Why Capitalism Isn't Going Anywhere

Why Capitalism Isn't Going Anywhere

There are 28 comments on the Reason Magazine story from Feb 20, 2012, titled Why Capitalism Isn't Going Anywhere. In it, Reason Magazine reports that:

At the height of the financial crisis in late 2008 and early 2009, a wave of articles declared the end of capitalism.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reason Magazine.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Don Joe

Maple Grove, MN

#1 Feb 20, 2012
The GOP finally found a professor somewhere to give credence to their wild plans of enslaving everyone. Freedom and growth? What a crock. In the US with capitalism, freedom is mostly gone and all the growth goes to the top 1% and nothing to everyone else. The standard of living for most Americans has been falling since Reagan instituted VooDoo economics.

That professor needs a dose of reality, and spent his time studying his field, rather than just watching Fox news and letting Rupert Murdoch tell him what he is supposed to think.
Researcher

Waco, TX

#2 Feb 20, 2012
Don Joe wrote:
The GOP finally found a professor somewhere to give credence to their wild plans of enslaving everyone. Freedom and growth? What a crock. In the US with capitalism, freedom is mostly gone and all the growth goes to the top 1% and nothing to everyone else. The standard of living for most Americans has been falling since Reagan instituted VooDoo economics.
That professor needs a dose of reality, and spent his time studying his field, rather than just watching Fox news and letting Rupert Murdoch tell him what he is supposed to think.
What we need to know is who paid for his "research."

“Yes I hate”

Since: Feb 12

here

#3 Feb 20, 2012
why is it you bottom scumdwellers don't work harder & smarter to improve yourselves rather then trying to pull the top 1% down? The small business owning middle class is shrinking & going backwards & yet Barak Osama does nothing. They employ (or did) more people than the top 500 companies. They create more street spending wealth than the top 500 companies. What help do they get - none. USA will soon be the new Mexico & Canada will be shutting her borders to you.
Simple

East Saint Louis, IL

#4 Feb 20, 2012
Because those stinking redistribution of wealth socialists are taking over!!!
CBOW

Abbottstown, PA

#5 Feb 21, 2012
FNQsteve wrote:
why is it you bottom scumdwellers don't work harder & smarter to improve yourselves rather then trying to pull the top 1% down? The small business owning middle class is shrinking & going backwards & yet Barak Osama does nothing. They employ (or did) more people than the top 500 companies. They create more street spending wealth than the top 500 companies. What help do they get - none. USA will soon be the new Mexico & Canada will be shutting her borders to you.
Agree, dopes like don joe have always sucked the tit of an employer. Capitalism ensures that if you have enough gumption an drive you can start a business and grow it to your desires. With this socialistic regime, stifling free choice to start a business is being threatened by the "leaders".
Unbelievable

Bethesda, MD

#6 Feb 21, 2012
Don Joe wrote:
The GOP finally found a professor somewhere to give credence to their wild plans of enslaving everyone. Freedom and growth? What a crock. In the US with capitalism, freedom is mostly gone and all the growth goes to the top 1% and nothing to everyone else. The standard of living for most Americans has been falling since Reagan instituted VooDoo economics.
That professor needs a dose of reality, and spent his time studying his field, rather than just watching Fox news and letting Rupert Murdoch tell him what he is supposed to think.
So if not capitalism, what would you suggest? communism? Do tell.

Sorry, I'll take my chance at a capitalism system where at least I have a chance to work hard and end up like the mean old nasty
1%ers.
Don Joe

Maple Grove, MN

#7 Feb 21, 2012
Unbelievable wrote:
<quoted text>
So if not capitalism, what would you suggest? communism? Do tell.
Sorry, I'll take my chance at a capitalism system where at least I have a chance to work hard and end up like the mean old nasty
1%ers.
LOL, you have no chance. Neither do the over 300 million other Americans, no matter how hard you work, nor how successful you are at making your boss rich.

