[Truth To Power]

NONSENSE-

At least you made your intention clear...

It might come as a surprise to you that it was not all about 'Capitalism' doing what it's supposed to do.

"Supposed" by whom? Those who designed capitalist institutions certainly intended it to be so. That is why, for example, the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the US Constitution.

Rather, more of it (the concentration of wealth)has come about through the incestuous relationship between business & political parties, whose representatives that we elect are supposed to look after the 'democratic' society.

No, the bulk of it has been effected through one of the fundamental factors that define capitalism: private ownership of land.

In the U.K, the TORY Party stuff the pockets of the rich - better off, with tax breaks, tax cuts ' 'blind-eye' to corruption(of which the Tories are a major part),public contracts awarded in secrecy, in reward for 'bungs', ALL paid for by 'Welfare Reform', 'caps' on public sector pay, public pension caps on increases, benefit caps & other spending cuts.

While true enough, that is a minor and superficial part of the real problem: privilege.

Now, call me a cynic, but every Labour Party post-war election manifesto has been full of 'promises', NONE of them kept & any little promises have always been undone whenever the Tories have got back in power.

I agree that in power, Labour has consistently and relentlessly betrayed the working people it claims to represent and serve. Blair was probably the worst example, but all of them were despicable.

[Truth To Power]

The problem is not with capitalism.

I have proved it is. By definition, capitalism forces the productive to subsidize landowners, and that subsidy is MASSIVE. In a crowded country like the UK, it probably amounts to 1/4 of GDP. And in modern finance capitalism, the productive are also forced to subsidize banksters, IP monopolists, etc.

It is with the unholy alliance between politics and capitalism. In fact, the problem is not capitalism that is the problem it is the failure of government to constrain it.

Capitalism is BASED ON privilege, which is issued exclusively BY GOVERNMENT. They are inseparable, two sides of the same coin.

If you wish to blame politicians for enriching some of the people who you have blamed then I am with you.

Huh?? What do you think capitalism is? What makes modern finance capitalism different from capitalism simpliciter?

Then you refer to all capitalists as rich, greedy, privileged parasites and all others as "honest and productive".

I said no such thing. I have said over and over again that the capitalist who makes producer goods available to aid production is thereby making a contribution, and earns the return the market affords him for that contribution. But it is overwhelmingly the barely or non-contributing privileged -- landowners, banksters, IP monopolists, broadcast spectrum owners, etc. -- who get rich and rapidly richer in modern finance capitalism.

And of course I never said all save capitalists were honest and productive. There is a significant minority -- maybe around 10% of the population -- who either choose to be idlers or criminals, or just don't have what it takes physically, intellectually or emotionally to contribute to a modern industrial economy.

Which am I? I am well fixed having made my money mostly as an entrepreneur. Does that mean that I am a greedy, privileged parasite?

That depends ENTIRELY on how you obtained your returns: production, or privilege. If you made money mainly by owning land or IP monopolies, then you are a greedy, privileged parasite. If you made your money by producing more efficiently in a competitive market, then you are probably an honest producer. But it is not that simple. For example, some highly successful entrepreneurs in the USA, like Michael Dell, have made extensive use of prison slave labor. They are greedy, privileged parasites, not honest producers.

Your position is very naive. Shallow.

What an absurd thing to say. See above. I am the one who is willing -- and able -- to make a distinction between capitalists who contribute and those who do not, less affluent people who contribute and those who do not. I have proved over and over again that my understanding goes deeper than yours, or that of anyone else here.

[Truth To Power]

TtP, the fairytale economist.

I am the only one here who consistently relates economics to the facts of objective physical reality.

There is no point discussing economics with you is there.

Not if you refuse to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.

You actually know nothing about it.

<yawn> I prove over and over again that I understand it better than anyone else here. Watch:

It doesn't matter the asset. Bonds, shares, commodities, even your beloveded land, they are all linked and valued to one commodity - legal tender money.

See? The fact that assets are all by definition fungible does not mean they are economically the same, and certainly does not mean they are the same as money, which is not the same as debt. Refusal to make the relevant distinctions is an infallible proof of economic ignorance.

And that is associated with... wait for it... national DEBT.

No, it is not. Money is mostly created as private debt, not public debt.

Oh dear.

Indeed.

Nations run on the gold standard in the past.

Proving you wrong.

There money was linked to the value of that commodity which it held back then. Now most nations have a fiat currency which is linked to the confidence in that nations economy and GDP.

It is linked to that, but is in fact mostly created by private banksters lending to private borrowers.

But confidence isn't worth anything.

And you claim I don't know any economics??!?

So the legal tender currency is a debt. Why is this important I hear you ask? Because as money is an IOU, for every banknote someone/something needs to be in debted to it. If a nation holds no debt, then who IS holding that debt? Citizens? Citizens who cannot generate wealth through taxes nor have national assets to back itself up against. No. A certain amount of national debt is actually required to keep your economy running, unless you are China who run off everyone elses national debt of course.

Silly MMT gibberish.

I'm sure I will have a rebuttal of small sentences that have no substance to them as you cannot see the mist in the fog, so I will be ignoring you from now on.

One less waste of my time, then.

[Agent Steel]

Capitalism will always beat socialism because when socialists steal capital, it reduces the amount of capital available for production; by contrast, when capitalists steal land, it does not reduce the amount of land available for production.

