The people have spoken!

[gstape]

So are you saying it can't work without some corruption?

Nope, all I said is it isn't based on the assumption that all participants are honest.

[NikFu S.]

But what does that even mean? What is it based on?

[gstape]

But what does that even mean? What is it based on?

"Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are distributed to openly competing profit-seeking[1] private persons and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a market economy[2] in which anyone can participate in supply and demand and form contracts with each other, rather than by central economic planning. Capitalism is originally defined as a mode of production, where it is characterized by the predominant private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange in a mainly market economy[3]. Capitalism is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and businesses to trade, incorporate, and employ workers, in goods, services (including finance), labor and land.[2] In modern "capitalist states", legislative action is confined to defining and enforcing the basic rules of the market[4] though the state may provide a few basic public goods and infrastructure.[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

I don't see anything in here about the assumption of honesty.

It does talk about contracts, and it does talk about government enforcing basic rules of the markets i.e contracts need to be honored.

A side note: I think we have drifted way to close to "central economic planning" Someone could argue that is a better economic system, but it is not capitalism.

[NikFu S.]

Yeah I don't see anything about ethics or morality in there at all.

You think then, perhaps, just perhaps, that honesty would be an unspoken universal term?

I think that by reasoning a debatable immoral (or non-moral) basis of capitalism you are justifying the corrupt.

As a reminder of where I am going with this, I totally disagree with this statement: "Capitalism is most definatly not based on the assumption that all participants are honest."

[shotgunslade]

The financial meltdown was the result of the market regulating itself. The mortgage salesmen decided it was OK to make mortgages based on inflated appraisals to people who clearly couldn't make the payments. The mortgage brokers decided that they didn;t need to know the quality of the mortgages before selling them in the secondary market. They listed them as AA or better even though the mortagee was dead. Fannie and Freddie and other securities dealers decided that they didn't need to know about the quality of the assets when bundling them into "securities." On and on, up the ladder everyone was regulating himself to his own immediate, snhort-sighted interest.

Remember that a basic tenet of the free market is "enlightened" self-interest. I trust you have read Adam Smith. If not, you shouldn't be involved in this discussion. Enlightened means that you have to be honest because your own behavior validates the behavior of everyone else in the marketplace. You do it, and everyone else is empowered to do it.

So, people lie, cheat and steal, it validates everyone else to lie, cheat and steal. It stops being a marketplace and becomes an economic war zone with no holds barred. In that kind of environment, the guy with the economic power is free t odo anhything, and everybody else gets screwed.

The reason the government is required to regulate is that the market participants are insufficiently enlightened to behave in a fashion that is sustainable in the marketplace.

[RSVX]

Originally Posted by RojoRocket

Quote:
Originally Posted by RojoRocket
Someone's been watching way too much FOXTV. Appropriate selection of screen name BTW. ROYAL says it all.

Glenn



No ridicule here. Just thought it appropriate given that the ROYALTY always did know what was best for the little people

I also find it ludicrous that you, Mister Network Admin, would call me on that while sitting by watching your pet attack dog insult fellow members with every post. And what words exactly am I ordered to back with proof? Here's your proof.

Glenn

My point was, that you avoided the questions, and threw ridicule (the act of mockery) towards the people/person you were responding to.

My stance was NOT that you were breaking the rules, but dodging the questions.

We, as an admin/mod staff generally leave well enough alone here in the Political sub-forum and take a hands off approach.

Who is my attack dog? I have no such thing here? Are you referring to Lee? If so, you should ask him how he really feels about me, as we have definitely had our words in the past.

So anyway, it's clear that you misunderstood my intentions with that post.

[Landshark]

a short video of Obama's greatest acomplishment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2b1D...eature=related

[svxcess]

If I see that red-haired dork with the shades one more time, I'm going postal!

At least let me see him without the sunglasses

.

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by svxcess

If I see that red-haired dork with the shades one more time, I'm going postal!

At least let me see him without the sunglasses

.

[RojoRocket]

Originally Posted by RSVX

My point was, that you avoided the questions, and threw ridicule (the act of mockery) towards the people/person you were responding to.

My stance was NOT that you were breaking the rules, but dodging the questions.

We, as an admin/mod staff generally leave well enough alone here in the Political sub-forum and take a hands off approach.

Who is my attack dog? I have no such thing here? Are you referring to Lee? If so, you should ask him how he really feels about me, as we have definitely had our words in the past.

So anyway, it's clear that you misunderstood my intentions with that post.

