Message Board Archives

1. that outsourcing everything is a bad idea?

2. that having people work in difficult conditions is not good?

3. that you are not as powerful as the ordinary john doe walking around with his corona?

4. that you are only a virus away from total mash up?

5. that universal basic income is a good thing for the economy and people's lives

what do you capitalists think?

what do you socialists think?

In reply to doosra

It is times like this I remember the words of the inimitable Robert Nesta Marley:
THE BIGGEST MOST POWERFUL PERSON WAS AT ONE TIME,A LITTLE TINY BABY,SO WHERE DEM GET ALL DAT POWER FROM!!

In reply to doosra
I think difficult times can bring sobriety and perspective to a lot a people – Dukes Marley reference captures it all

In reply to doosra

how to get richer

First, you will have to contend with the logic of outsourcing, and second, explain the link between the practice and the Black Swan event that is Corona.



Is this is capitalist problem? If so, how, and what evidence do you rely on?



Who is "you"?



Are socialists not humans,too?



What would this look like? Who would pay for it? What are the unintended consequences? What hard evidence do you have the ordinary folk will be better off, in the long-run?

In reply to sudden

Unfortunately that’s also a axiom

In reply to doosra

Thinking caring people should realize that we need a far better economic and governmental system. BIG changes are required. Greedy hateful people, and there are a lot of them, will only consider themselves and what can make things better for them. Until more people consider the welfare of the whole as priority #1 we will continue to have a system that is great for a few ok for some and very inadequate for many.

In reply to sudden

How many sectors, in any economy, are actually benefiting from Corona right now?

In reply to Sangfroid

let me read what Sowell has to say about that. will get back to you

In reply to Oilah

A fatal mistake made by many anti-capitalists is to assume that good intentions give rise to good results. Sadly for them, the evidence does not favour socialism in this regard. Another is the faulty reasoning that humans, in general, are altruistic, as opposed to self-interested. I'm not convinced this is so. And yet another, is to ascribe to capitalism moral and/or immoral attributes. Capitalism is simply an economic system, it does not, and cannot distinguish between right and wrong. Humans, however, can...

In reply to sudden

Good boy, you're catching on...evidence over rhetoric.

What many of the capitalist will be thinking is that if they do some good research now they can be much richer a year from now.

In reply to Sangfroid

thanks but all the praise should go to Sowell

In reply to Oilah

I totally agree with your Assessmment !

In reply to sudden

So proud of you, for recognising this.

In reply to dayne

You are absolutely correct . It is all
about how they can enrich themselves
even more .

They adhere to the Principle that :

" THE POOR WILL ALWAYS BE WITH US ".

Therefore let US enrich only Ourselves.

In reply to POINT

True, and while at it, solving some of the greatest challenges of humanity. Those nasty, greedy capitalists! How dare they be motivated by self-interest while the rest of us hold hands and sing songs of freedom

In reply to Sangfroid

Market pros are making tons of money. The options holders, those who took short positions. Definitely making a bag of cash.

The Porn industry. With all the people shut in, they have to find something to do.

Amazon, which is an industry in and of itself.

Walmart, for you guys who are looking for good stocks, buy Walmart, because this Pandemic will change the way the entire world lives far into the future.

BTW, to be a CAPITALIST, you have to have ACCESS to CAPITAL. Meaning you have to have CAPITAL, leveraged and otherwise to be able to take advantage of opportunities in the regular ebb and flow of trade. If you don't have access to CAPITAL then you cannot be a Capitalist. You're just prey.

In reply to Larr Pullo

By sectors, I meant in the real economy. People in finance will make money in any environment.



All true, no doubt. But in the main, the US economy is probably already in a recession and most businesses just want this to go away.

In reply to Larr Pullo

Can I have your $1000.00 so I can buy Walmart stocks!

In reply to Larr Pullo

Environmentalists tout factory shutdowns as good for the environment. The water runs cleaner and dolphins are returning to the bays in Venice.

Who knows? Next we'll celebrate deaths due to virus.

In reply to Larr Pullo

Hmm...going by your definition, who here can honestly say she doesn't have access to capital? One can start a Robinhood account with as little as $500 (I think), and get leverage,too! Add a little education and mentoring, anyone with desire and skill can make that capital grow! Of course, if you're a socialist, I'm just talking hogwash...and this is just another capitalist plot to take advantage of the underprivileged The stories people tell themselves...

In reply to doosra

This pandemic has been good for the environment.

Venice now has clear water. Air in Beijing and New York less polluted.

Capitalism is the enemy of the environment.

In reply to StumpCam

The devil is in the details. We might never see the promised $1000.

In reply to mikesiva

The pandemic also makes the case of isolationism! America First! No more One World or Global Economy!

In reply to Sangfroid

You really think so? Until you run into the man with 500 million who could make your 500 disappear at the click of a mouse.

In reply to dayne

You are Right on the Money !!!!!!!!

