Does capitalism equal corpratism?

[bryant69]

In your opinion?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[rocktivity]

1. Not at all--it's UNCHECKED capitalism

that causes corporatism.

:headbang:
rocknation

[SmokingJacket]

36. Yes. nt

[Exiled in America]

38. Capitalism inevitably leads to unchecked capitalism (i.e. excess)

The system is designed in such a way that it ultimately leads to excesses that bring about its own destruction.

[rocktivity]

2. Dupe, sorry n/t

.

[Selatius]

3. It becomes corporatism in the end if you allow things to take their course.

Start a new market with 100 firms in it. Give the market enough time, and eventually, only a few firms will come to control most if not all of the market. You have an oligopoly. In the interests of a "free" market in the truest sense of the word, the oligopoly should be broken with anti-trust laws, as it stifles innovation and can abuse consumers through price gouging and unfair binding contracts. Ma Bell was broken up precisely because it violated anti-trust law.

However, if you elect the same people who run these corporations into positions where they can regulate these corporations, you have no real enforcement. The government then becomes another "subsidiary" of corporate power. It is the definition of fascism.

[TahitiNut]

17. Corporations produce and deproduce, but cannot reproduce no matter how much they ...

... fuck their employees and customers. :silly:

[AntiFascist]

30. Good explanation, but....

it doesn't have to end that way. Compare/contrast Southwest Airlines with Walmart.

I always argue that the problem really comes about as we turn toward military socialism, a system where a majority of our taxes are used to fund the military industrial complex, and where generous corporate welfare is handed out to increasingly incompetent monopolies, such as Halliburton and associated private military entities, which ultimately work against the security of the United States in order to achieve its global goals, and to secure foreign natural resources needed to prop up the war economy. Wars are extended and acts of terrorism aggravated in order to extend the life and purpose of the Complex. Monopolies such as ATT, entertainment companies and networks, and various database firms are drawn into the Complex in order to obtain complete political control over the population. Their biggest threat is ultimately freedom of speech and democracy.

[orpupilofnature57]

4. Not since 1776.

[tom_paine]

5. A given system, economic or political, is only as good as those who run

and comprise it.

Capitalism is a perfectly valid ecomonic startegy, if not the very best one.

But unregulated capitalism? That leads to corporatism, facsism, Hitlerism, BushPutinism, and other destrcutive, cruel, and inhuman philosophies.

[bryant69]

7. What is the very best economic strategy? n/t

[tom_paine]

10. So far as I know, well-regulated capitalism

n/t

[bryant69]

12. Ah - I'd agree with you there - sorry misread you. n/t

[harun]

16. I would say regulation could be anything. You can regulate

it in a way that hurts the little people. Capitalism with a Gov't that protects its citizens from exploration from Corporations (which have more power and privilege than individuals) I believe is better.

For example the B*shies think their job in Gov't is to not do anything. To let the Corporations feed and stay out of their way. They think this will get enough people employed to keep them quiet and ho-hum on they go with their wars and profiteering. Unfortunately they are correct albeit unjust.

People use to get fooled by the uber rich that an empowered central government is always bad and corrupt. People are starting to wake up to this falsehood because they are getting looted blind by the Corporations now. They want the Gov't to stand up and protect them (no one else is left who can).

We thought our new Dem majority would do some of that protection, it is seems to me a large number of them already made their deals though. We are not getting the political sway we should have. I would like to hear any suggestions on what else we can do to improve that situation.

[The2ndWheel]

32. Economy basically means the management of a household

So that might be it. Although, that can create conflict.

Today we have economies of scale, and mass production, and still have conflict when more is needed.

Maybe the best economic model would be to have as little of one as possible. It wouldn't be perfect(nothing can be), but we might have less of an impact on our own habitat, let alone that of every other creature that never asked to be, or never was asked, if they wanted to join in(and they certainly don't even get any benefits from what we do. Except the dog that just got a few million dollars from what's her name who just died).

Not really possible, or probable, in an increasingly integrated global system, I know. I guess that means habitat destruction for all then.

[wuushew]

23. Capitalism will fail now that global limits of growth are clearly visible

Capitalism only knows two states: growth and collapse. And while you could hypothetically pave over every last blade of grass with a parking lot the resulting environmental externalities would make that world a living hell.

The forests grew back after Rome fell, but for us the coal, oil and gas are forever gone.


Without some active instrument of wealth redistribution, capitalism in a no-growth environment invariably devolves into feudalism.

[tom_paine]

33. I would like to find some hole in your argument that I could shred, but I can't

The simple truth that capitalism knows only two states: growth and recession/depression/contraction/collapse (I add the qualifiers because there are many stages of "collapse") seems unassaiblable.

Can anyone with formal econmomic training tell me what I am missing in this assesment, if any?

The addition of the Non-Growth Environment aspect does change things.

However, the alternates would seem to be much worse, like Communism, in a zero growth situation, too. Well except for the fantasy of True Communism, which is impossible in my opinion, when dealing with the Intelligent Walking Primates of Earth, because of monkey neurochemistry to which we as a species remain enslaved.