I suggest the same thing that made America great in the past. Proper regulation so that the whole society succeeds, not just the rich. How about going back to the regulation and taxation of the 1950s when the US became the greatest economic power in the world.

On one side you have fascism, which results in a dictatorship with horrible consequences. On the other you have communism which also results in a dictatorship with horrible consequences. In between you have regulated businesses which work for everyone and leaves the other two in the dust.

In the US now, we have corporate control of almost all parts of government. Lobbyists write the laws. They pay for the candidates to win office and the legislators know who pays the bills. That gives them too much power and results in the US being fascist.

Since: Feb 07

Victoria, MN

#8 Feb 21, 2012
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, you have no chance. Neither do the over 300 million other Americans, no matter how hard you work, nor how successful you are at making your boss rich.
I suggest the same thing that made America great in the past. Proper regulation so that the whole society succeeds, not just the rich. How about going back to the regulation and taxation of the 1950s when the US became the greatest economic power in the world.
On one side you have fascism, which results in a dictatorship with horrible consequences. On the other you have communism which also results in a dictatorship with horrible consequences. In between you have regulated businesses which work for everyone and leaves the other two in the dust.
In the US now, we have corporate control of almost all parts of government. Lobbyists write the laws. They pay for the candidates to win office and the legislators know who pays the bills. That gives them too much power and results in the US being fascist.
Voluntary trade benefits both parties. 90% of new business's go bankrupt. Not all bosses get rich and what qualifies as rich is subjective and based on ones perspective. If you can afford three meals a day then you are among the top 15% of the wealthiest people on planet earth. I see you have enough disposable income to have internet access so that pushes you up even further on the totem pole.

It's ironic but, you're actually one of the rich people that you are envious of and don't even know it. There are about 6 billion people in the world that would love to trade economic places with you. You don't live in a grass or mud hut. You have running water. You have electricity in your home, a refrigerator, probably a car which you might conciser a P.O.S. but it's not bicycle. You don't have to run through a jungle or forest trying to spear an animal for food. You don't have to partake in sustenance farming or have to worry about starving to death because of some drought. You don't know how good you have it. You don't even know what poor means. You live in f'ing Maple Grove. It's full of yuppies.

The US economy was less regulated in the 50's than it is today. There was no Department of Education, no Dept. of Energy, no Medicaid, no gov't created HMO's...They have passed thousands upon thousands of regulations since the 50's. I would love to go back to 50's regulations. Congress would have to repeal a mountain of legalese that has been piled on over the past 60 years.

Communism and fascism have more in common with each other than with capitalism. Fascism is national socialism and communism is international socialism. Both require a monstrous sized bureaucracy to centrally plan the economy. Both limit freedom of speech. Both have banned gun ownership. Both have a hatred for states rights. Both are based on collectivism which favors some 'greater good' over individual rights.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

What is also ironic is the ever increasing government control over the individual that you advocate is what ultimately leads countries to totalitarian dictatorship. People are able draw parallels between the U.S. and famous dictatorships of the past because the concepts of government intervention are universal. Every government intervention must necessarily limit individual freedom.
Don Joe

Maple Grove, MN

#9 Feb 22, 2012
jerthemessiah wrote:
<quoted text>Voluntary trade benefits both parties. 90% of new business's go bankrupt. Not all bosses get rich and what qualifies as rich is subjective and based on ones perspective. If you can afford three meals a day then you are among the top 15% of the wealthiest people on planet earth. I see you have enough disposable income to have internet access so that pushes you up even further on the totem pole.
It's ironic but, you're actually one of the rich people that you are envious of and don't even know it. There are about 6 billion people in the world that would love to trade economic places with you..... You don't know how good you have it. You don't even know what poor means. You live in f'ing Maple Grove. It's full of yuppies.
The US economy was less regulated in the 50's than it is today. There was no Department of Education, no Dept. of Energy, no Medicaid, no gov't created HMO's...They have passed thousands upon thousands of regulations since the 50's. I would love to go back to 50's regulations. Congress would have to repeal a mountain of legalese that has been piled on over the past 60 years.
Communism and fascism have more in common with each other than with capitalism. Fascism is national socialism and communism is international socialism. Both require a monstrous sized bureaucracy to centrally plan the economy. Both limit freedom of speech. Both have banned gun ownership. Both have a hatred for states rights. Both are based on collectivism which favors some 'greater good' over individual rights.
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler
What is also ironic is the ever increasing government control over the individual that you advocate is what ultimately leads countries to totalitarian dictatorship. People are able draw parallels between the U.S. and famous dictatorships of the past because the concepts of government intervention are universal. Every government intervention must necessarily limit individual freedom.
Interesting response.

