I regret this convo in hindsight

A forum for respectful discussion & exchange of views on news, current affairs & thought-provoking topics; please read and be aware of the guidelines prior to posting.

Forum rules

Welcome to the News, Current Affairs & Debate subforum.

This forum is the place for intellectual discussions relating to news, current affairs, or philosophical & scientific debates. There are some guidelines that apply specifically to posts in this forum, of which you will be expected to have made yourself aware before participating. They are as follows:

  • Intellectually stimulating topics only. If you can't have a deep discussion about something, it does not belong here.
  • If you're going to post, have something to say. When you make a new thread, write the initial post in a way that provides an introduction to the topic and invites further discussion. You could tell us how you feel and why, but always aim for constructive responses that further a discussion about the ideas involved, rather than a simple list of people's views. (Instead of asking "Are you a vegetarian?", discuss some of the arguments involved.) This guideline likewise applies for responses to topics.
  • Write using good English. That means full sentences with proper capitalisation, punctuation, spelling and grammar. No one is perfect, though; this is not an invitation to criticise others for minor mistakes.
  • Be nice. This is a forum for rational discourse, not flame wars. No one is always right. Be respectful of other people's views and accept that we are all entitled to our own.

These guidelines will be enforced by the moderators based on their best judgement, and anyone who does not take them seriously will lose the privilege of posting here. Spammers will be banned from the entire forum.

I regret this convo in hindsight

Unread postby MysticLad99 » 23rd April, 2017, 10:12 pm

.
Last edited by MysticLad99 on 21st July, 2017, 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MysticLad99
New Member
 
First name: Scott
Posts: 20
Likes received: 2
Joined: 23rd April, 2017, 5:03 pm
Country: United States (us)

Re: About the stigma on capitalism

Unread postby Dolly » 23rd April, 2017, 10:37 pm

The easy and simple solution to "rebrand" capitalism is to end the corrupting influence of corporations in government. This means corporations should be banned from contributing to political campaigns or PACs and PACs should not be anonymous.

A lot of people who are against capitalism benefit greatly from it without knowing it.
Image
User avatar
Dolly
hotty & country singer
 
Posts: 3129
Likes received: 532
Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Tennesee
Country: United States (us)

Team: The Wild West

Re: About the stigma on capitalism

Unread postby TheBrunswickian » 24th April, 2017, 1:42 am

I personally align more with Keynesian economics. I think that capitalism and free trade are not inherently evil and destructive forces, and I do not think that the state is in a position to micromanage the economy. Personally, a well-regulated, transparent and open capitalist economy with state-run or controlled healthcare, education, utilities, social welfare and transport. The socialisation of some aspects of the state works well. Australia has one of the best-run healthcare systems in Medicare. The NHS in Britain is world renowned for its operations. Australia's tertiary education isn't free, but its managed in such a way that we are not burdened with a 6-figure debt that we have to start paying off immediately. Our welfare system is decent, but under threat of total firebombing from the Coalition government. Transport, utilities and telecommunications have all been privatised and guess what happened? Melbourne's public transport is a mess, South Australia is having blackouts and no one quite knows what the government is doing with the NBN.
House Cup 2016 - Team Westeros
House Cup 2017 - Team Lion King
Year Cup 2017/18 - The Far East



Image
TheBrunswickian
Data Collector, Community Ambassador
 
First name: Jesse
Posts: 2927
Likes received: 361
Joined: 30th January, 2014, 11:49 pm
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

Team: The Far East

Re: About the stigma on capitalism

Unread postby MysticLad99 » 24th April, 2017, 7:43 am

.
Last edited by MysticLad99 on 21st July, 2017, 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MysticLad99
New Member
 
First name: Scott
Posts: 20
Likes received: 2
Joined: 23rd April, 2017, 5:03 pm
Country: United States (us)

Re: About the stigma on capitalism

Unread postby MysticLad99 » 24th April, 2017, 7:48 am

.
Last edited by MysticLad99 on 21st July, 2017, 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MysticLad99
New Member
 
First name: Scott
Posts: 20
Likes received: 2
Joined: 23rd April, 2017, 5:03 pm
Country: United States (us)

Re: About the stigma on capitalism

Unread postby Dolly » 24th April, 2017, 8:16 am

MysticLad99 wrote:
Pity wrote:The easy and simple solution to "rebrand" capitalism is to end the corrupting influence of corporations in government. This means corporations should be banned from contributing to political campaigns or PACs and PACs should not be anonymous.

