Capitalism is Devil's Dung

[Siro]

Alright, you got me riled up with the Ayn Rand jab. After that I might have reacted a little over sensitively.

But I think the question about who's holding the reigns in the Pope's vision of capitalism is valid. Especially since he is referencing the nonexistent boogeyman of unbridled capitalism. Maybe he just doesn't like who's holding the reigns at the moment?

But I think capitalism is more of a threat to the Pope than the Pope is to capitalism, that is, if the Pope legitimately wanted to attack it. That's essentially what I was saying in my OP.

FYI, I'm not a worshiper of Ayn Rand. She has no qualifications as an economist or as a philosopher. She also had the gall to name her "philosophy" Objectivism, while she freely modified it to justify her own failings.

I'm also not advocating for some anarchist version of capitalism.

But I do find it humorous that the Pope would speak out against it, especially since it is typically right-wing religious conservatives that typically freak out about supposed socialists and communists in our midsts.

I did not think you were a worshiper of Rand. I assumed you're familiar with her, however. I realize that her ideas are pretty much ignored in academia. But I can't help bring her up because "libertarians", much like hippies, rub me the wrong way. A lot of them act like their ideas are based upon a life-long pursuit of philosophy, when it is about as deep as a teenager mocking the fakeness of suburbia. But it is petty, and I will be mindful not bring her,or anyone else, up out of context. It is like Dutch always bringing up Obama.

As for the subject of the pope, as Dalamon pointed out, Christians have been talking about this forever. Through out history, there had been countless Christian sects that lived free of possessions. Those movements were at their height during the Middle Ages, when CAPITALISM WAS BORN. I think both capitalism and Christianity are here to stay for the foreseeable future. I don't think either can survive indefinitely. I think it is likely that technology will eventually make both systems obsolete. Capitalism requires scarcity, and Christianity requires death. I highly doubt that either of those will prove a permanent condition for humanity.

Now THAT would be a far more interesting subject for discussion than the pope's boring statement.

 

[The Thriller]

Same. People complaining about nothing. I think people realized the inhumanity of unbridled capitalism like 200 years ago. Count on ****ing CNN to conflate modern and unbridled capitalism.

Tell that to the Confederacy of the USA aka the tea party/Ayn Rand worshippers.

Today's GOP is trying to roll is back into the 1800s when you could work 80 hr work weeks, be poorly compensated, and not have a safety net to fall into.

Canada is a commie country that doesn't even have guns and has to give health care to everyone. What losers. USA USA USA!

 

[Gameface]

Tell that to the Confederacy of the USA aka the tea party/Ayn Rand worshippers.

Today's GOP is trying to roll is back into the 1800s when you could work 80 hr work weeks, be poorly compensated, and not have a safety net to fall into.

Canada is a commie country that doesn't even have guns and has to give health care to everyone. What losers. USA USA USA!

Oh good, we finally have a sophisticated view on what's happening in the world.

 

[♪alt13]

I assume it would remain the way it is now. People and their governments bridle capitalism, the same way they do now. Even the most capitalist country on Earth, the United States, actively monitors and manipulates the market. I read a lot of economics books, all by capitalist academics, and I haven't come across anyone who thinks we would do be better off with zero regulation. I'm talking about academics from serious institutions, not Ayn Rand.

I think that if we first define capitalism then, although it is a popular stance(common sense even), I don't think that your statement makes any sense at all.

If capitalism is defined as from merriam-websters-"a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government" from google "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." then; You have regulated the market but you haven't regulated ownership. More often than not that monitoring and manipulation of the market is used to consolidate ownership and protect the capitalist.

We have an inability to collectively speak about capitalism because the word has been twisted to be absolutely synonymous with free markets in public discourse.

I think that we need to have a whole different conversation if we are truly taking about regulating capitalism. Should the great grandchildren of an innovator, no matter how inept they may be, have a greater claim to the profits of a company than the people that make it run? Patents eventually expire and yet they still provide ample incentive for inventors. Should there be a point in time where a company transitions from preserving its existence for the purpose of benefiting dead entrepreneurs and becomes an institution that preserves its existence for the profit of its workforce? Should the fruits of the workforce benefit wall-street more than main street?