Voluntary trade benefits all? not necessarily. If I have an aspirin and you are dying from a heart attack, and I can sell it to you to help you to live, I could charge 1 million dollars, and if you have it you would pay. You stay alive, I get a million dollars. Is it a benefit? How about if I charge that you give me everything you have and half of everything you earn for the rest of your life. Or perhaps you, or your heirs have to pay $500,000 per year for the next 100 years? Is this a reasonable transaction?

You are correct that I am more wealthy than most. I am not envious of the very wealthy, because they don't have anything I want. They are short sighted, harming themselves and everyone around them for more money. It is a sickness.

As to your definitions of communism and fascism, they are different than what I was using. I don't know what you mean by international socialism. Fascism, according to Mussolini was corporate ownership and control over government, which is what we have in the USA today.

You seem to classify those "bad" forms of government with socialism, yet no mention of corporate interference in government and the detrimental effects thereof. The regulations of the 50s controlled more large business and left people alone. Now the regulations control people and small businesses, but let large corporations run wild. The lobbyists write laws, and the corporations pay to have them implemented. They own government. Why don't you think that is a problem?
Dinty Moore Pooh

Wellsboro, PA

#10 Feb 22, 2012
That's why I joined a lesbian militia to fight off the Democrat and Republican hordes that will be running around aimlessly after the zombie apocolypse.
Don Joe

Maple Grove, MN

#11 Feb 22, 2012
jerthemessiah wrote:
<quoted text>...
What is also ironic is the ever increasing government control over the individual that you advocate is what ultimately leads countries to totalitarian dictatorship. People are able draw parallels between the U.S. and famous dictatorships of the past because the concepts of government intervention are universal. Every government intervention must necessarily limit individual freedom.
I disagree. First, there is too much governmental control over the individual. There is not enough governmental control over large corporations. I do not advocate dictatorship, which is the direction we are going. I want a different direction. People are drawing parallels, because we are so fascist, we are clearly moving toward a dictatorship. I was actually surprised that bush stepped down.

As to government intervention limiting freedom, again I disagree. For example, if you want to play basketball, everyone must play by the rules. The referee must call the fouls and keep the game going. If there are no regulations, there is no game. One side might decide to put 10 people on the court and three basketballs. The other side might decide to control the scoreboard and only count baskets they make, ignoring all points for the other side. This is not freedom, it is anarchy.

The GOP has been advocating elimination of regulations for large corporations, which has let them control the scoreboard, while increasing regulations for people, such as insisting a government bureaucrat in in every doctor's office to make sure the doctor doesn't say anything the religious right doesn't want said.

The democrats have the duty to stop this nonsense, but instead they enable it; refusing to even investigate the most egregious activity of the GOP. Neither deserve your vote.
Don Joe

Maple Grove, MN

#12 Feb 22, 2012
Simple wrote:
Because those stinking redistribution of wealth socialists are taking over!!!
Yea, why is it that once someone steals all the money, some people want it back? It's just not fair. Don't they know how hard it is to steal all that money? If they would just work half as hard, they would be rich too, except of course that I have all the money and they won't get any.
Not Good

East Saint Louis, IL

#13 Feb 22, 2012
The socialists are taking over!

