Free Market Capitalism is Still the Best Path to Prosperity

[Dr. Paddy]

All money is created from nothing. The problem with capitalism is it is fueled by debt and all debt becomes unpayable. In 2008, all debt became unpayable so they printed money and solved the problem. The bigger problem is who got the money and who didn't and that is where socialism steps in.

All money is not created from nothing. Free enterprise money is created from many inputs that produce products and services that have worth and for which money is received. Money is linked to something of value, and is the token by which exchanges take place of those things of value. 

 

I think your idea that socialism and free enterprise are mutually exclusive is wrong, ACH. Certainly communism and free enterprise are mutually exclusive, but not socialism. Socialism really only needs government management and funding of the overhead of a civilized society, and assuming the role of banks. 

 

Still wondering why your finger smells of poo, Housepicks?

 

 

[Always Call Heads]

All money is not created from nothing. Free enterprise money is created from many inputs that produce products and services that have worth and for which money is received. Money is linked to something of value, and is the token by which exchanges take place of those things of value. 

 

I think your idea that socialism and free enterprise are mutually exclusive is wrong, ACH. Certainly communism and free enterprise are mutually exclusive, but not socialism. Socialism really only needs government management and funding of the overhead of a civilized society, and assuming the role of banks. 

 

Still wondering why your finger smells of poo, Housepicks?

No, it isn't. Money is created by the government to facilitate trade. It represents units of labor which are widely accepted as trade.

 

Kingston refers to banks creating money which is true. Every $1 deposited to a bank results in $10 in loans which enter the economy as money. That debt cannot be repaid. Every now and then that little problem becomes acute and capitalism ends.

[Dr. Paddy]

No, it isn't. Money is created by the government to facilitate trade. It represents units of labor which are widely accepted as trade.

 

Kingston refers to banks creating money which is true. Every $1 deposited to a bank results in $10 in loans which enter the economy as money. That debt cannot be repaid. Every now and then that little problem becomes acute and capitalism ends.

Agree with your second paragraph. The first is a political statement and not accurate. An economy creates wealth. Certainly labor is a major part of that creation. Money allows value to be attached to those products and serves as a medium of exchange, which replaces the only alternative, barter of product for product. 

[Always Call Heads]

Agree with your second paragraph. The first is a political statement and not accurate. An economy creates wealth. Certainly labor is a major part of that creation. Money allows value to be attached to those products and serves as a medium of exchange, which replaces the only alternative, barter of product for product.

No, wealth is political. All wealth is paper wealth. Paper wealth is not real. It is a social agreement. Those agreements are subject to change. Because they never change, they are considered to be universal truths.

[Machiavelli]

So, ACH.....should we be like Scandinavia or nah? 

 

Gal on the pod was making a compelling case, altho we'll never get to that type of ideal. 

 

But....how much like them should we strive for?

[Dr. Paddy]

So, ACH.....should we be like Scandinavia or nah? 

 

Gal on the pod was making a compelling case, altho we'll never get to that type of ideal. 

 

But....how much like them should we strive for?

 

So, ACH.....should we be like Scandinavia or nah? 

 

 

I don't really think that is the question. For starters, you aren't "like Scandinavia" now.

[Always Call Heads]

So, ACH.....should we be like Scandinavia or nah? 

 

Gal on the pod was making a compelling case, altho we'll never get to that type of ideal. 

 

But....how much like them should we strive for?

Yes, a little more like Scandinavia. The US worker is too committed to their own demise for that so the options there are limited.

 

The US model is Latin America. That is the end game.

[Machiavelli]

I don't really think that is the question. For starters, you aren't "like Scandinavia" now.

 

That's the point. 

 

They are a mixed system as we are, but focus primarily on taking care of the people whereas we are more business-oriented. 

 

But both have capitalism mixed with government/social programs and such. 

[Dr. Paddy]

No, wealth is political. All wealth is paper wealth. Paper wealth is not real. It is a social agreement. Those agreements are subject to change. Because they never change, they are considered to be universal truths.

The apparent inequity of wealth is political. Not all wealth is paper wealth. Very much of it is represented by tangible assets. 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, a little more like Scandinavia. The US worker is too committed to their own demise for that so the options there are limited.

 

The US model is Latin America. That is the end game.

 

So...Venezuela? 

 

Because that hasn't worked out..

[Dr. Paddy]

The US model is Latin America. That is the end game.

Explain that, please.

[Always Call Heads]

Explain that, please.

The apparent inequity of wealth is political. Not all wealth is paper wealth. Very much of it is represented by tangible assets.

Basically all wealth is paper wealth because it is all dependent on social agreements.

 

Latin America is the model for US economics. It is the elite's hopes that we can eventually achieve Latin American policies. We have overthrown every Latin American country to make sure it follows our rules.

 

Venezuela is a once prosperous country now afflicted by the resource curse and subject to US sanctions in an effort to overthrow the govt (see above). It's problems are corruption both of its govt and its elites. Not a lack of wealth.

[Dr. Paddy]

They are a mixed system as we are, but focus primarily on taking care of the people whereas we are more business-oriented. 

 

But both have capitalism mixed with government/social programs and such. 

It is really only business that can underpin an economy and taxation on that economy to accomplish the "...taking care of people" part. 

 

In America, there is a political philosophy that having to take care of people raises taxes and therefore lowers profits. That is an ultra right view. The Trumpists view. The normal and acceptable view of the right is that the government is inefficient and wasteful in how it carries out the duty to provide "...the overhead of a civilized society". That view is substantially correct, and it forms the basis for the legitimate, respected "conservative" ideology, which is based on fiscal restraint. Legitimate, i.e. from Edmund Burke onwards, conservatism can exist with a socialist government from time to time and vice versa. We have "sort of" socialist governments up here, right now BC where I am, and Alberta. I think some people have a better feeling about what their tax dollars do in these very light handed socialist governments. Some don't.

 

The ultra right would have all business unregulated, untaxed, and leaving labor and small business to fund the only overhead that matters to them...that for police and prisons to stop people from killing them and robbing them. 

[Machiavelli]

It is really only business that can underpin an economy and taxation on that economy to accomplish the "...taking care of people" part. 

 

In America, there is a political philosophy that having to take care of people raises taxes and therefore lowers profits. That is an ultra right view. The Trumpists view. The normal and acceptable view of the right is that the government is inefficient and wasteful in how it carries out the duty to provide "...the overhead of a civilized society". That view is substantially correct, and it forms the basis for the legitimate, respected "conservative" ideology, which is based on fiscal restraint. Legitimate, i.e. from Edmund Burke onwards, conservatism can exist with a socialist government from time to time and vice versa. We have "sort of" socialist governments up here, right now BC where I am, and Alberta. I think some people have a better feeling about what their tax dollars do in these very light handed socialist governments. Some don't.

 

The ultra right would have all business unregulated, untaxed, and leaving labor and small business to fund the only overhead that matters to them...that for police and prisons to stop people from killing them and robbing them. 

 

Yeah, see....that's just too extreme. 

 

I do not mind some of the broad views of the left if we can ensure that we do not go too far left and end up with a country that both seeks to sustain itself economically and take care of its people. 

 

I think we tilt back and forth in the left/right in how to go about doing that, but.....I am for anyone who can accomplish big things in a responsible manner.