I think that capitalism is almost completely unregulated while the market is regulated for the benefit of those that have the most capital. If that isn't unbridled capitalism, what is?

 

[Siro]

I think that if we first define capitalism then, although it is a popular stance(common sense even), I don't think that your statement makes any sense at all.

If capitalism is defined as from merriam-websters-"a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government" from google "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." then; You have regulated the market but you haven't regulated ownership. More often than not that monitoring and manipulation of the market is used to consolidate ownership and protect the capitalist.

I don't understand what you're getting at. Ownership is regulated, and the government owns many things. Land, EM spectrum, mineral rights, a portion of your income, and countless other things. Market economy and capitalism are interchangeable terms.

 

[♪alt13]

I don't understand what you're getting at. Ownership is regulated, and the government owns many things. Land, EM spectrum, mineral rights, a portion of your income, and countless other things. Market economy and capitalism are interchangeable terms.

They are similar. They aren't interchangeable.

Market Economy(system of Trade)-A market economy is an economy in which decisions regarding investment, production, and distribution are based on supply and demand, and prices of goods and services are determined in a free price system

Capitalism(system of property)-a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government

They seem so because we ignore but two main archetypes, Western Capitalism, and Soviet Communism.

 

[VINYLONE]

https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/worl..._homepage_deskrecommended_pool&iref=obnetwork

Time for Catholics to rebel against capitalism.

Nothing could kill Christianity faster than an attempt by Christian leaders to destroy the progress and the quality of life capitalism has provided to humanity. I say condemn, condemn, condemn.

Continue teaching us that our joy, our desire, our love is evil. Keep teaching us that our natural state of being is a sin. The louder, the stronger the condemnation the faster we will wake up and realize that faith is the problem. That lies and fantasy is not a suitable solution to humanities problems.

Bring it on Pope!

I read the article and unfortunately, the meme'd image is NOT what the Pope stated in his speech. The meme, I assume, was made from an inference that the CNN writing staff made. I realize that the lady newscaster in the video repeats it but in the bullet points in the middle of the article, state what he actually said.

That being said, I agree with the Pope completely and support the language he used. I'm sure we can all agree that the Pope is a very smart individual and gives much forethought to the ideas and claims he puts forth. I think in this particular speech his language is wholly specific and references the current fiscal issues the world is facing.

Before I continue, let me state that my position on what the Pope said comes from a complete support of free market Capitalism. Capitalism with a capital "C" that believes in BOTH profit AND LOSS which in my opinion is the most important concept of capitalism because it's loss and the risk associated with it that acts as the clearing mechanism that Capitalism needs in order to work. Yes, gain and profit are good and important but it's LOSS that keeps the system honest.

The Pope's use of the word "unfettered" is insanely specific as it references the recidivist banks that are currently functioning on a global scale without so much as any type of criminal prosecution. Unfettered means exactly that. While Capitalism is THE best economic system the world has ever known, it's downfall is that man is involved and ultimately, man's greed. So, checks and balances must occur and and prosecutions must happen in order to keep the system functioning. I believe this is what the Pope is talking about in specific terms.

In point #6 he says:

6. "The new colonialism takes on different faces. At times it appears as the anonymous influence of mammon: corporations, loan agencies, certain 'free trade' treaties, and the imposition of measures of 'austerity' which always tighten the belt of workers and the poor."

Again, super specific. He alludes to the recent TPP agreement, the banks acting as domestic and international lending agencies, austerity (Greece???), etc. All current financial scenarios happening around the world. Again, scenarios driven by these recidivist institutions.

We need to ask ourselves why that as individuals if we are tried and convicted of multiple felonies, we lose all sorts of rights beginning with the first felony and if we continue to commit felonious acts, we surely will land in prison. Why are these recidivist financial institutions not treated the same way? Folks will respond with, well, they're being fined! Well, what if I told you that the only penalty for being caught robbing a bank was having to give some of the money back? Well, if that happened, there'd be a line out the door of most banks with folks ready to rob them. This is currently the scenario.

