and a car and medical care and a reasonable amount of leisure and consumer goods. We could go to the doctor and pay him for his work - like they can in Mexico. We had bridges and schools and government institutions that could be trusted We had the rule of law. We had stable employment that paid a living wage. I don't think replacing that with door dash and subsidized sloth is something to marvel at or count as a positive "achievement" of capitalism.
 

Use grandparent generation as middle class evolving among the 5 generations alive today changing people in each daily and still one species population changes form between all 5 relative to rotation conceived, becomes after birth until dead. And with evolving and ancestral lineages once a person becomes a parent every next generation gap of offsprings ups the generation gaps left behind of the 5 still working today.

LowIQTrash » 29 Jul 2024, 12:41 am » wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2024, 12:41 am

@Cannonpointer  I have to separate your responses otherwise it’s too long to reply in one sitting. 

1) My understanding is that we are using some measure of economic transactions as the gauge for SoL.

Yes, that inevitably means we don’t capture nuances like broken communities, the disintegration of families and neighborly ties, the historic rates of mental illness, addiction, and depression, etc. 

We are merely entertained with the task of ascertaining capitalism’s contribution to our current levels of PPP.

I don't think that's a very useful argument to make, though. Do you?

Don't get me wrong - I dispute it, and am willing to flesh that out. In fact, I think that I have been fleshing that out.

So, let me retract. Let's just argue that, since it's capitalism's last hiding place. I just want to put a caveat in here: Even if capitalism WERE responsible for high PPP, I still think it needs to go, and high PPP be damned.

But since others might disagree with that value statement, let's go ahead and argue the math - the better to damn capitalism in the eyes even of those with twisted values.

LowIQTrash » 29 Jul 2024, 12:41 am » wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2024, 12:41 am

2) It’s true I have not proven a causation, merely a correlation. However, I have 2 counterpoints to this:

First of all, it is difficult to prove anything. So while I may fail to satisfy this burden, it does not bother me. I merely see a strong thread of evidence that capitalism has contributed to our high PPP, irrespective of its negative attributes you mentioned.

Second, as I mentioned in a previous post, if you attempt to hold as many other factors constant, you will (usually) see capitalist countries or nations outperforming their non-capitalist counterparts.

You will usually see them in the northern hemisphere. You will usually see them peopled by whites. Even in asia, it's the white asians that people high PPP capitalist nations, with the exception of india, which is peopled by browns and does very poorly under capitalism. I can make a stronger case that race is the root cause than you can that capitalism is. Capitalist nations people by nonwhites do no better than other nonwhite nations. Indeed, what is Guatemala, if it isn't capitlaist? Haiti? Colombia? Peru? Mexico? Aren't all of these capitalist? Why don't THEY have high PPP?

LowIQTrash » 29 Jul 2024, 12:41 am » wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2024, 12:41 am

In the same era. With the same genetic stock. Etc. 

Now if you want a more thorough proof, which I will not provide because I am on a smartphone / too tired at midnight, I would entertain the idea of Marxist theory here. Marxist economics posits that wealth accumulation hyper accelerates under the capitalist phase, as its predecessor feudalism is done away with. This allows investors, merchants, and other money grubbing facets of society to try and take as much of the pie as possible (“market expansion”). This leads to creative changes in productivity and automation since capitalists try to crank out as much products as possible to maximize profit. (Leading to the LTRPF - long term tendency of the rate of profit to fall)

We're back to technology being more at cause than economic system. America was far more productive under FDR's game rules in ANY apples-to-apples comparison. Of course, this would necessarily control for the advent of computers. But given that today it takes three highly skilled people working full time to support a two person household, and in the sixties one high school grad could support four or five on a single job, it's tough to argue workers are MORE productive now than then.

Continued, for want of space.
 

LowIQTrash » 29 Jul 2024, 12:41 am » wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2024, 12:41 am

Ford was a capitalist, yes?

No.

LowIQTrash » 29 Jul 2024, 12:41 am » wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2024, 12:41 am

He invented some of the most efficient production / assembly line techniques that lasted for decades. Surely that is but one example of what I’m trying to prove.

No, it's an example of what I am trying to prove. Ford was a free enterpriser that went to scale without wall street's assistance.

