patrick.net

Clearly Venezuela is crappy. I wouldn't draw any overreaching conclusions based on it though.

Strategist says

Innovation. Capitalism has the ability to innovate and bring new products to the masses.Products that improve the lives of billions.

e.g. Smart phones, electricity, airplanes, computers, and virtually everything you use.

Once again, you are completely wrong. Capitalism discourages innovation because the inventor does not own his invention, but rather his boss does. There are millions of Americans who don't invent because the company they work for would own their inventions.

Now, if you are saying that the inventor should work in his own business and invent things, that's not capitalism. That's self-ownership of the work you create, which is the exact opposite of capitalism. Capitalism is people with money, called owners, paying others to do work like inventing and then the owners get to control the invention and the revenue stream the invention creates. The inventor gets the short end of the stick. This does not encourage invention or innovations. It greatly discourages it.

However, in all societies there are many forces at play. Although capitalism discourages innovation, commerce and self-ownership of one's work greatly encourages innovation. Having free markets with no barriers to entry also encourages innovation, but capitalism fights against free markets and erects barriers. Why do you think the big telecoms are fighting right now to destroy net neutrality by moving ISP rules from title two to title one? They want to end the free market of bit delivery.

The fact is you still don't understand the difference between commerce and capitalism, between the innovator owning his innovations versus some owner class owning things they didn't invent. The guy who cures cancer isn't going to make a dime off the cure. All the profits will go to the executives at Pfizer who don't even know that hydrogen hydroxide is water. Innovators don't get the fruits of their labor under capitalism. They only get the wealth they created if they own the product of their own labor. Such a system is not capitalism, communism, or feudalism. It would be an unnamed new system.

Get it through your thick skull that capitalism is not commerce. If it were, it'd be call commercialism. Capitalism is not trade. If it were, it'd be call tradism. Capitalism is not free markets. If it were, it'd be call market liberalism. Capitalism is not banking. If it were, it'd be call bankism. The word capitalism literally means "moneyism". It means that those who have money, get to own all production and inventions and the revenue streams those things create and thus get more money to own more of production. Such a system, by design, concentrates all wealth and all production into the hands of a very few people who do no work, produce no goods, and do no innovation. Capitalism is that one specific mechanism and nothing else.

If you want an economic system in which innovators get to keep ownership of their inventions and thus the lion's share of the wealth created by their innovation, that's not capitalism. If you want an economic system with free markets, that's not capitalism. If you want an economic system based on unrestricted commerce, that's not capitalism. If you want an economic system that rewards productivity and only productivity, that's not capitalism. If you want an economic system in which everyone's income is determined solely by their wealth creation, that's not capitalism.

You can have an economic system with all the above properties, but it wouldn't be capitalism, communism, or feudalism. It would be something new. If you want to call this new system capitalism because the very word capitalism gives you a hard-on, then fine, we can lie and call it capitalism, but we still have to understand that it's not capitalism. It breaks the mechanism of letting rich people own the creations of innovators and workers, and that's a good thing.

You seem to care so much more about labels than how the system actually works. Labels are bullshit. All that matters is the engineering of the economy. And the system we use right now has a fundamental flaw that drastically lowers wealth creation, which is something that can grow exponentially. If we had the system I described a mere 50 years ago, our current GDP would be at least ten times as great. Imagine if you real wealth were ten times greater. If you are an innovator, your real wealth would be even more than that under my system because you'd own your own work.

Stop treating economics like tribal religion. Start treating it as engineering.

FortWayne says

Socialism is really great for creating poor people, lots of em.

So, Fort Wayne, would you cut the defense budget by 90%?

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Innovation. Capitalism has the ability to innovate and bring new products to the masses.Products that improve the lives of billions.


e.g. Smart phones, electricity, airplanes, computers, and virtually everything you use.

Once again, you are completely wrong. Capitalism discourages innovation because the inventor does not own his invention, but rather his boss does. There are millions of Americans who don't invent because the company they work for would own their inventions.

