Current economic system & Housing

GreatApe

Sapphire wrote: »

Well, they certainly aren't 'compatible with' socialism in all its guises, including the variant forms of communism. That just impoverishes millions, while enriching the compliant apparatchiks at the top and killing many millions of people in the process.

When it comes down to it, humans, like any other species, basically exist for their personal survival and continuation of their line. No amount of PC thinking is going to change this instinct. Oh, it might for a while, in weak, affluent societies that can currently afford to indulge themselves in such nonsense, but that won't last.

There is much wrong with capitalism, not the least the way it has destroyed centuries-old industries, with many skilled workers, all for the god Money, as well as the shameful way a certain section of our society, namely the very old, defenceless and vulnerable, are treated. However, neither socialism or its offshoot, communism, is the answer.

People are comparable with capitalism the problem is everyone makes up a definition they like to hate and then says some nonsense of how it doesn't work or is incompatable.

At its fundamentals a capitalist is someone who believes an individual should be able to own capital and a anti capitalist is someone who believes and individual should not be able to own capital that it should be the reserve of the state

Anyone who claims capitalism is not comparable with human nature is saying people are too stupid to own their own capital. This is clearly and obviously wrong people are very capable of owning their own capital if anything the state shows a poor ability to own manage and increase capital stocks

One of the reasons the communists were so poor is if an individual is not allowed to own capital why produce an excess? And if no one wants to produce an excess what happens? Well you get places like romania in the 1980s where people were extremely poor and life was very !!!! but hey thats ok because at least we were all equally poor and hungry

GreatApe

Sapphire wrote: »

There is much wrong with capitalism, not the least the way it has destroyed centuries-old industries, with many skilled workers, all for the god Money, as well as the shameful way a certain section of our society, namely the very old, defenceless and vulnerable, are treated. However, neither socialism or its offshoot, communism, is the answer.

Why do you believe the ability for an individual to own capital has anything to do with the destruction of old industries (which is false by the way) or that the ability of an individual to own capital has anything to do with the old are treated (which again is false we treat the old well)?

You can have capitalism and high taxes, eg the Nordic nations or France as an example or capitalism and low taxes eg USA and even China for that instance is quite low tax

Stop using words incorrectly.
Everyone (well except the crazy 1% that are true communists) wants and believes in the ability of individuals to own capital

If you think the shrinking of old industry is bad make a separate argument for that (as someone who used to work at a steel plant I can tell you the industry just got much more efficient it did not shrink or was somehow killed off by 'capitalism'. Where I worked we went from 30,000 men to 3,000 men so the 'industry died' but production went up from 1 million tons a year to 3 million tons a year. So while the industry shrunk 90% in manpower the output went up 3 x

Likewise if you think the old deserve higher pensions make an argument for higher pensions and higher taxes (or cuts elsewhere to pay for higher pensions) although again the old have never had it so good so get things in perspective

Sapphire

GreatApe wrote: »

Likewise if you think the old deserve higher pensions make an argument for higher pensions and higher taxes (or cuts elsewhere to pay for higher pensions) although again the old have never had it so good so get things in perspective

I do not think 'the old deserve higher pensions' and did not say that. I was referring to the seriously ill, defenceless old people and their appalling treatment in 'care' homes, which I've argued about before and don't have time to repeat here. Certainly, more money should be made available for these people (there's plenty of it about among the very wealthy), along with proper systems (not ones with people at the top siphoning off huge amounts of money), and money for research into the terrible disease that is dementia. A society that doesn't look after its old and frail people (who cannot argue for themselves) is not worth much.

spadoosh

GreatApe wrote: »

Lets assume there isn't much to compare it to. The question then is, is the rate acceptable progress? ~600 million homes a decade is great it means we solve one of the big needs of the world over the next 30 years. Within those 30 years the nearly 2 billion new homes will be built which will house 4-5 billion people. Again theres little comparison, what if another economic method delivered 1 billion homes a decade, electric and water to every corner of the globe, internet access in every home etc. Youd think capitalism was pretty rubbish then.

This is not a system for the few, it is a system for the many.
Turkey is an interesting example. Construction everywhere. They are building ~800,000 homes a year and while we and most turks criticize the ruling party they keep voting for them because the Turks when they go from mud huts to a nice new apartment can see the benefit to their own lives and their children lives. Housing is one of the key needs for the planet the worlds largest infrastructure project and the current economic system is providing at an amazing rate to disturb that is a just a silly risk. Even if I were a communist I would wait 30 years and keep my mouth shut when this system builds out the housing the world so badly needs then maybe indulge my fantasies of a new economic order Its a system that placates the many but offers the greatest benefits to the few who generally already have those benefits.