Since: Feb 07

Victoria, MN

#15 Feb 22, 2012
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting response.
Voluntary trade benefits all? not necessarily. If I have an aspirin and you are dying from a heart attack, and I can sell it to you to help you to live, I could charge 1 million dollars, and if you have it you would pay. You stay alive, I get a million dollars. Is it a benefit? How about if I charge that you give me everything you have and half of everything you earn for the rest of your life. Or perhaps you, or your heirs have to pay $500,000 per year for the next 100 years? Is this a reasonable transaction?
You are correct that I am more wealthy than most. I am not envious of the very wealthy, because they don't have anything I want. They are short sighted, harming themselves and everyone around them for more money. It is a sickness.
As to your definitions of communism and fascism, they are different than what I was using. I don't know what you mean by international socialism. Fascism, according to Mussolini was corporate ownership and control over government, which is what we have in the USA today.
You seem to classify those "bad" forms of government with socialism, yet no mention of corporate interference in government and the detrimental effects thereof. The regulations of the 50s controlled more large business and left people alone. Now the regulations control people and small businesses, but let large corporations run wild. The lobbyists write laws, and the corporations pay to have them implemented. They own government. Why don't you think that is a problem?
Yes voluntarily trade benefits both parties otherwise they wouldn't agree to it. Your scenario is incredibly unrealistic and if you really are willing to pay that much for an aspirin it's probably one of the few left on planet earth.

You also can't sign contracts on another persons behalf. I can't sign on the dotted line for you and lock you into paying $500,000 per year forever to Oprah Winfrey. This just shows your lack of understanding of basic contract law and shows how incredibly stupid/out of touch with reality your scenario was.

International socialism. Workers of the world unite. Meaning everything was to be planned from Moscow by the Russian bureaucrats. It turns out some socialists didn't didn't want to be ordered around by the Russians. They broke from the communist party and called themselves fascists. They believed in having nations. They were nationalists. There are different degrees to nationalism but the point is that the Germans didn't want to be part of the Soviet Union but they liked the idea of socialism. Hence the name of the Nazi party or "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", which translates to National Socialist German Workers' Party.

“We deny your internationalism, because it is a luxury which only the upper classes can afford; the working people are hopelessly bound to their native shores.”- Benito Mussolini

Free enterprise by definition has little to no regulation. You don't like the regulations but want more regulations? This doesn't even make any sense. You still don't realize that the 50's were much less regulated than today.

Open the PDF and scroll down to page 11 of the report. You can see the number of pages of new regulations added to the governments books since the 40's broken down by decade.

http://cei.org/sites/default/files/Wayne%20Cr...

112K in the 1940's
107K in the 1950's
170K in the 1960's
450K in the 1970's
529K in the 1980's
622K in the 1990's
733K in the 2000's
*This was published in 2006 so the final total for the decade will be much higher.

So how many more regulations do we need? How many more thousands of pages until we reach total bliss?

Regulations were not "better" in the 50's. They just had much less of them. People didn't have to hire lawyers just to start a business. They didn't have all the red tape. You can't regulate people and at the same time leave them alone. WTF?

Since: Feb 07

Victoria, MN

#16 Feb 22, 2012
Yes voluntarily trade benefits both parties otherwise they wouldn't agree to it. Your scenario is incredibly unrealistic and if you really are willing to pay that much for an aspirin it's probably one of the few left on planet earth.

You also can't sign contracts on another persons behalf. I can't sign on the dotted line for you and lock you into paying $500,000 per year forever to Oprah Winfrey. This just shows your lack of understanding of basic contract law and shows how incredibly stupid/out of touch with reality your scenario was.

International socialism. Workers of the world unite. Meaning everything was to be planned from Moscow by the Russian bureaucrats. It turns out some socialists didn't didn't want to be ordered around by the Russians. They broke from the communist party and called themselves fascists. They believed in having nations. They were nationalists. There are different degrees to nationalism but the point is that the Germans didn't want to be part of the Soviet Union but they liked the idea of socialism. Hence the name of the Nazi party or "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", which translates to National Socialist German Workers' Party.