So, what you say about capitalism and no-growth-environments is true, I believe, but then, what system would actually be better in a no-growth environment?

And if you say Communism, I am going to :rofl: until I :puke:

[wuushew]

44. I would modify the current tax scheme to asymptotically approach 100%

A bracketed tax system would never work in a finite system. On the other hand tax rates must always be less than 100% to enable greed to work as a personal motivator. The severity of such redistribution should be a combination of democratic decision making combined with a study of actual societal mobility. I add this caveat because far more people think they will get rich than actually do and thus explains partially the current irrational views of American tax fairness.


I think it would also help to include all gifted property transfers such as inheritances as income subject to regular taxation. This would virtually eliminate inter-generational transfers of mass wealth.

[Selatius]

46. He is right for one reason but not for the reasons people usually think of

The reason why economies expand and contract is that they are never really allowed to achieve homeostasis. Why is that the case? The issue is control of the money supply. In nearly all economies on earth except in countries like North Korea and Cuba, the power to create money or destroy money is held by privately run banks. Through the process of fractional reserve banking, bankers can manipulate the economy by making access to capital easier or more difficult, whichever they desire. Unfortunately, the side effect of fractional reserve banking is perpetual inflation, due to an excess of money relative to the demands of trade and commerce. FR banking simply means banks individually can create more money.

Monetary economist Ludwig Von Mises as well as people such as free-marketeer Milton Friedman argued the best monetary policy aims to balance the demands of trade with the supply of money available, asserting that excessive expansion of the money supply leads to inflation, which can be taken as a regressive tax on consumer buying power, which causes displacements in the economy. If the balance is perfect, then the long term average rate of inflation should be close to or is zero percent; however, it's not; it's often closer to five percent or higher, but that's because banks can't make as big a profit without the ability to create money from bank deposits.

As long as the current banking order is allowed to remain, there will always be periods of growth and contraction due to manipulation of the money supply. A homeostatic economy would mean fractional reserve banking either doesn't exist or is outlawed (an economy that operates on full reserve banking with fiat currency would necessarily be the most obvious alternative, unless one things bartering and the gold/silver standard are superior). In such an economy, there is only growth as much as trade and commerce demands it, not excessive growth beyond what is justified due to excess money leading to the inevitable contraction, which causes the usual problems such as higher unemployment and homelessness and a widening of the wealth gap.

There is no such thing as a no-growth environment unless we assume two things: 1. There is no more access to capital such as iron ore or trees or land or cash and so forth and 2. People don't invent or create new things. Even if you lived in an environment where resources are very limited or scarce, the economy still grows because people invent new things and innovate old processes, which add value to the economy.

It's not about collectivism or capitalism. It's about money and the control of money. The power to control the money supply necessarily belongs to the people.

If the goal is to suspend the business cycle indefinitely, then you must stop excessive expansion of the money supply. In such an environment, you get sustainable, steady growth, none of this up and down rubbish we see every several years.

[wuushew]

50. We have exhausted several sources of natural capital already

Many of the world's fisheries are depleted, the Great Plains are being irrigated at a much faster rate than the underlying aquifer is being replenished and most of the electricity currently generated in this nation is from non-renewable coal.

Even though the world is not literally full, for the first time in the we are having to deal with opportunity costs arising from resource constraints. From 17th through 20th centuries this country continually increased in both population and settled area. Economic prosperity was possible because the rate at which the workforce extracted resources from the environment met or exceeded the growth in population.

Electricity is useful to use as it provides the energy to manufacture goods or perform services. Since machines are in effect multipliers of human effort (1/10th hp on average) per capita wealth has increased in direct correlation with available energy. Solar is not widespread today because for the same end product it is currently more expensive per kilowatt than fossil fuels.

The future will be dominated by these increasingly marginal alternatives. Population will stop increasing eventually because the ability to extract additional resources from the environment will take ever more prohibitive effort. Certainly efficiency and cleverness has the effect of increasing resource availability but one generally finds improvements to be incremental while population and demand increases exponentially. If the workforce stabilizes is this not a steady state environment? If labor is the source of all value then a zpg world must have a fixed degree of wealth.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. I have no appetite to argue this issue, but my own opinion is that ......

.... one does not equal the other.

True enough, corporations are capitalistic and true enough some corporations have been, socially, pretty damned close to pure evil. But not all corporations are that way. Most corporations, actually, are little guys who are pretty much forced to incorporate to get the most favorable tax treatment.

Similarly, the guy who owns two power mowers and a pickup and makes a few extra bucks in the summer mowing lawns is a capitalist, but has little else in common with the big, big guys who make the word seem bad.

I suspect the real issue is neither corporations no capitalism. It is corporate personhood. I believe that should be abolished.

[Xithras]

8. Not at all.

Capitalism is simply the private ownership of goods. In a classical capitalist society, companies would be owned by real people responsible for their real welfare.