Now, if you are saying that the inventor should work in his own business and invent things, that's not capitalism. That's self-ownership of the work you create, which is the exact opposite of capitalism. Capitalism is people with money, called owners, paying others to do work like inventing and then the owners get to control the invention and the revenue stream the invention crea...

ha ha ha ha. What a load of crap you just posted. Who owns the innovations in Socialist countries? that is, if they had any innovation.

Dan8267 says

Why has Venezuela failed so miserably? Multiple reasons.

1. Totalitarianism

Why do Marxist/Socialist states produce so many Totalitarians - Dan? Socialism by definition requires bequeathing more power to the State to control our economy through price controls and nationalization of industries. So it is easier for Totalitarians to rise to power and use the awesome power of the State for corruption.

Every Commie sympathizer always complains "they did Communism wrong!" or "Socialism is not Communism!"

Left-wing morons just a few years ago were proclaiming Venezuela was an economic miracle!

Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_chavezs_economic_miracle/

joeyjojojunior says

Actually capitalism absolutely creates poverty--socialistic policies are what governments create to reduce the poverty that is naturally created under capitalism. Capitalism naturally creates enormous wealth disparity and extreme poverty.

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty in the last 30 years than anything on the planet.

Towards the end of poverty
"Nearly 1 billion people have been taken out of extreme poverty in 20 years. The world should aim to do the same again"
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

socal2 says

Why do Marxist/Socialist states produce so many Totalitarians - Dan?

Socialist states like Finland and Denmark?

Strategist says

ha ha ha ha. What a load of crap you just posted. Who owns the innovations in Socialist countries? that is, if they had any innovation.

I wrote a detailed and clear explanation, and that piece of crap response is the most you can muster?

Honey, socialism isn't an economic system. It's a specific tactic. It's also a tactic that no society could ever do without using. Without socialism there would be no military, no police, no fire fighters, no highways, no roads, no sewers. Are you willing to give all those things up?

The U.S. military is the largest socialist program in all of human history. If we cut 90% of its funding, we'd still be spending more than anyone else. So tell me Strategist, would you slash the military budget by 90%?

If you don't answer like all the other cowards who refused to answer this question, then the answer is obviously no and you are a complete hypocrite for calling socialism unworkable while supporting the largest socialist program in all of history. And this is why I cannot take you seriously on any subject. Your entire belief system is self-contradictory.

socal2 says

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty in the last 30 years than anything on the planet.

Actually it is the implementation of socialist policies, safety nets, employment regulations, etc. within democratic countries that is responsible for lifting people out of poverty.

Also, if you look at the major countries that have made the transition from developing to developed countries (Japan, Korea, China), you can see the crucial role that governments have played. Unbridled capitalism without regulation and some planning just doesn't work.

socal2 says

Why do Marxist/Socialist states produce so many Totalitarians - Dan?

Same exact reason that capitalist societies like the United States do. Remember, our country has committed dozens of genocides, had multiple torture centers, has murdered children for political reasons, has conducted lethal medical experiments on our citizens without their knowledge, has the greatest number of political prisoners of any country in the world, practiced slavery and segregation, practiced cruel child labor, and used the police and national guard to silence protestors with deadly force.

The reason is the same whether your in a capitalist or a communist society. Concentration of wealth and power into the hands of the few causes those few to commit atrocities to retain and expand that concentration of wealth. The only way to prevent such atrocities is to prevent that concentration of wealth, and both capitalism and communism actively promote that concentration, as does feudalism. In fact, capitalism, communism, and feudalism are essentially the same economic system with slightly different implementation details. They are all centralized, wealth concentrating economies that inevitably lead to mass numbers of poor people where poverty is inherent as much as wealth is.

Of course, you don't like this answer, so you will say it's wrong, but you won't be able to justify that contradiction.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

ha ha ha ha. What a load of crap you just posted. Who owns the innovations in Socialist countries? that is, if they had any innovation.

I wrote a detailed and clear explanation, and that piece of crap response is the most you can muster?

I know you wrote in detail. Does not make it acceptable. When you add crap to crap, you end up with more crap.

Dan8267 says

Honey, socialism isn't an economic system. It's a specific tactic. It's also a tactic that no society could ever do without using. Without socialism there would be no military, no police, no fire fighters, no highways, no roads, no sewers. Are you willing to give all those things up?