The economic system should be chosen to maximize production of goods and services.
The current system produces goods and services at all price points in abundance and it is producing fixed capital at an amazing rate. So yes I think the current system works amazingly well

An economic system should be chosen based on the ability to allocate resources. Why are cars so cheap? Because there is a massive over supply (in western countries at least). That got maximized to the extreme, still does, then you have to fudge your capitalist system with tax incentives in order to bolster an economy that failed at the very basics of economics. Its catch 22 now, we need to keep buying cars, usually needlessly otherwise we risk damagin our economy, it seems like were trapped a bit there

The problem is those on the left try to paint social/individual/health/family problems with the economic system when it is not related. I dont think you can seperate it that easily simply due to the practicalities. I agee with you in that i think capitalism in the purest form is probably the best economic system we have but practically it doesnt work like that. Its all those 'unrelated' things that reduce the effectiveness of it.



Sure we are not born equal and some people will make more money than others. That does not mean the majority are not benefiting enormously though. Hence the topic on housing. The nearly 2 billion homes that will be built over the next 30 years will not benefit the poor or the middle? They should just shut up and stay in their shanty towns or living 8 to a roof? Im sure it would benefit the poor and the middle, im certain itll benefit the rich more though due to the charges placed on those properties.



Are you kidding? under which other system can you become a single mother and not work a day in your life and consume £1m + in goods and services and still have people call you poor and suggest you are hard done by the current system? You certainly couldnt do that under a proper capitalist system.

We have never worked less and produced so much as we do today.
32 million in the uk work that means 34 million dont. Of the 32 million that work about a third are part time. Of those that do work full and part time how difficult are our jobs just look at this forum people at work just wasting hours discussing crap.

We have great easy lives good jobs and high pay be f.greatful! i do and for the large part i am. That doesnt negate the fact that im distinctly average yet my economic position is much higher simply due to the fact i was born in England.

Once more this does not mean everyone life is amazing. Some people have !!!! lives this includes the poor the middle and the rich but being a drunk or a gambling addict is the problem not the economic system



I am an engineer I think all our problems can and will be solved. As an engineer I am also reminded that nothing can be designed to be perfect you should aim for good not perfect and the current system is very good to complain that it is not perfect is to destroy something that is good for something that might be much worse. Ive not mentioned destroy, i want to improve, i think you must be able to make improvements, its not really different to think theres a solution to everything

I do lean right because the people on the right mostly just say leave me alone which indeed is attractive because how do you respond as no to such a request?



You are mixing a lot of things together. The idea that capitalism is all about the individual is wrong. Its about the family unit. This is something you and many on the left do not get it is also why people lean more right once they have a family. Again huge issues with this. My family has about 15 members, and maybe a couple of million quid in capital, the windsors have about 50 members and considerably more in capital. Its another flaw.



I would say a capitalist is someone who aims to accumulate capital
In a sense we are all capitalists, some of us want individuals to be able to accumulate capital while others want only the state to accumulate capital. I doubt anyone sane wants there to be no capital whatsoever (no homes no roads no factories etc)

Who you pass on your capital to or what you spend it on is an irrelevant part of the disccsuion I dont think it is, its a huge problem of our economic system, we say we use capitalism and thus the free market yet do not, its just not applicable across the board.
Should individuals be allowed to accumulate capital or should it be the reserve of the state?

Effectively the argument on the far left is that only the state should be able to accumulate capital

The argument on the right and the center is that individuals should be able to accumulate capital too and that argument has won since at least 1990 when the communists fell


Of course in arguments both sides try to frame the others as the far extreme.
I doubt you would find many on the right who think governments should have absolutely no income and tax at zero Capitalism without a free market? So not capitalism then?. Nor would you find many on the left who think governments should ban all capital accumulation. Hell even corbyn the communist owns his own home and would probably fight tooth and nail to not give it up. I have even met true life long hard core communists that own property its mostly just a cult that doesn't do what it preaches

So since everyone agrees capital is good and everyone (bar the very fringe that make up less than 1%) thinks individuals should be able to own and accumulate capital that it should not just be the reserve of the state the actual question is which system maximizes capital production?

On the right people like me say look the world is building out its capital at an amazing pace lets just continue until at least housing and electricity is solved. On the left we have people denying capital formation is happening at all, and that if it is it is only benefiting the 1%. Clearly that is wrong the 1% isn't going to live in the 2 billion new homes it is going to be the vast majority. Its not about only benefitting the 1% its the fact its mainly benefitting the 1%. If you gave me £100 to divvy out in a fair manner and theres 100 people, would you accept me giving 1p to 99 people and me taking the the remaining £99.01? Theyve all benefited, theyre gaining, no one can complain right? Now imagine the £100 you gave me came from the 100 people. Thats our (current !!!!!!!ised version of capitalism) economic system in a nutshell

Your arguments of inheritance or inequality is really a trivial sideshow. The world needs more capital and the current system is producing just that at an amazing rate dont kill it off for spite and hate of a system that is working even though youd love it not to be working

Im hugely in favour of capitalism. Just do it properly.

You probalby think im left, im not that left. Slef sufficiency all day long for me and thats a right philosophy.

Im an anarchist, a libertarian and a capitalist. The american constitution is the only 'rule' book i can make any sense of. The current economic system is not capitalist and the right wing are usually less right wing than they think. Taxation and the free market are mutually exclusive. We dont subscribe to a proper capitalist system. Im all for it, it means self determination.