His **** heel kids went public to cash in. That's why people go public. Not to "get to scale." If you're not at scale already, you're not invited to the party. Exceptions exist for certain bloodlines, but these exceptions are rare and prove the rule. Just for clarity, Facebook and Reddit were not profitable when they cashed in - but they absolutely were at scale. And they were USEFUL for profits, producing them though they were not.

LowIQTrash » 29 Jul 2024, 12:41 am » wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2024, 12:41 am

This is more of the realm of economic theory which I am rusty in, maybe @FOS  can chime in. He is not pro-capitalist but I believe he would support this contention (that the desire to corner markets would drive innovation that leads to economic profit approaching zero and consumer surplus expansion).

The desire to corner markets leads only to one thing: the corruption of public officials. The entire reason to corner a market is to AVOID useful activity. In what world are petty thieves useful to society?

I have an answer to that rhetorical question: In the same world where great thieves are. Which is a world other than this one.

Free enterprise has got us every good thing. As it is diminished, so are we. Capitalism is a cancer. As it grows, we are sickened in every domain. EVERY domain, bar none. Without capitalism, we would still be productive. And by this, I mean producing real goods that the world desires. Not only would we have high PPP, but that high PPP would be sustainable without military conquest of markets. 

 And please, let me remind you: What we are calling capitalism is quite newer than the term capitalism. When that term was coined, capitalist corporations were not minted without two things:

1. An inarguable public purpose to serve - like building railroads; and 
2. A death certificate. That is, a set time when the corporate license expired.

The raison d'etre could NEVER be "to make a profit for our shareholders." That simply was not a valid reason to be granted a corporate charter.

So, like with socialism, when we talk about capitalism, the use of the term can get might **** tricky, mighty **** fast. I would never make the same argument against THAT capitalism that I make against THIS capitalism. That incarnation of capitalism was a slave, inferior to a human being. It had privileges only - no rights whatsoever. It could be kicked to the curb and denied operation in any municipality that so desired. 

 
 

LowIQTrash » 29 Jul 2024, 12:41 am » wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2024, 12:41 am

@Cannonpointer  I have to separate your responses otherwise it’s too long to reply in one sitting. 

1) My understanding is that we are using some measure of economic transactions as the gauge for SoL.

Yes, that inevitably means we don’t capture nuances like broken communities, the disintegration of families and neighborly ties, the historic rates of mental illness, addiction, and depression, etc. 

We are merely entertained with the task of ascertaining capitalism’s contribution to our current levels of PPP.

2) It’s true I have not proven a causation, merely a correlation. However, I have 2 counterpoints to this:

First of all, it is difficult to prove anything. So while I may fail to satisfy this burden, it does not bother me. I merely see a strong thread of evidence that capitalism has contributed to our high PPP, irrespective of its negative attributes you mentioned.

Second, as I mentioned in a previous post, if you attempt to hold as many other factors constant, you will (usually) see capitalist countries or nations outperforming their non-capitalist counterparts.

In the same era. With the same genetic stock. Etc. 

Now if you want a more thorough proof, which I will not provide because I am on a smartphone / too tired at midnight, I would entertain the idea of Marxist theory here. Marxist economics posits that wealth accumulation hyper accelerates under the capitalist phase, as its predecessor feudalism is done away with. This allows investors, merchants, and other money grubbing facets of society to try and take as much of the pie as possible (“market expansion”). This leads to creative changes in productivity and automation since capitalists try to crank out as much products as possible to maximize profit. (Leading to the LTRPF - long term tendency of the rate of profit to fall) 

Ford was a capitalist, yes? He invented some of the most efficient production / assembly line techniques that lasted for decades. Surely that is but one example of what I’m trying to prove.

This is more of the realm of economic theory which I am rusty in, maybe @FOS  can chime in. He is not pro-capitalist but I believe he would support this contention (that the desire to corner markets would drive innovation that leads to economic profit approaching zero and consumer surplus expansion).

Innovation simply does not work like it used to.

There has been a huge explosion of information over the past hundred years. Far more than any single individual can keep up with. This has resulted in increased specialization and extremely niche areas of expertise.

Single individuals simply cannot produce significant innovation anymore. If fact it would take a lifetime for them to simply learn about ehat is already known on the subject.

National socialists recognized this, and their culture of innovation revolves around collaboration and teams, rather than the work of single individuals. That is why they were years ahead on us in nuclear fission power, jet propulsion, and indeed we had to kidnap their scientists to manage rockets.