In reply to Larr Pullo

I do, actually. Trading success has more to do with psychology and skill, not account size. Of course having a large account helps with compounding, but the account itself will not make you a successful trader.

In reply to StumpCam

Definitely countries will be taking a closer lok at their supply chain for essential goods. Like drugs and hospital equipment for one. America is way more vulnerable that say Germany because they still have a huge manufacturing base, AND they also balanced their Federal budget as required by Law. So they are well placed t run a deficit if need be. The USA on the other hand, has no recourse other than to dig a deeper hole.

In reply to Sangfroid

How long would it take you to turn 500 into 50K? Assuming you're a working man and not a day trader or something.

In reply to Larr Pullo

America can always go back to South of the Border for their manufacturing needs!

In reply to Sangfroid

YOU are absolutely correct in your Assessment . Capitalism is about making
MONEY . It aint about being considerate
to Employees .

It is about getting what You want done
for the least money you have to shell
out .

CHEAP LABOUR IS THE NAME OF THE GAME.

In reply to Larr Pullo

This what I have been led to believe: 1. Roughly 90% of traders fail, 2. Swing-trading can be as lucrative, if not more lucrative than day-trading. So, to your question: I cannot give you an answer because I don't have the data. With a good system and psychology, however, you can make that $500 grow substantially. Success here is measured in % terms, not absolute values. So, with 2:1 leverage, your $500 would have grown, roughly, to $300 last year if invested in the SPY, a 60% ROE (excluding interest).

In reply to doosra

Where is pelon anyway?

Would love to hear his take/response to your questions and to the topic on a whole.

In reply to Sangfroid

I really don't have a disagreement with you but notice I stayed away from the terminology of capitalism and socialism. Firstly I don't think most people know enough to use the terms in any meaningful way. Moreover the terminology acts like a catalyst promoting ignorance and tribalism. Folks retreat to their respective camps and then don't deal with the issues but instead start firing shots at the opposition. Capitalism and socialism are human constructs and as a result are flawed. The problems facing society have to be tackled by intelligent people of goodwill. Some problems may be better dealt with by a process that 'looks' more like capitalism and some better addressed by a socialist construct. Some problems may need totally new and novel approaches. In short there is no one system that is THE ONE.

In reply to Oilah

All true, but all things considered, socialism has little on capitalism in terms of uplifting the poor, as counter-intuitive as that may seem.

In reply to Sangfroid

I vehemently disagree with that statement. EG Germany which practices Democratic Socialism ensures that the Govt plays a hand in the distribution of "wealth" via taxation of those who can be termed capitalist, they control the means of production etc.. The Govt ensures that no one is left too far behind, and that all jobs pay a living wage, drug prices are controlled, and access to good healthcare is guaranteed to all.

In reply to doosra

How to rob taxpayers even better than last time

In reply to Larr Pullo

It is not a matter of opinion, but evidence:



Link Text

Add India in the mix, the greatest improvements in the human condition have been seen in these two countries after transitioning to freer markets. The evidence is clear.



I think you mean a social democracy, as opposed to democratic socialism. Socialism means the means of production are in the hands of the state. A social democracy is essentially a capitalist state with significant social safety nets e.g. Scandinavia, Germany, etc. In other words, you need free markets to generate the wealth you wish to "distribute". Socialism does not create wealth, it destroys it. BTW, the US also taxes and funds welfare programs, so this is not unique to the so-called social democracies.



I can't talk to what Germany actually does, but every time I come across the term "living wage", I cringe. Nobody seems to be able to pin it down to something I can understand. It's a mere buzz word for progressives, which means absolutely anything they wish it to mean. Can you say how drug prices are controlled and how does Germany's healthcare system compare to the US? Is it more innovative, for example?

Addressing the headline, how to be socialist?

BREAKING: The White House's coronavirus stimulus plan could see every American get two $1,000 checks from the government within nine weeks, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said Thursday.

In reply to Sangfroid

I would say it is better than in the USA it is definitely more accessible, and as for innovative, remember Trump was trying to buy a German company to gain exclusive access to a vaccine.

Yes I take your point about Social Democracy. These countries have found a balance in allowing the free markets to flourish, BUT not at the expense of everyone else, while the 1% get filthy rich, and everyone else scrambles for crumbs.

Another thing, since you are on the topic of Germany, it would be interesting to look at the relative standards of living between East and West Germany before reunification. There is so much evidence that points to the failure of socialism, yet people choose to deceive themselves.

In reply to Sangfroid

East Germany was Communist. No comparison still.

In reply to Sangfroid

I don't know the data but if your argument is true shouldn't the number of poor in the USA be a lot lower and decreasing over time?

In reply to Larr Pullo

I doubt that Germany is more innovative than the US in healthcare. I will need to see the evidence. As regards Trump, I'm sure you know, one swallow doesn't make a summer.




I'm yet to see convincing evidence that the benefits of free markets come at the expense of the poor, the so-called fixed pie fallacy. Also, hope you recognise, that "the top 1%" in America includes university professors and some media personnel. After progressives realised this, they changed the rhetoric to the top 0.1%

In reply to Larr Pullo

Communist = socialism,no?