The U.S. military is the largest socialist program in all of human history. If we cut 90% of its funding, we'd still be spending more than anyone else. So tell me Strategist, would you slash the military budget by 90%?

The answer is No, and No again. Because it would be a stupid thing to do.

Strategist says

I know you wrote in detail. Does not make it acceptable. When you add crap to crap, you end up with more crap.

Calling something crap isn't sufficient to make a case. You have to show that your opponents argument are wrong, not just call them crap. I can easily say that everything you've ever written is crap. Does that sound like a sufficient counterargument?

The fact that you cannot refute my statements is evidence that you are simply wrong.

Strategist says

The answer is No, and No again. Because it would be a stupid thing to do.

Then you clearly like a hell of a lot of socialism, and that undermines your position. Since you support the largest social program in all of history, you clearly don't actually think socialism is unworkable. If you don't believe what you are saying, why the hell should I?

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

The answer is No, and No again. Because it would be a stupid thing to do.

Then you clearly like a hell of a lot of socialism, and that undermines your position. Since you support the largest social program in all of history, you clearly don't actually think socialism is unworkable.

I support a balance of socialism and capitalism. That is what works best.

Strategist says

I support a balance of socialism and capitalism. That is what works best.

Your statement is meaningless as socialism does not contradict capitalism. Once again you are confusing socialism and communism. Get a dictionary.

In any case, clearly your supposition that socialism is evil and unworkable isn't even believed by you.

If only you could ditch the tribal mindset of yours regarding economics, we could have a conversation on what should be socialized and what shouldn't be and why. However, that's impossible as long as you treat economics like a religion and a culture rather than as a mathematically driven engineering discipline. There are no tribes in engineering. There is only math and physics.

Dan8267 says

Capitalism is people with money, called owners, paying others to do work like inventing and then the owners get to control the invention and the revenue stream the invention creates. The inventor gets the short end of the stick.

At an unnamed top American drug company, team of people who developed a multi-billion $ drug were fired a few years later. Reason - since they were successful, they had higher salaries, so getting rid of them would save company much money. Besides, what is the chance they will be able to develop a second multi-billion $ drug?

drBu says

At an unnamed top American drug company, team of people who developed a multi-billion $ drug were fired a few years later. Reason - since they were successful, they had higher salaries, so getting rid of them would save company much money

This is a perfect example of how capitalism discourages innovation. The people who invent drugs do not get the rewards of that invention. The owners do. If you want smart people working hard inventing drugs, then the inventors (the workers) need to get the financial rewards rather than the owners who can't do any chemistry and don't invent anything.

If people like strategist weren't so religious of economics, they would realize that the key to encouraging innovation is to reward innovators, not owners, and that would be, by definition, abandoning capitalism. If we did get rid of capitalism and replace the reward mechanism with one that rewarded innovation and productivity, our GDP would be higher, we'd have more inventors and innovators, our per capita productivity would be higher, and less funding for social safety nets like welfare and unemployment would be necessary, and so taxes would also go down.

But because strategist looks at economics like culture, he will never accept this. Ironically, he's impoverishing himself by willfully remaining ignorant.

I've seen some comments where people are using Canada's health care system to show that somehow socialized healthcare is the best way to go.

The average wait time to see a specialist (ENT, OBGYN, etc) is nearing 20 weeks now across all provinces. Last week I had a slight ear infection and saw an ENT specialist the SAME day I noticed I had symptoms.

That's why socialized health care doesn't work. Government rationing will never be as good as the invisible hand.

You do realize that even private health insurance is socialism? You are literally socializing costs whenever you use insurance of any kind.

My colleague next office is Canadian. Had two children born there. Father had serious hart desease treatment recently. Loves the Canadian health care system, as do most Canadians.

The problems they have are minor compared to ours and can be relatively easily fixed.

FP says

My colleague next office is Canadian. Had two children born there. Father had serious hart desease treatment recently. Loves the Canadian health care system, as do most Canadians.

The problems they have are minor compared to ours and can be relatively easily fixed.