So, I don't think the Pope is coming down on Capitalism or the pursuit of money in general, but I think he's against the financial terrorism that is currently taking place. As an unabashed supporter of Capitalism, I'm against it as well.

 

[Gameface]

Quick disclaimer after reading VINYLONE's post above. CNN didn't have an image to download with the article, so I googled the headline under images. There were probably better, less tacky pictures to choose from.

The image in the OP didn't come from CNN.

 

[franklin]

Tell that to the Confederacy of the USA aka the tea party/Ayn Rand worshippers.

Today's GOP is trying to roll is back into the 1800s when you could work 80 hr work weeks, be poorly compensated, and not have a safety net to fall into.

Canada is a commie country that doesn't even have guns and has to give health care to everyone. What losers. USA USA USA!

USA taxes and spends more on social projects than Canadians so I guess we are the commies and them the dirty capitalists. Add in there disproportionately large amount of oil production and it's a wonder why they're so damn stingy to their people.

 

[franklin]

I read the article and unfortunately, the meme'd image is NOT what the Pope stated in his speech. The meme, I assume, was made from an inference that the CNN writing staff made. I realize that the lady newscaster in the video repeats it but in the bullet points in the middle of the article, state what he actually said.

That being said, I agree with the Pope completely and support the language he used. I'm sure we can all agree that the Pope is a very smart individual and gives much forethought to the ideas and claims he puts forth. I think in this particular speech his language is wholly specific and references the current fiscal issues the world is facing.

Before I continue, let me state that my position on what the Pope said comes from a complete support of free market Capitalism. Capitalism with a capital "C" that believes in BOTH profit AND LOSS which in my opinion is the most important concept of capitalism because it's loss and the risk associated with it that acts as the clearing mechanism that Capitalism needs in order to work. Yes, gain and profit are good and important but it's LOSS that keeps the system honest.

The Pope's use of the word "unfettered" is insanely specific as it references the recidivist banks that are currently functioning on a global scale without so much as any type of criminal prosecution. Unfettered means exactly that. While Capitalism is THE best economic system the world has ever known, it's downfall is that man is involved and ultimately, man's greed. So, checks and balances must occur and and prosecutions must happen in order to keep the system functioning. I believe this is what the Pope is talking about in specific terms.

In point #6 he says:



Again, super specific. He alludes to the recent TPP agreement, the banks acting as domestic and international lending agencies, austerity (Greece???), etc. All current financial scenarios happening around the world. Again, scenarios driven by these recidivist institutions.

We need to ask ourselves why that as individuals if we are tried and convicted of multiple felonies, we lose all sorts of rights beginning with the first felony and if we continue to commit felonious acts, we surely will land in prison. Why are these recidivist financial institutions not treated the same way? Folks will respond with, well, they're being fined! Well, what if I told you that the only penalty for being caught robbing a bank was having to give some of the money back? Well, if that happened, there'd be a line out the door of most banks with folks ready to rob them. This is currently the scenario.

So, I don't think the Pope is coming down on Capitalism or the pursuit of money in general, but I think he's against the financial terrorism that is currently taking place. As an unabashed supporter of Capitalism, I'm against it as well.

Those who blame the banking sector for our own political problems are as clueless as any. Wall Street wants stability, and tried to stop the collapse years before 2008. Political hack morons with your attitude prevented them from saving us from ourselves.

Like Goldman's Blankfein said, they are "doing God's work".

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Well, he sounds an awful lot like Jesus of Nazareth back in his day. Probably more similar to Jesus than any Pope that has ever lived.



Haven't you heard from those YouTube videos? Everyone's gonna be Muslim by like 2023.

While a moral philosopher of some repute, I'd wager that Jesus would be a pretty lousy economist. Railing against money sellers is all fine and stuff, but coming uup with a method for allocating resources efficiently and setting up fair rules of exchange and property ownership that incentivize risk taking and investment, etc. are a bit more difficult, I'd venture to say.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I assume it would remain the way it is now. People and their governments bridle capitalism, the same way they do now. Even the most capitalist country on Earth, the United States, actively monitors and manipulates the market. I read a lot of economics books, all by capitalist academics, and I haven't come across anyone who thinks we would do be better off with zero regulation. I'm talking about academics from serious institutions, not Ayn Rand.