“We deny your internationalism, because it is a luxury which only the upper classes can afford; the working people are hopelessly bound to their native shores.”- Benito Mussolini

Free enterprise by definition has little to no regulation. You don't like the regulations but want more regulations? This doesn't even make any sense. You still don't realize that the 50's were much less regulated than today.

Open the PDF and scroll down to page 11 of the report. You can see the number of pages of new regulations added to the governments books since the 40's broken down by decade.

This comes from "Crews: Ten Thousand Commandments 2006"

112K in the 1940's
107K in the 1950's
170K in the 1960's
450K in the 1970's
529K in the 1980's
622K in the 1990's
733K in the 2000's
*This was published in 2006 so the final total for the decade will be much higher.

So how many more regulations do we need? How many more thousands of pages until we reach total bliss?

Regulations were not "better" in the 50's. They just had much less of them. People didn't have to hire lawyers just to start a business. They didn't have all the red tape. You can't regulate people and at the same time leave them alone. WTF?

Since: Feb 07

Victoria, MN

#17 Feb 22, 2012
Crap double post. What a dumb forum.
Don Joe

Maple Grove, MN

#18 Feb 23, 2012
jerthemessiah wrote:
<quoted text>Yes voluntarily trade benefits both parties otherwise they wouldn't agree to it. Your scenario is incredibly unrealistic and if you really are willing to pay that much for an aspirin it's probably one of the few left on planet earth.
You also can't sign contracts on another persons behalf. I can't sign on the dotted line for you and lock you into paying $500,000 per year forever to Oprah Winfrey. This just shows your lack of understanding of basic contract law and shows how incredibly stupid/out of touch with reality your scenario was.
International socialism. Workers of the world unite. Meaning everything was to be planned from Moscow by the Russian bureaucrats. It turns out some socialists didn't didn't want to be ordered around by the Russians. They broke from the communist party and called themselves fascists. They believed in having nations. They were nationalists. There are different degrees to nationalism but the point is that the Germans didn't want to be part of the Soviet Union but they liked the idea of socialism. Hence the name of the Nazi party or "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", which translates to National Socialist German Workers' Party.
“We deny your internationalism, because it is a luxury which only the upper classes can afford; the working people are hopelessly bound to their native shores.”- Benito Mussolini
Free enterprise by definition has little to no regulation. You don't like the regulations but want more regulations? This doesn't even make any sense. You still don't realize that the 50's were much less regulated than today.
Open the PDF and scroll down to page 11 of the report. You can see the number of pages of new regulations added to the governments books since the 40's broken down by decade.
http://cei.org/sites/default/files/Wayne%20Cr...
112K in the 1940's
107K in the 1950's
170K in the 1960's
450K in the 1970's
529K in the 1980's
622K in the 1990's
733K in the 2000's
*This was published in 2006 so the final total for the decade will be much higher.
So how many more regulations do we need? How many more thousands of pages until we reach total bliss?
Regulations were not "better" in the 50's. They just had much less of them. People didn't have to hire lawyers just to start a business. They didn't have all the red tape. You can't regulate people and at the same time leave them alone. WTF?
You claim portions of my post don't make any sense, because they don't fit with your definition of the world. You appear to think no one ever gets sick. No one ever has a heart attack.

Few aspirin left on Earth? No, just someone who happens to have one when you need it. You have never heard of corporations trying to make money????? And you think I am out of touch.

As to your straw man pertaining to contract law, phony.

As to your rewrite of history, it appears to be a modern rewrite, completely twisting and contorting, making up the silliest nonsense. The fascists didn't want the communists taking over the world, because they believed in nations?? what udder hogwash.

Perhaps you should look at some real history books and find out. It's pretty hard to find someone further away from reality than you. I bet most people in mental hospitals are in better touch. How can you function from day to day?