It was a long reply so found it easiest bolding outmy bits, i think i editted your bolded bits so theydont get mistaken, good chance ive missed a ] out somewhere though.

spadoosh

GreatApe wrote: »

This is such a stupid argument that appears all the time

Do you really think the definition of a capitalist is someone who does not want to accumulate capital for themselves and their family? It is the exact opposite a capitalist is someone who wants to accumulate capital an anti capitalist is someone who thinks an individual should not be allowed to accumulate capital

I would say >99% of humans are capitalist they want to have savings a home and capital and even the majority of die hard communists I have met do or want to own capital

Even many animals are capitalist they store nuts or seeds for the winter its literally in their DNA. Some insects are the opposite they work for the collective and just like ants communists dont give a !!!! about the individual you are expendable so long as the colony survives. But even in the ant world i'm sure you'd agree the queen lives quite differently to the repletes so while you may argue all the ants are equal im sure the repletes will tell you otherwise

A pre requisite for a pure capitalist economy is a free market. You can only have a free market when supply and demand are free of intervention other than by supply and demand. You give to your children, youre intervening. Youre screwing up the capitalist system.

Ive highlighted that flaw in capitalism a few times now.

spadoosh

Sapphire wrote: »

Well, they certainly aren't 'compatible with' socialism in all its guises, including the variant forms of communism. That just impoverishes millions, while enriching the compliant apparatchiks at the top and killing many millions of people in the process.

When it comes down to it, humans, like any other species, basically exist for their personal survival and continuation of their line. No amount of PC thinking is going to change this instinct. Oh, it might for a while, in weak, affluent societies that can currently afford to indulge themselves in such nonsense, but that won't last.

There is much wrong with capitalism, not the least the way it has destroyed centuries-old industries, with many skilled workers, all for the god Money, as well as the shameful way a certain section of our society, namely the very old, defenceless and vulnerable, are treated. However, neither socialism or its offshoot, communism, is the answer.

Not said it was have i?

GreatApe

spadoosh wrote: »

A pre requisite for a pure capitalist economy is a free market. You can only have a free market when supply and demand are free of intervention other than by supply and demand. You give to your children, youre intervening. Youre screwing up the capitalist system.

Ive highlighted that flaw in capitalism a few times now.

your making up definitions to suit your arguments

A capitalist is someone who believes private individuals should be able to own and accumulate capital and an anti capitalist is someone who does not think an individual should be able to own capital

What you spend your capital on, or who you give it away to, is not part of the equation.
If you give your capital away to a charity or to your kids or smoke it on crack none of that makes a difference to what a capitalist is or is not

Any arguments you put forward about fairness or competition are debates on different topics so I repeat once more. A capitalist is someone who believes an individual should be able to own capital and an anti capitalist is someone who believes an individual should not be able to own capital

GreatApe

spadoosh wrote: »

A pre requisite for a pure capitalist economy is a free market.

That is also not true you can be a capitalist country in a non free market

Lets say the government sets a price for cheese at £10 a kilo

Well if individuals can own capital in that country it is a capitalist economy

You could own a farm and cows and milking machines and have a business making cheese. The fact that the government sets a price on your cheese does not mean this is not a capitalist society the individual owns all those things. Sure the government could set a price too low for cheese in which case you might not be able to viably make cheese but you still own the farm and the cows and can do with it what you like and the government owns no cows nor cheese factories. It is a capitalist system with some government price controls

Price controls and tariffs and taxes and a whole host of other things we can debate if they are good or not but those things do not mean you are or are not a capitalist economy

A capitalist is simply someone who believes an individual should be allowed to own capital while a non capitalist thinks only the state should be allowed to own capital. 99% of people are capitalist

Every country has taxes and ruels and regulations and every country has some external tariffs and protections yet I doubt you think of america as non capitalist because they have tariffs or non capitalist because some states have electricity grids with fixed regulated prices and returns etc

GreatApe

spadoosh wrote: »

Im hugely in favour of capitalism. Just do it properly

It is done properly

In the UK you can own your own home, your own business, your own car, your own machines, your own chickens and cows, your own tools, your own land, your own farm. There is private ownership of capital and an individual can own and accumulate capital in the UK (and almost every other country in the world)

There were some non capitalist countries but most fell about 30 years ago
The debate is pretty much over 99% agree with capatilism

The actual debate seems to be more accurately framed as how much tax should nations impose and on who and should wealth taxes exist and how much

spadoosh

I disagree....

capitalist
ˈkapɪt(ə)lɪst/Submit
noun
1.
a person who uses their wealth to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism.
"the creation of the factory system by nineteenth-century capitalists"
synonyms: financier, investor, industrialist; More

capitalism
ˈkapɪt(ə)lɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

If the state is not a free market then the trade is controlled (not necessarily owned) by the government/authority. Ie your £10 per kg cheese.

So if the state use tariffs, they are not using capitalism. If youre a capitalist that believes in tariffs then youre not a capitalist as that is not in accordance with the principles of capitalism (ie trade is controlled by private owners, the stat is not private), . You simply believe in being able to own stuff. And as you say 99.9% of people believe that.