In reply to Oilah

I don't know the data in the US. Do you? What I'm sure of is free markets have taken at least a billion people out of poverty over the last 25 years or so, and inequality between nations has actually narrowed because of it. You wouldn't get that from the leftist media, though. Capitalism has become a metaphor for greed and being inhumane.

In reply to Sangfroid

Actually social democracy and democratic socialism are actually the same thing, it just depends on who is using the definitions and how.For all things in the social realm there are a variety of definitions so capitalism and socialism run a spectrum depending on whether the definition is purely economic or more sociopolitical.

A purely economic view of socialism sees socialism as a planned, government run economy. However, a more sociopolitical view is what is called in Europe social democracy and democratic socialism by the Manleys for example where there is a role for private enterprise but also strong government intervention.

Most democracies are really social democracies leaning closer to socialism or capitalism. The German, French and Nordic models lie closer to the intent of socialism of greater equality whereas the Anglo-American model leans closer to the capitalist model of greater power and freer reign to corporations.

In reply to michaelmax

Well defined.

In reply to Sangfroid

No - go tell that to the people of Denmark - they'll laugh in your face

In reply to Sangfroid

No!

In reply to Chrissy

This went totally over my head...East Germany wasn't in fact, socialist? Not sure the relevance of Denmark or any other Scandinavian country in this discussion. Care to shed light?

In reply to Larr Pullo

BS: "Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources...This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed."

Link Text

Socialism has always meant state (public) ownership of resources. Communism is not an economic system, but a political system - a one-party state. For example, while China embraces communism, over the years, it has transitioned from socialism to capitalism.

Indeed, if I were to accept your definition, then socialism never existed, anywhere in the world!

In reply to Sangfroid

That's from the same article I quoted earlier. They are directly referencing Karl Marx, the inventor of communism.



No, IMO Socialism deals more with the distribution of the OUTPUT of production whether state ro privately owned.

In reply to Sangfroid

Whatever - there are several varieties of socialism

In reply to Sangfroid

Why? You said capitalism has no morality but capitalists are people and many people are morally corrupt.

History has its examples of policy that shafts the poor and bends over backwards to take care of the suffering rich. When you have a system that legally allows the super rich to make more in a day than tens of thousands of working people make in a year. When with clear evidence to the contrary Governments are still pushing trickle down economics...making the rich richer and the poor scrambling for crumbs. Wealth equals power and power looks after itself first.

In reply to michaelmax

They are not:

Link Text

On other hand, democratic socialism is socialism (state ownership of resources) via the ballot.

In reply to Chrissy

And the corollary is, there are several varieties of capitalism? What you don't seem to realise is that what the left calls "social democracy" is essentially a capitalist state with safety nets...sorry I had to break the news to you

In reply to Larr Pullo

And how is "distribution" possible without the coercive power of the state?

I see what you people are doing...lol....your definition of socialism is shifting, to distract from its failures. A kind of, no true Scotsman fallacy

In reply to Oilah

True, but to arrive at the conclusion that capitalist are "bad", and socialist are "good", you have to tell me which capitalists are bad and which socialist is good. To simply say capitalists are greedy or bad is rather silly.



I'm not sure how to unpack this, or where to start. I will repeat, based on the evidence, free markets have done more for the poor compared to socialism.

Nothing.

I read in a communist book that "The capitalist cares only about two books - his Bible and his checkbook"!

I thought it was funny back then, but it has proven to be true more often than I thought.

We can argue until we are blue, but capitalism promises nothing to anyone. It is totally devoid of an obligation for men to deliberately improve the lots of other men.

Communism is about men deliberately working together to improve the lot of everyone, but it currently has a serious flaw. In practice, Communists never give up power to the people, as required for communism to truly exist.

FORTUNATELY, capitalism self-destructs, and men have yet another chance to start over and hopefully get it right.

OK. Allyuh could now get back to allyuh link wars and give that hat stand a rest ...

Milton Friedman: "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results"

In reply to Larr Pullo

Bingo. Some people just like to philosophize.... Anyone can do this anyone can do that....not reality.

That is the talk of swindlers.

And just to rub it in, here is some more:

In reply to Ayenmol

If you were paying attention, you would have seen the caveat: roughly, 90% of traders lose money. If you want guarantees in life, vote for a socialist govt. You will get lots of "free" stuff.

In reply to Sangfroid

Isn't that the point Pullo is making? And the opposite of your point?

I have made similar points in addressing those who love to boast of their Stock Market prowess.

How much of the World's population are billionaires? less than 1%?

Then the ultra rich?

So 100% minus 90% leaves what? Not the Billionaires and ultra Rich? So isn't Pullo right? One click and the $500 dollars you mentioned is all it takes to get in....will be gone?

The Stock Market benefits a few people....they control it all...they pull you in, they push you out....all to their benefit.