I have co-workers from Canada, Australia, UK. In the heat of Obamacare debates all professed love of their respective home country's healthcare systems. All think that problems are minor and can be relatively easily fixed. None of them going back. The guy from UK wanted transfer to US office explicitly to be able to have children, because UK system was unable to make it happen for him and his wife. Now he has two kids. Still moaning about "slavery that US healthcare system is" and how it "prevents him from doing his own thing". Still not going back. It's been 10+ years since he moved here, btw.

So reducing cost isn't the important factor? Wait times are what you're worried about?

joeyjojojunior says

So reducing cost isn't the important factor? Wait times are what you're worried about?

Sure I'd like to reduce cost, but not to the detriment of quality.

I've made a good life for myself, I'm a multi-millionaire, and I want to be able to purchase the best healthcare I can afford for me and my family, from the most motivated brilliant doctors that can see me, not some shared misery with everyone else where the doctors are all paid some state rate and the system doesn't attract the best and brightest people because their pay rates are being artificially suppressed.

20 weeks to wait for a specialist is not a good quality healthcare system. That can actually lead to many preventable deaths. If I want to see a high quality ENT specialist the same day, that should be an option for me, not some inefficient government rationing system.

The VA is a socialized, government run, health care system. How is that working out for America's veterans?

So, in other words--

Got mine, eff you.

But, in reality, universal systems can have options where you can purchase improved service.

joeyjojojunior says

But, in reality, universal systems can have options where you can purchase improved service.

... or move to US, like my British co-worker did. The question is: where do you fucking move when US goes "universal".

When the US government can fix the appalling VA and Medicare systems - THEN we can talk about trusting them with running the health system for the entire country.

Why on earth anyone would trust our government with this monumental task while we have these existing systems falling apart is beyond me.

Some Liberal Progressive seem to have an absolute religious faith in government despite of all facts and reason.

joeyjojojunior says

So, in other words--

Got mine, eff you.

Basic health care has been available for the poor and destitute for decades in the U.S. So no, it's not "eff off", because they already have an option. Is it the best option? No, it's not, but that's how everything is in life.

People work and earn what they deserve I find. Many parts of our lives on this planet are incentive based. Do you also chastised the guy who drives a bright red Ferrari to work because you drive an older economy car? What about the guy who is able to vacation 5 times a year to any location he wants while most Americans are unable to take one international vacation a year on average? I don't. While America has the best income mobility in the world, which makes it the best country in the world IMO, you still have to work to earn it. The government's job is to make sure there are no obstacles to you working your way up, not to get in the way which is what socialized health care is. If I work hard, and earn lots of money, I should be able to purchase better "health care/cars/homes" than the guy who chose to skip school, or sleep in on Saturdays while I stayed up 48 hours straight trying to graduate out of Wharton Business school.

If you can find a better way than capitalism that MOST efficiently satisfies the demand and supply curves, I'm all ears.

joeyjojojunior says

But, in reality, universal systems can have options where you can purchase improved service.

No that is not true. In Canada you can purchase supplemental insurance for specific services not covered by the public plan (like getting a private room after a birth), but cannot purchase private insurance for basic services (like seeing an ENT specialist). So even if I was a millionaire in Canada and wanted to see an ENT doctor, I'd be rationed just like the guy who makes $10 an hour. There's a reason why 40,000 to 60,000 wealthy Canadians come to the U.S for specialist care every single year.

Dan8267 says

This is a perfect example of how capitalism discourages innovation

Is it because if this that there is a STEM shortage.

Capitalism discourages inventors from getting credit and fair compensation for their efforts, but clearly doesn't discourage innovation.

The US pharmaceutical industry is basically subsidizing the the R and D for all the countries that have socialist single payer healthcare systems. This despite the fact that most of the pharm industry budgets are geared towards marketing.

Compared to the US, innovation in Europe is far less, at least with regard to pharmaceuticals

MMR says

Dan8267 says

This is a perfect example of how capitalism discourages innovation

Is it because if this that there is a STEM shortage?

Capitalism discourages inventors from getting credit and fair compensation for their efforts, but clearly doesn't discourage innovation.

