aquascoot wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 10:27am:


Yet an huge proportion of the worlds wealth is inherited by people who do just that.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 7:50pm:


You need pure capitalism for small business then the bigger a business gets the more Govt intervention required.

aquascoot wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 7:35am:


Awesome summary from Petersen.


One from Milei:
And throughout the whole period between the year zero and the year 1800, the per capita GDP growth rate remains stable at around 0.02% annually. So almost no growth. Starting in the 19th century with the Industrial Revolution, the compound annual growth rate was 0.66%. And at that rate, in order to double per capita GDP, you would need some 107 years.

Now, if you look at the period between the year 1900 and the year 1950, the growth rate accelerated to 1.66% a year. So you no longer need 107 years to double per capita GDP – but 66. And if you take the period between 1950 and the year 2000, you will see that the growth rate was 2.1%, which would mean that in only 33 years we could double the world’s per capita GDP.

This trend, far from stopping, remains well alive today. If we take the period between the years 2000 and 2023, the growth rate again accelerated to 3% a year, which means that we could double world per capita GDP in just 23 years.

That said, when you look at per capita GDP since the year 1800 until today, what you will see is that after the Industrial Revolution, global per capita GDP multiplied by over 15 times, which meant a boom in growth that lifted 90% of the global population out of poverty.

We should remember that by the year 1800, about 95% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. And that figure dropped to 5% by the year 2020, prior to the pandemic. The conclusion is obvious.

Far from being the cause of our problems, free trade capitalism as an economic system is the only instrument we have to end hunger, poverty and extreme poverty across our planet. The empirical evidence is unquestionable.

Therefore since there is no doubt that free enterprise capitalism is superior in productive terms, the left-wing doxa has attacked capitalism, alleging matters of morality, saying – that’s what the detractors claim – that it’s unjust. They say that capitalism is evil because it’s individualistic and that collectivism is good because it’s altruistic. Of course, with the money of others.

So they therefore advocate for social justice. But this concept, which in the developed world became fashionable in recent times, in my country has been a constant in political discourse for over 80 years. The problem is that social justice is not just, and it doesn’t contribute to general well-being.

Quite on the contrary, it’s an intrinsically unfair idea because it’s violent. It’s unjust because the state is financed through tax and taxes are collected coercively. Or can any one of us say that we voluntarily pay taxes? This means that the state is financed through coercion and that the higher the tax burden, the higher the coercion and the lower the freedom.

Jasin wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 5:03pm:


Good post, good observations.

The other thing I don't like about Capitalism, is that it is a Predatory system. It serves only to advantage the Predators (Carnivores so to speak) over Prey (Herbivores). So if you happen to be a Herbivore of 'Peace', then Capitalism is going to work against you. What you see in the USA is that the only way to get ahead in Capitalism is to 'prey upon' other people. In other words - Capitalism: Destroy the Competition, because it can't compete fairly with Competition. It's as simple as that. That's why 'all entities' in America, who claim to be about Equality, Peace, Love, etc, etc - are all truly Predatory in their nature: to succeed off the backs and sufferings, misfortunes, poverty (because the Deepest Pocket wins, not the truths of the matter even in a Court of Law) and pacifisms.

The only 'flaw' of Communism I can see is that it falls into the Northern Hemisphere trait of Politics saying its for 'the People' (of many different entities other than Political or outside of it) - when it truly isn't. It's only for the 'people' inside Politics itself.
Lenin may have made Communism 'for the People' (Peasants, etc) - but once it had attained its right to power, it too became another Political style/theme that folded back on itself to be for the Party or the People in Politics directly. Thus the peasantry and mainstream people were again under an Oppressive minority of Power that predated off those not directly in it.
Same with such things like Roman Republic (Re-Public) and all the other Political styles around the world structured on the Northern Hemisphere trait. Never truly ruled by 'the People' as a 'majority', but again by a minority of 'People' in the Political 'zone'.

In South America. There are many 'businesses' that are actually owned and run by the 'Workers' and their CEO's and Managers, etc - work for them. What this does is it keeps the Workers employed, their jobs going and the businesses run by 'the People' indeed. They have the last word, not the CEO's. This is just one true and pure example of what a Southern Hemisphere Political environment would be.

I have no doubt if Communism came about in the Southern Hemisphere like Australia via Egalitarianism (which has been corrupted into the Northern Hemisphere style - which is why Egalitarianism here has all but dissapeared from here now, as it once was). It would indeed be a state of existence where the mainstream people of majority do run the Political future of this country and the Party of Representatives for that - would be the Servants, not the Rulers. The final decision would not be left in the hands of a wealthy minority - because the Wealth would be spread out among the Common populace like a Commonwealth in its truest form.

Capitalism: Destroy the Competition (not compete fairly with them).

Of course, anyone in Politics as you see it (especially under Capitalism) would say that by REALLY making Politics 'for THE PEOPLE' of the mainstream populace. It would dis-empower Politics as the wealth would not be funnelled towards a Minority, but spread out among the majority. Politics would cease to exist as a 'Power'.
Well Politically speaking yes - but it empowers the 'many' over the 'few' which is what Northern Hemisphere Politics does.

Wouldn't it be nice if Albanese walked into a Factory of Workers (Proles, Plebs, Peasantry, etc) and said "Hi!" 
Only for them to say "Where's our wage increase you *****. If we don't see it in a week - you're a dead man to be replaced!"
Poor Albanese would finally have a 'consequence' for not serving 'the People' (of majority). 
Would Albanese state "But, but - if I do that, then our Political minority will be less empowered to a quality of life higher/better than your own!"

Quote:


yes, I think a moderated Capitalist system is best

Karnal wrote on Apr 19^th, 2024 at 6:08pm:


Oh look - 2017.

Silly old moi, eh?