Corporatism is capitalism with the personal responsibility factor stripped away. Where an individually owned capitalistic company would ultimately be answerable to a person (think Andrew Carnegie) who can theoretically be held personally responsible for the actions of his companies, a corporation is responsibility free. Corporations exist solely to profit their stockholders, and legal punishment against the companies is limited to taking away dividends. This creates a destructive entity in which all of the individual employees and leaders can absove themselves of personal responsibility for the corporations actions.

He may have been a bad person, but if we must live in a capitalistic society, I'd prefer to see large companies be individually owned as they were in Carnegie's day, than have them be mindless corporations as they are today. When there's an actual person responsible for the company, the people and government have FAR more power over them. A CEO who steers his company wrong and pollutes a river, for example, might incur millions of dollars in penalties against the company and lose his job. An owner, on the other hand, risks jail for the same crime.

The negative impacts of large companies on our nation can only be reigned in when the people running them fear for their PERSONAL freedom.

[defendandprotect]

9. There's somewhat of a difference between regulated capitalism [New Deal] and . . . .

unregulated capitalism which is merely organized crime --

[tom_paine]

11. Well said and true.

[HughMoran]

13. No, but fascism does

When one crosses from one to the other is anybodies guess - but we are getting too close for comfort IMHO...

[orpupilofnature57]

14. We Crossed the line in 1963 ,Nov. 22

http://www.bushwatch.com/family.htm

[harun]

15. It makes my day to see someone else say this besides me

Thank You.

It has been downhill from there, and we're gathering speed :-(.

[defendandprotect]

21. Agree --just weeks afterward some odd economic things began --

I recall noting the increased bids on companies -- among many other things.

[B Calm]

18. Unregulated capitalism is slavery

[defendandprotect]

22. And these are the kinds of questions/challenges which presidential candidates should be addressing -

When might we MSM introduce such a subject -- ????

[leftofthedial]

19. the corporation is the (so far) ultimate expression of capitalism

capitalism is corrosive--it will create entities (corporations) and it will tirelessly fight any regulation of constraint put upon it.

I can't imagine how capitalism could fail to create corporations, unless society were to regulate capitalism to the point that it was no longer capitalism.

but to answer the specific question in the OP, no. They are not the same thing--capitalism inevitably breeds corporations and works to make them preeminent. Capitalism is the cancer. Corporations are the tumors.

[JVS]

20. Does water = wetness?

No but they are inextricably bound.

[Lilith Velkor]

24. The former often leads to the latter.

[JVS]

25. and so it is with capitalism

[bryant69]

34. But is it inexorable

Or can steps be taken to prevent full blown corporatism from taking root?

Bryant

[JVS]

39. I think it is inexorable.

First you get the money, then you get the power. It's part of the Scarface conjecture.

[bryant69]

40. So you would favor some other economic system? n/t

[JVS]

42. Yes, I would favor some other economic system

Got any suggestions?

[bryant69]

47. Well the classics are

Socialism, Communism and Capitalism. Other options include Fascism, Syndacalism, Anarchist I suppose. What other possibilities are out there?

Bryant

[Blue-Jay]

48. Moisture is the essence of wetness.

[JVS]

49. moist mmmmmmmmm

[Alcibiades]

26. There's a problem in using the word "corporatism"

in this way. It already refers to something else, namely a political system whereby interests are represented through a series of bodies that have jurisdiction over the relevant matter. It was a feature of Italian fascism, though not all corporatist systems have been fascist.

[ConsAreLiars]

27. If you don't understand that capitalism, like everything else, changes over time and

evolves into something different than it started as, then you would be likely to post a nonsense question like this. Thinking reality is defined by little word boxes isn't particularly healthy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Two different animals

for starters read Adamn Smith, what he described is NOT what we have in this country right now

[TheUniverse]

29. Yes

Unchecked capitalism would remove barriers on corporations. Then they would be allowed to set whatever prices they want, and lower their wages. Unchecked capitalism was this country's system a century ago and it was a miserable failure. In unchecked capitalism, the big corporations would merge and start a monopoly. This would remove the free market, and would be essentailly the same thing as a communist government.

[Odin2005]

31. In our modern society? Yes.

The Capitalism of Adam Smith so idealized by conservatives is the capitalism of pre-industrial times. The Industrial Revolution introduced advantages of scale that favors oligopolies, monopolies, and powerful business interests, and thus leads to corporatism. This is what defenders of capitalism don't understand, thier ideal economy was obsolete ever since the Industrial Revolution.

[spindoctor]

35. It is definitely not the same but I wonder what you mean by corporatism. n/t

[Exiled in America]

37. American Capitalism, Yes. It is also the inevitable direction of capitalism.

Marx's critique of capitalism has turned out to be brutally accurate. Capitalism has within it the seeds of its own destruction, and we're watching that play out right now in the United States - it is capitalism in the last stages of its life.

[camero]

41. Eventually nt

[entanglement]

43. They're like HIV and AIDS n/t

[porphyrian]

45. Not at all. Corporatists are parasites that infect capitalist structures. - n/t

[Megahurtz]

51. I Bet That

the people that checked "not at all" are making some kind of $profit$
for themselves off of Capitalism. :think:

Well good for them. :sarcasm:

[Swamp Rat]

52. no

no