Since: Feb 07

Victoria, MN

#19 Feb 23, 2012
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
You claim portions of my post don't make any sense, because they don't fit with your definition of the world. You appear to think no one ever gets sick. No one ever has a heart attack.
Few aspirin left on Earth? No, just someone who happens to have one when you need it. You have never heard of corporations trying to make money????? And you think I am out of touch.
As to your straw man pertaining to contract law, phony.
As to your rewrite of history, it appears to be a modern rewrite, completely twisting and contorting, making up the silliest nonsense. The fascists didn't want the communists taking over the world, because they believed in nations?? what udder hogwash.
Perhaps you should look at some real history books and find out. It's pretty hard to find someone further away from reality than you. I bet most people in mental hospitals are in better touch. How can you function from day to day?
No you retard. I seem to think nobody pays $1,000,000 for an aspirin. If they could they would be one of the rich people you seem to hate so much.

Absent government intervention corporations don't make money unless they can sell people a product that they actually want to buy. OMG! Hide the children! Starbucks is selling coffee and making lots of money!

It wasn't a strawman. Your example was a father or mother signing their kids lives away into a contract. You can't do that. They are different people. You can't sign contracts for other people. It's just as illegitimate and irrational as me signing you into a contract with Oprah.

I gave quotes from Mussolini and Hitler. You provide no sources for anything,

Here's more from Wikipedia on the beleifs of Marx and Engels:

"Some anti-nationalists oppose all types of nationalism, even ethnic nationalism among oppressed minority groups. This strain of anti-nationalism typically advocates the elimination of national boundaries. Variations on this theme are often seen in Marxist theory. Marx and Engels rejected nationalism as a whole, believing "the working class have no country".

Since: Feb 07

Victoria, MN

#20 Feb 23, 2012
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, why is it that once someone steals all the money, some people want it back? It's just not fair. Don't they know how hard it is to steal all that money? If they would just work half as hard, they would be rich too, except of course that I have all the money and they won't get any.
How does Starbucks steal money? The only one stealing money on a massive scale is the government.
Don Joe

Maple Grove, MN

#21 Feb 23, 2012
jerthemessiah wrote:
<quoted text>No you retard. I seem to think nobody pays $1,000,000 for an aspirin. If they could they would be one of the rich people you seem to hate so much.
Absent government intervention corporations don't make money unless they can sell people a product that they actually want to buy. OMG! Hide the children! Starbucks is selling coffee and making lots of money!
It wasn't a strawman. Your example was a father or mother signing their kids lives away into a contract. You can't do that. They are different people. You can't sign contracts for other people. It's just as illegitimate and irrational as me signing you into a contract with Oprah.
I gave quotes from Mussolini and Hitler. You provide no sources for anything,
Here's more from Wikipedia on the beleifs of Marx and Engels:
"Some anti-nationalists oppose all types of nationalism, even ethnic nationalism among oppressed minority groups. This strain of anti-nationalism typically advocates the elimination of national boundaries. Variations on this theme are often seen in Marxist theory. Marx and Engels rejected nationalism as a whole, believing "the working class have no country".
I quoted Mussolini. We have no basis for conversation. Your view of history and the world is so distorted we cannot even have similar meanings for the words used. Go ahead and make the same mistakes over and over, history shows us that keeps happening, and you are showing us the reasons for it. The regulations were changed so the bankers could steal all the money of the nation in the early part of last century, and the great depression was the result. Again, the regulations were changed to allow the bankers to steal all the money, and here we are again, in another great depression. We will continue in poverty till the regulations are put back in place and we can earn our way out.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Carnegie Mellon University Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Clinton supporters line up for candidate's visi... Nov 15 Cheech the Conser... 6
News Autopods Debut for Downtown Transportation Nov 10 Jerri 4
News Tim Kaine returning to Pittsburgh for campaign ... Oct '16 Joey Boots 2
News Fully driverless vehicles could soon be on Penn... Aug '16 when 1
News Drinkable Book may save lives by cleaning conta... (Aug '15) Oct '15 nittanyj 3
News Google Street View tech can solve CAPTCHA puzzles (Apr '14) Sep '15 Anonymous 2
News How much sex is too much sex? (Jun '15) Jun '15 donaldinaz 3
More from around the web