Some insight into problems with market economy

[cottonpicken]

Tom,i dont know what the hell your trying to say.

[cottonpicken]

I have thought about your point before Fran and have heard an interesting theory of the relationship of political people being narcisists(spelling).

[vagabonddreamer]

O let me tell YOU i have studied my history...the US in fact DID become the richest nation on earth because of pure capitalism...but tell me...do you think it was all with an unsullied reputation?? do you think that the value/cost of human life was ever factored into their equation?? they did it on the backs of slavery and cheap immigrant labour... and a foreign policy that new no limitations....usury in its most pure and unadulterated form...

all i am saying...is that pure large "C" capitalism will never sustain a modern society...not a society with conscience...do you think you can achieve pure democracy along WITH pure capitalism??? or will there EVER be a pure form of either??

i WILL agree with the concept of fundemental lack of vision with respect to politicians and politics in general...whether it be narcisism or ignorance or a little of both...vs

[Fransisco]

Dreamer, the US was one of the first countries in the world to abolish slavery. By contrast slavery can still be found in Mali, Africa, Mauritania, Niger, the Ivory Coast, Myanmar and many other countries. How come they aren't richer than the US? Using your line of reasoning they should be.

[vagabonddreamer]

Slavery was only one component of an assembly of economic fundamentals that allowed the US to become the Nation they are today...but dont fool yourself as to its importance at the time it was happening...not unlike the chinese and the railways....the difference between the countries you listed and the US is that the US did truly USE the slaves for capitalistic reasons...the third world countries you listed...use slavery as a means to control a populace and oppress political will...

and by the very act of aboloshing slavery the US did water down capitalism in its most pure sense...capitalism does not have a "concience" so in its pure form...the US should have continued non-emancipatorial policies...thank you Francisco for helping me with my point...that...pure large "C" capitalism cannot exist a society...i dont particularly hold a Keynesian view on societal function...i just know..that there are people in every society that need to be tended to and cared for...and that cannot be done under a pure capitalist system...vs

[sumdumguy]

We all lived pretty high on the hog for a nation who only produces raw materials. I have not seen any consumer good lately that does not come from China, in whole or in part.

How can we sustain this nonproductive economy? See any new flour mills or pasta plants on the prairies yet? Because we have let ourselves be controlled by the profit takers, we have willingly given up our greatest asset- invention and productivity. Really, how much effort have we exerted in the fight for freedom to vertically integrate?

When our American farmer friends build an on-farm flour mill and bakery on their farm at Wheat Montana, do you think they have to fight off the vultures like we do? Me thinks we should be shouting on the roof tops.
Keyne's theories are being put to the ultimate test right now, but the pioneering spirit that formed wheat country is really being put to the test every day, every year in the designated area of Canada. I rest my case.

[Fransisco]

Dreamer, you're a typical socialist. Someone points out the contradiction in your own thinking and evidence and you somehow believe it proves your own point. It doesn't.

Here is the definition of Capitalism that I like to use.

"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control."

And as such is the only truly moral and ethical system of government. There would be nothing stopping you or anyone else from tending or caring for those in society that you believe need it in a pure Capitalistic society. The only restriction is that you can not take something from someone else by force for ANY reason.

The abolition of slavery did not water down Capitalism as you claim. To the contrary recognition of individual rights is central to actual true Capitalism. That is were it's morality comes from, besides which free men are far more productive than slaves.

[cottonpicken]

Were all about to become slaves of the government.

[vagabonddreamer]

here i was under the impression we already ARE slaves to the government..lol

its definitely a switch being called socialist...and a "typical" socialist to boot...most people who know me consider Attila the Hun a moderate in comparison...

thats an interesting definition of capitalism you have Fransisco...its certainly a "softened" version in comparison to the stereotypical version as seen in socialist/capitalist debates...i cant argue with it for the most part...and as long as you feel that it is workable and attainable...then more power to you...i suppose i am jaded because i dont have faith that people as a generality will look out for each other...AND i certainly dont think corporate track record is unblemished over say the last couple hundred years...with respect to society or environment...

so in your capitalist state...a complete business case monopoly is concievable and would be considered ethical??vs

[TOM4CWB]

Fransisco,

This all come back to the Common Law base that our society is supposed to use as the rule of law. Common Law eminates from Jedo-Christian principals.

Peace order and good government are the reasons we deligate a portion of personal control to higher authority... for the general good of all Citizens of our community, Province, and Nation.

Here are the principals of Common Law... as I know how hard they are to find in published literature.

C.P.; This is what counting on Faith, Hope, and Love... instead of Greed and Force... to govern a society and economy is all about!

Here are the Common Law Principals:

1. The Common Law is based on the Golden Rule, which states;
Do unto others as you would have done unto you,
And the Negative Golden Rule, which states;
Do not do unto others as you would not have others do unto you;

2. The two fundamental principals of common law:
ć Do not infringe upon the Rights, Freedoms or Property of others, and
Keep all contracts willingly, knowingly and intentionally

Common law maxims include:
ć That for every wrong there is a remedy,

ć The end does not justify the means,

ć Fundamental principals cannot be set aside to meet the demands of convenience or to prevent apparent hardship in a particular case,

ć Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law,

ć Two wrongs do not make a right, and


ć One can enlarge the rights of the people, however they cannot be taken away without their informed consent.

Cottonpicken;

There is no room for greed of selfishness to rule our society... and as Fransisco well states... the job of Government is to protect the citizen... this is the basis of prosperity.

Now... Have a great day!

TJ