Do you realize that you're justifying capitalism WITH capitalism? You're using circular reasoning.

[Drlee]

He is obsessed with the word "land".

I had an uncle who tried to work the word "indubitably" into every sentence. He was very rich and thoroughly annoying. He was from Texas.

[Agent Steel]

I hate when people have a habit of speaking and using the word "again" at the beginning of their sentences, even when it's the first time they say it.

[SolarCross]

Why don't socialists just move to Cuba? Why should the rest of us put up with their shit?

[Agent Steel]

Why don't you learn to have compassion for other human beings instead of greedily hoarding wealth to yourself?

[Crantag]

Why don't socialists just move to Cuba? Why should the rest of us put up with their shit?

I'm an anarchist and a Marxist (these are not contradictory), with some Communistic leanings. I moved to China, myself. And I will make a lot more money here probably than I would have in the US, where you have to sprint to barely keep up. I now have free health care (yes, free), and things like my cell phone bill, my utility bills, etc. cost a tiny pittance here (these kind of utilities are 'natural monopolies' and here they are run by state-owned enterprises, which actually charge a fair amount). People here complain about the price of housing because it has incurred inflationary tendencies in ideal locations. Even so, I am staying right in the center of my town--one of those prime locations--and in actuality the cost of housing is orders of magnitude lower than what I'd pay in the literal slums in my hometown.

The occurrence of a wide array of punitive fines by the police state and by the private owners of toll roads, etc., is also not a shared experience here. Meanwhile, other living costs (including the price of food) are also quite low.

I get the sense that in contemporary China, a number of prices are in fact rather in line with production costs (which has nothing in common with how prices are determined in the US, not even in theory, but much less so in practice. The chief cause for the divergence of the practice from the theory in the US is the commanding of economic segments by oligopolist private capitalist enterprises, which set prices in accordance to their internal structures under the prevailing ologopolistic conditions. By contrast, the theory assumes competitive conditions, which are fantastical in practice. As such, the results are predicated in theory, but the theory one had ought to look into is what effects pricing under oligopolistic and monopolistic conditions rather than competitive ones, in order to understand the forces which are at play).

[Sivad]

Why don't socialists just move to Cuba?

because it's a shithole and they know it.

[Pants-of-dog]

because it's a shithole and they know it.

No, it is not.

But feel free to present evidence to support your claim.

The reason I did not move to Cuba is becuase I fell in live with an indigenous woman from Canada, so we moved to her ancestral homelands. If I had fallen in love with a Cuban, I would have moved there.

If capitalism so good, why is it imposed at gunpoint?

[Sivad]

I would have moved to Cuba but I moved to Canada instead Way to put your money where your mouth is

[Sivad]

You could just live like an average Cuban - cancel your phone and internet, move into a condemned house in a fucked up ghetto, don't read, watch, or listen to any media that isn't Department of Revolutionary Orientation approved, and only live on less than 20 bucks a month after rent and utilities.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The reason I did not move to Cuba is becuase I fell in live with an indigenous woman from Canada, so we moved to her ancestral homelands.

All hail the Matriarchy!!

If capitalism so good, why is it imposed at gunpoint?

True capitalism is the lack of third party imposition by a territorial monopolist of compulsion...... so you must be thinking of something else.

No, it is not.

What is the rate of individual Cuban poverty and literacy in comparison to developed western nations?

are they comparable? superior? or worse?

[Sivad]

What is the rate of individual Cuban poverty and literacy in comparison to developed western nations?

are they comparable? superior? or worse?

To be fair it's one of the least shitty shitholes in the developing world.

[Victoribus Spolia]

To be fair it's one of the least shitty shitholes in the developing world.

Least shitty shitholes?

I'll take your word for it since I don't really care that much, but I have been looking at buying land in certain south American nations that have really fucked up and inefficient governments as rural land is cheap there and such would be a good place to be and be left alone in the event that the West goes belly-up in an extradordinarily violent and catastrophic way.

.....so I am in the market for not-so-shitty shitholes.

[Sivad]

Don't go to Cuba if you want to be left alone. Gran Hermano is right up in everybody's shit on that island paradise.

[Pants-of-dog]

True capitalism is the lack of third party imposition by a territorial monopolist of compulsion...... so you must be thinking of something else.

An inability to define capitalism correctly is not an argument.

What is the rate of individual Cuban poverty and literacy in comparison to developed western nations?

are they comparable? superior? or worse?

Cuba has a literacy rate of 99.7%. Canada, for example, has a literacy rate of 99%.So Cuba compares favourably.

And in Cuba, everyone has a home, education, and access to medical care. The US cannot say the same.

Also, Cuba does not let non-Cubans own land. “Yanqui, go home” and all that.

[Potemkin]

Least shitty shitholes?

I'll take your word for it since I don't really care that much, but I have been looking at buying land in certain south American nations that have really fucked up and inefficient governments as rural land is cheap there and such would be a good place to be and be left alone in the event that the West goes belly-up in an extradordinarily violent and catastrophic way.

.....so I am in the market for not-so-shitty shitholes.

Happy to be of help, VS.

[Sivad]

Cuba has a literacy rate of 99.7%. Canada, for example, has a literacy rate of 99%.So Cuba compares favourably.

But they're only allowed to read government approved material. So they might be literate but they're not exactly well read. And keep in mind that none of those stats are independently verified so you have to take the Cuban government's word for it.