A lot of people who are against capitalism benefit greatly from it without knowing it.



This plan essentially boils down to banning corruption, which sounds good on paper but can never actually happen. Corrupt politicians aren't going to follow these rules against corruption so they're essentially ineffectual. They'll just do it more and more under the table.

Absolutely, did you see the picture of the girl who wrote fuck capitalism on her iPhone? It was hilarious lol.


It ends legalized corruption, not the kind of corruption that riddles poorer countries. So, yes, I believe that stricter campaign finance will end corporatism and perhaps alleviate the unreasonable stigma of capitalism.
Image
User avatar
Dolly
hotty & country singer
 
Posts: 3129
Likes received: 532
Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Tennesee
Country: United States (us)

Team: The Wild West

Re: About the stigma on capitalism

Unread postby TheBrunswickian » 24th April, 2017, 8:53 am

MysticLad99 wrote:
TheBrunswickian wrote:I personally align more with Keynesian economics. I think that capitalism and free trade are not inherently evil and destructive forces, and I do not think that the state is in a position to micromanage the economy. Personally, a well-regulated, transparent and open capitalist economy with state-run or controlled healthcare, education, utilities, social welfare and transport. The socialisation of some aspects of the state works well. Australia has one of the best-run healthcare systems in Medicare. The NHS in Britain is world renowned for its operations. Australia's tertiary education isn't free, but its managed in such a way that we are not burdened with a 6-figure debt that we have to start paying off immediately. Our welfare system is decent, but under threat of total firebombing from the Coalition government. Transport, utilities and telecommunications have all been privatised and guess what happened? Melbourne's public transport is a mess, South Australia is having blackouts and no one quite knows what the government is doing with the NBN.


While I won't deny that society hasn't collapsed in Australia and Europe as a result of socialist policies like healthcare and education, I'd argue on multiple grounds that the public option shouldn't exist for these things:

1: taxation is theft, there's nothing about it that doesn't make it theft, its strong armed robbery. So we're essentially says no that it's ok to steal from people as long as it furthers our goals which I simply cannot get behind

2: there's no such thing as free healthcare, everyone is still paying for it in a public system. In a truly free market, free from all regulation, the healthcare would eventually be cheaper and higher quality than the public option due to the nature of capitalism. Unfortunately we're live in a corporatist system so we've yet to see capitalism in healthcare. In a capitalist system the companies would be competing to give you the cheapest and highest quality care possible because if they Doot people will shop from their competitors, and in a free market with no regulation or hurdles to starting a business that competition can come anywhere anytime so companies would always be on their best behavior. Government has no insentive to maximize quality and cost efficiency.

As for what you said about education this is another flaw of government. When you start handing out student loans it's inevitable that you will see prices like we do today, even though I usually don't like them PragerU made a good video on this subject. Other countries have pritived transit and telecommunications before and done just fine so I'd need to look in what it's a problem for you guys.

Thanks for your reply!

1) Taxation is not theft. It is a way of collective payment for services that everyone uses. It's a pain in the ass, but if my taxes are used to pay for things that I would consider essential services - like education, healthcare and utilities - I consider that a good thing. There are many debates about taxation, but I think that at the end of the day, if a government wants to pay for things to serve its people, it needs to be accompanied by universal enfranchisement so that taxpayers can have a say on how their money is spent.

2) If healthcare was left to the market, it would not be cheaper. There is no incentive for providers to keep costs low, they can keep them high and still profit off of those who can afford to pay it - because everyone WILL need healthcare. Yes we are still paying for it through our taxes. But the money you pay in tax was never there to start with and therefore you don't feel that lose. If you had to pay for a $10,000 surgery out of your own pocket, you would feel that - you wouldn't via a government healthcare system like Medicare.

