More Totally Not Stealing Elections in Michigan

[Amused]

But is 'well regulated capitalism' even possible, or is it a contradiction in terms? Seems to me that capitalism tends to undermine its own regulation. The political and economic systems are not distinct and independent, the latter moulds the former. Capitalism produces rich capitalists, who then proceeed to undermine the conditions for capitalism.

Peter Thiel is notourious for his belief that capitalism and democracy are not compatible. I don't agree with his "solution" - which is to abolish democracy - but I think he might be correct that there's a problem. Capitalism naturally tends to undermine democracy and then remove all those 'regulatory constraints' on itself.

I used to be a socialist, but both the real-world experiences of the USSR and China, and the theoretical arguments encapsulated in 'the calculation argument' pretty much killed my faith in that. However I still find the left's critique of capitalism to be quite convincing, even while I also am convinced by the right's critique of socialism.

Socialism failed, but capitalism signally refused to 'up its game' in response. Its continued to be as unstable and unjust as it ever was.

I don't really know that there's any solution - maybe we are trapped in an endless cycle of violently alternating between one system and another, because none of them really work in the long run. Why should we assume that there is _any_ system that human beings in large numbers can make work?

I'd apologise for going 'off topic' but this thread seems to have already evolved into a different subject (is there anything more to be said about the nominal topic of this thread?)

My apologies as well.

When I say well regulated I mean a return to measures used to prevent robber barons, unelected economic nobility, and private money in politics.

I believe capitalism CAN work with safeguards for monopolies and political corruption.

Humans are inherently greedy and self-serving. So create a capitalist system that takes all the advantages of those traits while also protecting from the disadvantages of that.

There was a whole era in the US when rather than pay the 90% top rate, industrialists would reinvest their excess income in their workers (created the world's largest middle class) and make massive donations to public interest projects such as museums, parks, schools and libraries. Vanity projects to be sure, but better than the hording of wealth and having economic nobility running our government.

Let's go back to that while STILL having a system that rewards innovation, risk and hard work.

 

[ivwshane]

My apologies as well.

When I say well regulated I mean a return to measures used to prevent robber barons, unelected economic nobility, and private money in politics.

I believe capitalism CAN work with safeguards for monopolies and political corruption.

Humans are inherently greedy and self-serving. So create a capitalist system that takes all the advantages of those traits while also protecting from the disadvantages of that.

There was a whole era in the US when rather than pay the 90% top rate, industrialists would reinvest their excess income in their workers (created the world's largest middle class) and make massive donations to public interest projects such as museums, parks, schools and libraries. Vanity projects to be sure, but better than the hording of wealth and having economic nobility running our government.

Let's go back to that while STILL having a system that rewards innovation, risk and hard work.

100%!

People think capitalism is kept in check by the free market or by the consumer, it is not. Capitalism doesn’t work without the government protecting the markets and the consumers. History has proven this time and time again.

Businesses aren’t people and they aren’t entitled to exist. They exist for the benefit of the community and any violation of that should result in punishment or a revoking of their business license. Profits should not come before people.

My views are similar to amused, although we probably disagree on the interpretation of the 2nd.
I believe capitalism is the best economic system out there but it requires a strong government to keep it in check.

Where we also may differ is the amount of control the government can have over an industry. I am not opposed to the government running an industry (such as power, water, and health care), especially if it’s more efficient and practical for the government to do it versus private entities.

My own personal philosophy with government is that government policies should be efficient, have stated goals/benchmarks, and a willingness to end a policy of it doesn’t reach its goals.

 

[Amused]

100%!

People think capitalism is kept in check by the free market or by the consumer, it is not. Capitalism doesn’t work without the government protecting the markets and the consumers. History has proven this time and time again.

I think it is a mixture of both, actually. The trick is being pragmatic and limiting regulation to what is absolutely necessary to prevent abuse. Leaving the market as free as possible within reason.

 

[iRONic]

Oh, and the banning of all private money in politics. But I would hardly call that a leftwing idea. What would that be called?

Myself, I’d call that removing bribery and corruption from the political process. Common sense. I’m old though.

 

[pmv]

Myself, I’d call that removing bribery and corruption from the political process. Common sense. I’m old though.

I'm not convinced it's possible to do that. I don't see that you can insulate "politics" from the imbalances of power that result from the workings of 'the market'. Recent history seems to demonstrate that it can't be done. Money undermines everything - wealth will always find expression in political power.

There was an entire edition of The Economist a few years back, that featured almost nothing but articles and editorials pleading for capitalists to altruistically put the interests of capitalism as a system ahead of their own individual interests. That, to me, seemed to sum up the contradiction of the free-market right. To make a system based on the pursuit of self-interest work, it turns out to be necessary to rely on people's altruism.

I have to say I _hate_ the "calculation argument" (credited variously to Hayek or von Mises), not because I disagree with it, but because I find it so frustratingly convincing as an argument against socialism and state-ownership. It takes away the one glimmer of hope for a way out, because 'the free market' is not performing as advertised.

 

[DarthKyrie]

But is 'well regulated capitalism' even possible, or is it a contradiction in terms? Seems to me that capitalism tends to undermine its own regulation. The political and economic systems are not distinct and independent, the latter moulds the former. Capitalism produces rich capitalists, who then proceeed to undermine the conditions for capitalism.

Peter Thiel is notourious for his belief that capitalism and democracy are not compatible. I don't agree with his "solution" - which is to abolish democracy - but I think he might be correct that there's a problem. Capitalism naturally tends to undermine democracy and then remove all those 'regulatory constraints' on itself.

I used to be a socialist, but both the real-world experiences of the USSR and China, and the theoretical arguments encapsulated in 'the calculation argument' pretty much killed my faith in that. However I still find the left's critique of capitalism to be quite convincing, even while I also am convinced by the right's critique of socialism.

Socialism failed, but capitalism signally refused to 'up its game' in response. Its continued to be as unstable and unjust as it ever was.

I don't really know that there's any solution - maybe we are trapped in an endless cycle of violently alternating between one system and another, because none of them really work in the long run. Why should we assume that there is _any_ system that human beings in large numbers can make work?

I'd apologise for going 'off topic' but this thread seems to have already evolved into a different subject (is there anything more to be said about the nominal topic of this thread?)

It's all my fault for the off-topic posts, although anyone could have gotten it back on track at any time it still comes down to me (I'm selfish like that).

I just felt the need to talk about what makes a conservative a conservative because the term has been highjacked by social re-gressives who insist on calling themselves conservatives.