The German team was in fact impressed with how much Richard Goddard managed to do on his own...but he was nowhere near constructing a functional rocket. And the incentive structure of the usa with individual profit and glory is simply not conducive to teamwork and collaboration...we cannot manage to do that well.
 
 
 

FOS » 29 Jul 2024, 9:11 am » wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2024, 9:11 am

Innovation simply does not work like it used to.

There has been a huge explosion of information over the past hundred years. Far more than any single individual can keep up with. This has resulted in increased specialization and extremely niche areas of expertise.

Single individuals simply cannot produce significant innovation anymore. If fact it would take a lifetime for them to simply learn about ehat is already known on the subject.

National socialists recognized this, and their culture of innovation revolves around collaboration and teams, rather than the work of single individuals. That is why they were years ahead on us in nuclear fission power, jet propulsion, and indeed we had to kidnap their scientists to manage rockets.

The German team was in fact impressed with how much Richard Goddard managed to do on his own...but he was nowhere near constructing a functional rocket. And the incentive structure of the usa with individual profit and glory is simply not conducive to teamwork and collaboration...we cannot manage to do that well.

This is a bit off topic, but this ^ is why I have always practiced nepotism. Because even in old school, low-innovation enterprises, I never saw an individual worker's merits outside of how well he fit in the team. If you gave me a choice between a fellow who was a 6.5 on paper or a fellow who was a 10, their relative merits in theory were far less important to me than their relationship to the team. Because everything I ever produced was produced by teams - not by individuals. 

If that 10-on-paper is a stranger and that 6.5 is a relative of a team member in solid standing, the 10 will be met with neutrality AT BEST, whereas the 6.5 will be introduced to great applause - a hale fellow well met moment of actual joy within the team.

"You're Bob's kid? I hope you're a better worker than he is" - and laughter all around. Everyone on a well managed team is managed by himself, managed by the eyes of the team, managed by the importance of how he is perceived. That 10? Him I gotta watch. That 6.5 has a name to live up to and a dad to not embarrass. He is his own cop. 

Teamwork makes the dream work, and there is no i in idiot. 
 

FOS » 29 Jul 2024, 9:11 am » wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2024, 9:11 am

Innovation simply does not work like it used to.

There has been a huge explosion of information over the past hundred years. Far more than any single individual can keep up with. This has resulted in increased specialization and extremely niche areas of expertise.

Single individuals simply cannot produce significant innovation anymore. If fact it would take a lifetime for them to simply learn about ehat is already known on the subject.

National socialists recognized this, and their culture of innovation revolves around collaboration and teams, rather than the work of single individuals. That is why they were years ahead on us in nuclear fission power, jet propulsion, and indeed we had to kidnap their scientists to manage rockets.

The German team was in fact impressed with how much Richard Goddard managed to do on his own...but he was nowhere near constructing a functional rocket. And the incentive structure of the usa with individual profit and glory is simply not conducive to teamwork and collaboration...we cannot manage to do that well.
 

Just another post denying how evolving happens naturally.

FOS » 29 Jul 2024, 9:11 am » wrote: ↑

29 Jul 2024, 9:11 am

Innovation simply does not work like it used to.

There has been a huge explosion of information over the past hundred years. Far more than any single individual can keep up with. This has resulted in increased specialization and extremely niche areas of expertise.

Single individuals simply cannot produce significant innovation anymore. If fact it would take a lifetime for them to simply learn about ehat is already known on the subject.

National socialists recognized this, and their culture of innovation revolves around collaboration and teams, rather than the work of single individuals. That is why they were years ahead on us in nuclear fission power, jet propulsion, and indeed we had to kidnap their scientists to manage rockets.

The German team was in fact impressed with how much Richard Goddard managed to do on his own...but he was nowhere near constructing a functional rocket. And the incentive structure of the usa with individual profit and glory is simply not conducive to teamwork and collaboration...we cannot manage to do that well.

Then I would add a caveat to my previous statement, which is that in a bygone era (like the 1850s) this model of individual competition did produce results conducive to "economic growth" and higher SoL, which is in line with what I am arguing. The fact that it is no longer functional (or suboptimal at best) just means that capitalism served its historical purpose. 

As an off topic - sometimes I wonder if it would've been more difficult to try and invent something back in 1830 vs today...at least the competition back then was less severe (But you had other problems to deal with like communicable diseases potentially shortening your lifespan, no safety net to fall back on if your parents didn't come from money, etc.)