3) University tuition fees in Australia are roughly $6000 a year. A Bachelors degree is 3 years. So by the end of my course I will have around $18000 worth of debt. Once I start earning over $45000 per annum, the government takes a small amount out of my paycheck with my tax until I've paid them back - or I can pay them off in one go if I have that money. People in Australia are saddled with having to repay their student debt, but its not crippling and it is well managed.
House Cup 2016 - Team Westeros
House Cup 2017 - Team Lion King
Year Cup 2017/18 - The Far East



Image
TheBrunswickian
Data Collector, Community Ambassador
 
First name: Jesse
Posts: 2927
Likes received: 361
Joined: 30th January, 2014, 11:49 pm
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

Team: The Far East

Re: About the stigma on capitalism

Unread postby JonathanT88 » 24th April, 2017, 3:53 pm

MysticLad99 wrote:While I won't deny that society hasn't collapsed in Australia and Europe as a result of socialist policies like healthcare and education, I'd argue on multiple grounds that the public option shouldn't exist for these things:

1: taxation is theft, there's nothing about it that doesn't make it theft, its strong armed robbery. So we're essentially says no that it's ok to steal from people as long as it furthers our goals which I simply cannot get behind


No, it's not. You are free to leave the country and live on a boat in the middle of the ocean if you wish, and thus our decision to remain in the country is a form of tacit consent. Similarly, people accept taxation when they democratically electing parties who uphold the tax system. This is one of those libertarian mantras which really just doesn't make any sense.

2: there's no such thing as free healthcare, everyone is still paying for it in a public system. In a truly free market, free from all regulation, the healthcare would eventually be cheaper and higher quality than the public option due to the nature of capitalism. Unfortunately we're live in a corporatist system so we've yet to see capitalism in healthcare. In a capitalist system the companies would be competing to give you the cheapest and highest quality care possible because if they Doot people will shop from their competitors, and in a free market with no regulation or hurdles to starting a business that competition can come anywhere anytime so companies would always be on their best behavior. Government has no insentive to maximize quality and cost efficiency.


This is what annoys me about free-market ideology: the notion that, whatever we do, in spite of human nature, the 'invisible hand' will always lead to the best results. this article explains the problems with apply classic liberal economics to healthcare pretty well. Not everyone can buy a hospital and so markets are imperfectly competitive and can become semi-monopolistic. This being the case, insurance providers are unable to negotiate effectively with hospitals because, for the reasons explained in the article, they lack the leverage to do so.

Democracy and public accountability provide the government with an incentive to maximise quality and efficiency, though I think the latter pales in comparison to the need to provide for the public (with energy, with healthcare, with education, etc.) It's not the government who lack incentive but the managers (as argued very convincingly in this essay), which can be introduced through organisational mechanisms and competition within the management structure.

Also, and now I'm being pedantic, you use seem to be using the word 'capitalism' to describe your very distinct brand of capitalism. Keynesian economists, who advocate government intervention and nationalisation, are just as 'capitalist' as libertarians, they just have less faith in the system's ability to maximise social utility and minimise negative externalities, which is pretty reasonable in my view. There is little 'stigma about capitalism' as you put it, but there is lots of stigma about the current capitalist system. This is an important distinction.

It's probably worth saying that I actually sympathise quite a lot with the libertarian movement, particularly in its desire for less serve corporatism and in the abolition of the patent system. I just happen to think libertarian measures would achieve the exact opposite effect in several key areas and that Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' doctrine is a bit idealistic. This is the book which has, above all else, informed that opinion- you might find it interesting, even if you disagree.

Pity wrote:A lot of people who are against capitalism benefit greatly from it without knowing it.


Just because aspects of the current economic system are capable of providing us with a decent standard of living doesn't mean we're hypocritical for theorising about extensive structural changes or the implementation of limitations on the current one. Also, personal benefit shouldn't always inform an opinion. I admire so-called 'champagne socialists' because they are able to look beyond their own personal wealth towards a society which is better for everyone; they have benefited from capitalism and are aware of it, but they recognise that this isn't the case for everyone.
Gudrun wrote:

"How many times have I told you? Homosexuality is only to be used for revolutionary purposes!"

Image ImageImage

ImageImageImage
User avatar
JonathanT88
Horny Jonathan of the Homosexual Intifada
 
First name: Jonathan (duh.)
Posts: 5172
Likes received: 574
Joined: 1st June, 2013, 1:19 pm
Location: Scottish Highlands
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Team: The Wild West


Recently active
Users browsing this forum: Brandwatch [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 23 guests