Keyboard Warrior Hits The Road....

Wheezy_2

Mallotum_X wrote: »

It would appear some on hear are chosing not to listen, then shouting over the top over evreything else that they just dont understand.

Too right. And focusing on whether they sleep in their tent or not and go home for a shower, some even refering to Pol Pot and the Hitler Youth
Of course there will be bozos shouting for the end of capitalism or to bring down the banks, but Cleaver said it best:

Cleaver wrote: »

To me it seems as though there's a growing group of people out there who just seem a bit fed up. Fed up of a society that seems tipped in the balance of a minority of top tier individuals and not in favour of the masses.

I am a capitalist, I'm all for free enterprise. I believe in the principle of working hard, being rewarded, getting rich. I have no issue with coorporations or banks making a profit. But can anyone deny that this version of capitalism where banks reap the rewards when their gambling pays off, but come cap in hand to the taxpayer when it doesn't is completely screwed and needs rebalancing?

Cheers TruckerT :beer:

Ilya_Ilyich

ILW wrote: »

It went back to the Romans and beyond. Ours is a pretty mild form.
Which system or era would you say worked better than what we have had for the last couple of centuries?

Okay it looks like you're using some incredibly vague definition of capitalism that extends to everything ever so any discussion would be meaningless!

The_White_Horse

Wheezy wrote: »

I am a capitalist, I'm all for free enterprise. I believe in the principle of working hard, being rewarded, getting rich. I have no issue with coorporations or banks making a profit. But can anyone deny that this version of capitalism where banks reap the rewards when their gambling pays off, but come cap in hand to the taxpayer when it doesn't is completely screwed and needs rebalancing?

Cheers TruckerT :beer:

the point is, it isn't capitalism. true capitalism would have let the banks fail, and the fall out would have been dealt with naturally by the markets. some would have lost money, some would have gained. entrepreneurs would have started new banks etc etc.

what we saw was a form of socialist intervention to stop the inevitable capitalist ending from happening because some people got frightened and said it would be too bad.

just leave it all alone and it will work out. possibly not for the best, for some people. the same with europe. capitalism dictates that the euro can't work. it is socialist meddling that keeps pushing it.

Ilya_Ilyich

The_White_Horse wrote: »

the point is, it isn't capitalism. true capitalism would have let the banks fail, and the fall out would have been dealt with naturally. some would have lost money, some would have gained. entrepreneurs would have started new banks.

what we saw was a form of socialist intervention to stop the inevitable capitalist ending from happening.

just leave it all alone and it will work out. possibly not for the best, for some.

no in a capitalist system capital works to overcome boundaries to accumulation of further capital. it's to be expected that in a system based around giving power to capital that it will be able to use this power to siphon wealth from the state by whatever means necessary.

in what way were the interventions socialist - how did they further worker ownership of means of production?

The_White_Horse

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

no in a capitalist system capital works to overcome boundaries to accumulation of further capital. it's to be expected that in a system based around giving power to capital that it will be able to use this power to siphon wealth from the state by whatever means necessary.

in what way were the interventions socialist - how did they further worker ownership of means of production?

don't be ridiculous. we are not having a debate about some theoretical marxist definition of capitalism. I am using the widely acknowleged definition of no state interference in the markets. It was state interference and bail outs that saved the banks. It is state interference propping up Greece and the other PIIGS. Just leave it to the markets.

Ilya_Ilyich

The_White_Horse wrote: »

don't be ridiculous. we are not having a debate about some theoretical marxist definition of capitalism. I am using the widely acknowleged definition of no state interference in the markets. It was state interference and bail outs that saved the banks. It is state interference propping up Greece and the other PIIGS. Just leave it to the markets.

you're making a pretty unfounded assertion that 'capitalism' refers solely to extreme laissez-faire policy which is simply not what most people mean when they use the term.

going to explain in what way transfer of wealth from the state to capital is a socialist act?

The_White_Horse

capitalism is that the means of production is privately owned. Following a bail out by the Govt these institutions are not privately owned any more (even though they may technically be on paper). without the injection by the state, they would have failed. that is socialism.

kabayiri

Wheezy wrote: »

...
I am a capitalist, I'm all for free enterprise. I believe in the principle of working hard, being rewarded, getting rich. I have no issue with coorporations or banks making a profit. But can anyone deny that this version of capitalism where banks reap the rewards when their gambling pays off, but come cap in hand to the taxpayer when it doesn't is completely screwed and needs rebalancing?
...

It's not a free market system, I completely agree.

A system where banks retain profits for bonuses, and socialise the losses on the state is not a Capitalist system. It is a BROKEN system.

kabayiri

The_White_Horse wrote: »

don't be ridiculous. we are not having a debate about some theoretical marxist definition of capitalism. I am using the widely acknowleged definition of no state interference in the markets. It was state interference and bail outs that saved the banks. It is state interference propping up Greece and the other PIIGS. Just leave it to the markets.

How do you know we saved the banks ?
We guaranteed only a temporary respite with the bailouts. It will be years before we can definitely say the bailouts worked.

robmatic

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

you're making a pretty unfounded assertion that 'capitalism' refers solely to extreme laissez-faire policy which is simply not what most people mean when they use the term.

I'm pretty sure that most people aren't actually using the term in a strict Marxist sense either.

The 'capitalism' that people are protesting, vaguely, against seems to be more akin to corporacracy.