The US pharmaceutical industry is basically subsidizing the the R and D for all the countries that have socialist single payer healthcare systems. This despite the fact that most of the pharm industry budgets are geared towards marketing.

Compared to the US, innovation in Europe is far less, at least with regard to pharmaceuticals

"People work and earn what they deserve I find"

bwahahahahahahahaha. That is hilarious.

"Do you also chastised the guy who drives a bright red Ferrari to work because you drive an older economy car? What about the guy who is able to vacation 5 times a year to any location he wants while most Americans are unable to take one international vacation a year on average? "

No, but I also don't consider access to healthcare to be a luxury.

"No that is not true"

Read what I wrote again. It wasn't specific to Canada.

joeyjojojunior says

"People work and earn what they deserve I find"

bwahahahahahahahaha. That is hilarious.

Why is it hilarious? You don't think that people who work hard, innovate, and provide a good/service will not earn more money than someone who does not?

You still haven't answered my question. Name another way or method that most efficiently satisfies the supply and demand curves besides capitalism. We know Canada does not do this because you have to wait 20 weeks to see a specialist. That's not efficient or the best outcome of supply meeting demand.

No, but I also don't consider access to healthcare to be a luxury.

Okay, so what is "health care"? Tell me.

And let me summarize again--You believe that some (relatively large) percentage of the US population should not have access to healthcare (other than the ER) so that specialists have enough free time to allow you to get a same day appointment.

Do I have that correct?

I believe access to healthcare should be a basic human right.

MMR says

Is it because if this that there is a STEM shortage.

There is no STEM shortage. None.

I believe there is a very small correlation between hard work and income. Probably a bit higher if you could quantify innovation, but still not great.

Dan explained why on a different thread today. Capitalism rewards capital, not work. Not innovation.

joeyjojojunior says

And let me summarize again--You believe that some (relatively large) percentage of the US population should not have access to healthcare (other than the ER) so that specialists have enough free time to allow you to get a same day appointment.

Do I have that correct?

When did I say some "relatively large percentage" of the US should not have access to healthcare? That hasn't been the case in the United States for decades. I know homeless people on LA's skidrow that get weekly clinic visits for free. There are already of options for the poor. Medi-Cal in California, medicaid nationally. So who is exactly not getting access to healthcare?

joeyjojojunior says

I believe access to healthcare should be a basic human right.

At best, you can make access to an equal portion of available health care a right. You cannot make health care itself a right. For example, you cannot even make a cure for cancer a right because there is no such resource yet. Resources cannot be rights as rights are freedoms. The freedom to access available resources can be made a right, but that's a very important distinction that most people don't seem to be able to understand.

joeyjojojunior says

I believe there is a very small correlation between hard work and income. Probably a bit higher if you could quantify innovation, but still not great.

Dan explained why on a different thread today. Capitalism rewards capital, not work. Not innovation.

That makes no sense. Capitalism rewards "capital"? Please explain.

"That makes no sense. Capitalism rewards "capital"? Please explain."

It makes perfect sense. The innovator doesn't get rich--the owner of the company gets rich. Owners of productive assets do nothing but sit back and collect checks while the people who actually innovate, sweat, work, etc. get very little.

joeyjojojunior says

It makes perfect sense. The innovator doesn't get rich--the owner of the company gets rich. Owners of productive assets do nothing but sit back and collect checks while the people who actually innovate, sweat, work, etc. get very little.

So you believe capitalism is "owners of productive assets" sitting back and collecting checks?

That's a very limited Marxist perception of Capitalism.

Also, "health care should be a human right". Please explain that.

Goran_K says

So you believe capitalism is "owners of productive assets" sitting back and collecting checks?

That's a very limited Marxist perception of Capitalism.

That is exactly what capitalism is. If you think that's not important, then let's get rid of that particular mechanism from our economy. We can keep commerce, markets, banking, money, etc. and can even still call the new system capitalism if that label gives you a hard-on. But the mechanism of the rich owning the means of production and automation and controlling the distribution of revenue from creations they did not make absolutely must go. Concede this and then we can debate what to call the replacement.

By the way, what the hell would you have us call that mechanism in the meantime if not capitalism?