Although some tea party/right wing rhetoric appears to come close as time to casting all regulation as bad. Not a group known for nuanced positions, though.

There's a difference perhaps to 'enabling environment' laws that may not strictly be called 'regulation' (e.g., related to contracts, ownership, investment, etc.) and then there is regulation, which is a more active kind of policy, which constrains private economic behavior in the interest of the public good (e.g., associated with classic market failures of externalities, public goods, info asymmetries). Early industrial era in Europe and in US appear, at least on surface, to come pretty close to zero or minimum regulation (I don't know specifics). I'm inclined to think that it is precisely because of the lessons learned during these periods, and the ensuring progressive reforms (that Glenn Beckites hate so much) that now form a critical basis for modern opinions about regulation.

I do fear, however, that we have failed to learn the lessons in some cases, as we continually fight battles against the acolytes of big business to roll back the progressive reforms that were the result of large-scale suffering at the hands of greedy capitalist. (No, not all capitalist are 'greedy,' but many are, they have large sums of money to spread around to feckless politicians.)

 

[franklin]

I do fear, however, that we have failed to learn the lessons in some cases, as we continually fight battles against the acolytes of big business to roll back the progressive reforms that were the result of large-scale suffering at the hands of greedy capitalist. (No, not all capitalist are 'greedy,' but many are, they have large sums of money to spread around to feckless politicians.)

As someone who understands economics, you should realize the reason "progressive reforms" are being reversed. Living standards are high enough that the "market" no longer requires the checks that unions once helped build, and eventually went way to far with.

People will always bitch and moan about their "poor" living standards. When living standards are actually bad we will actually do something about it.

 

[Harambe]

As someone who understands economics, you should realize the reason "progressive reforms" are being reversed. Living standards are high enough that the "market" no longer requires the checks that unions once helped build, and eventually went way to far with.

People will always bitch and moan about their "poor" living standards. When living standards are actually bad we will actually do something about it.

*pulls over the trOldsmobile*

Uhm.. the people are "doing things about it". You see the fights every day.. increases in minimum wage all over the news. You see regular people flocking to Progressives like Bernie Sanders in record numbers. You see people fight about the absurd amount of money it takes to get a degree that makes you ALMOST hireable... but you have to work an unpaid internship for them first. You see more and more people re-thinking Obamacare not because it's bad, but because we should have just socialized it as a whole.

Sure, these are not rape and pillage things yet, but they're on their way to them rather than away from them.

 

[franklin]

*pulls over the trOldsmobile*

Didn't read past this. You're the board's leftist version of Dutchjazzer, or carolinajazz.

 

[♪alt13]

*pulls over the trOldsmobile*

Uhm.. the people are "doing things about it". You see the fights every day.. increases in minimum wage all over the news. You see regular people flocking to Progressives like Bernie Sanders in record numbers. You see people fight about the absurd amount of money it takes to get a degree that makes you ALMOST hireable... but you have to work an unpaid internship for them first. You see more and more people re-thinking Obamacare not because it's bad, but because we should have just socialized it as a whole.

Sure, these are not rape and pillage things yet, but they're on their way to them rather than away from them.

I'm going to school to become an engineer. The degree is going to cost me less than my car at a better interest rate.

 

[Harambe]

Didn't read past this. You're the board's leftist version of Dutchjazzer, or carolinajazz.

Pretty great, isn't it?

 

[Harambe]

I'm going to school to become an engineer. The degree is going to cost me less than my car at a better interest rate.

Congratulations on being african american?

I mean... the minority?

 

[♪alt13]

Congratulations on being african american?

I mean... the minority?

lol

You're a ****in idiot. My whiteness has zero relevance to the cost of my degree or the loans I'm receiving. I don't get the white guy reduced tuition rate, dip ****.

 

[Siro]

Congratulations on being african american?

I mean... the minority?

I'm an Arab, and I feel the same way as Alt. I came to the US on my own, penniless, and managed to earn an advanced degree entirely through grants and loans. Which was not a big deal in the least.