Chris,
Thanks for clarifying the issue. I would like to respond, first, by reviewing Royal Tiger's original post:

Obama had millions in anonymous donations. His financial advisors have thier hands in the Wall Street debacle. As a lawyer, he sued for expansion of the sub-prime lending that caused this recession. When the Obama covered idiots on the street were asked what policy or ideas of Obama's they liked, most picked McCain's because they have no idea what the guy stood for or voted for. Change? More like shiny suit impresses the ignorant. What's worse is he will be Nancy Pelosi's lap dog in the near future. He won't act or do anything with out "consulting his advisors" (his words). Clinton rode the rewards of Reagan-omics and Bush suffered through the Clinton mess. Any economist will tell you it takes 10-15 years for policy and actions to affect the economy. Was Bush the best president? No. He made some mistakes. Was McCain the best option? No, but when put against Obama, yes. Obama has no expereince, refused to release his college transcripts, his wife writes a paper that makes the Black Panthers seem "moderate", and people ate it up. The media was in his pocket months ago. A guy votes for a complete ban of private ownership of firearms, then says he supports the 2nd Ammendment and people believe him. It will be a long 4 years. Not one of the things I listed is untrue. The people got their messiah.

1st: Where are the QUESTIONS here?
2nd: I was responding to the "supposed" facts stated, giving them the value they deserve.

In response to the "attack dog" hurling insults masked in general terms at anyone with opposing views question; no, LEE is in a world of his own. So, try again, but I think it's obvious. Let's just say that I haven't seen any helpful info offered by this ex-SVX owner in some time.

In the future I plan to stick to the SVX focused material on this board, which I have found invaluable throughout my years of ownership, and thank you for keeping it alive.

Glenn

[RSVX]

Originally Posted by RojoRocket

Chris,
Thanks for clarifying the issue. I would like to respond, first, by reviewing Royal Tiger's original post:



1st: Where are the QUESTIONS here?
2nd: I was responding to the "supposed" facts stated, giving them the value they deserve.

In response to the "attack dog" hurling insults masked in general terms at anyone with opposing views question; no, LEE is in a world of his own. So, try again, but I think it's obvious. Let's just say that I haven't seen any helpful info offered by this ex-SVX owner in some time.

In the future I plan to stick to the SVX focused material on this board, which I have found invaluable throughout my years of ownership, and thank you for keeping it alive.

Glenn

Right, no questions, I mis-worded.

So that was your response, that you feel his views are untrue, OK

And Alan? My attack dog? Haha! An attack dog he may be, but mine he is not.

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by RojoRocket

In response to the "attack dog" hurling insults masked in general terms at anyone with opposing views question; no, LEE is in a world of his own. So, try again, but I think it's obvious. Let's just say that I haven't seen any helpful info offered by this ex-SVX owner in some time.

i'm my own dog, dawg. remember, the internets are serious business.


here is some helpful info for you, since in your estimation, i haven't posted any in quite a while: sandy vagina syndrome can be treated with hormones. do yourself a favor and get your irritable box checked out by a doctor.

[Royal Tiger]

Nothing I said is untrue. Nothing I said was racist. I thought education was the first step to enlightenment. I guess I was wrong. I know of at least 3 different radio programs that stopped people wearing Obama buttons, shirts, hats, etc... and asked them to answer questions on policy. All the policies listed were from McCain. Not ONE person figured that out. That is complete ignorance, and proof of Obama the PR machine, not Obama the qualified canidate. He was a Senator for 2 YEARS when he decided he was ready to be President. The fact most people loved him for reasons completely detached from his politics and policies speaks volumes. I don't think McCain was the best choice, but clearly the lesser of two evils. Next time you want to run off at the mouth, bring facts, or just shut up. I could care less.

Since you are also ignorant of the basis for my screen name, it's an American designation for a German WWII tank, widely considered to have been the best design of the war.

[Mensaf]

You guys are worse than the Trans Am forums.

[gstape]

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

As a reminder of where I am going with this, I totally disagree with this statement: "Capitalism is most definatly not based on the assumption that all participants are honest."

I guess my reasoning was this: If Capitalism is based on the assumption that all participants are honest then it couldn't work because not all participants are honest. But yet it seems to work quite well.

And this: (since Shotgunslade brought up Adam Smith)
Smith believed that while human motives are ultimately out of self interest, the net effect in the free market would tend to benefit society as a whole. Self interest... thats what capitalism is based on.


If I am understanding you guys correctly your argument is that there are problems with free reign capitalism and one of those problems is honesty.

I can buy into that.

I am just worried that our answers to problems always seem to be government intervention and regulation, and that hasn't seemed to work all that well. Government officials seem to have honesty problems of their own you know.