Say Anything Blog

Most crude oil is owned by a government.  As  the owner, the government gets a royalty, usually in the range of 18% to 23%.  The oil company does all the investment, develops the well, transports and refines the crude and gets the product to where it can be used, but the government gets their share right off the top.  Government has the greatest incentive to maintain high oil prices.

In defense of pharmaceuticals, you have to understand that for every successful medicine that is produced, there are many unsuccessful medicines produced. Their successful products have to make a large enough profit to pay for all their research. This includes paying for the successful products, and the unsuccessful time wasted researching medicines that did not pan out.

Pharmaceutical companies that do not make ridiculous profits on their successful medicines go out of business very quickly when they try to take risks on new medicines. They also have to pay for lawsuits when the 0.0001% of the people who take their medicine get some crazy side-effect.

 Oil, on the other hand, just has to be pumped out of the ground and shipped.

True, but since much of the oil revenues go to governments and people that actually own the oil producing ground, it doesn’t make sense to blame the oil companies.

Oil, on the other hand, just has to be pumped out of the ground and shipped.

Right, Craig… that’s all it is.  Oversimplification makes not a good argument.

I’m sorry, Craig. I’m not trying to troll, but that statement is wrong.

As a whore to the oil and gas overlords, I can tell you for a fact that there is way more that goes into exploration, both in terms of cost and effort, than just popping a hole in the ground and letting the hydrocarbons flow.

I don’t want to all "industry knowledge" on anyone but trust me when I say that while pharmaceuticals has high R&D costs the cost of exploration and development in the oil industry are just as high and recieve just as much government regulation and just as many frivolous lawsuits.

Why are drugs significantly cheaper in Canada?

and why is the beer so much better? FWIW I don’t blame the oil companies either. The energy business is up and down and this happens to be an up time.

Does’t anyone here understand the difference between Nationalism and Socialism?  I’m just wondering that because it seems that anyone that suggests than Corporations should act in a way that is good for America is immediately labeled a Socialis - myself included.

Why is it so wrong to advocate that corporations have the same sense of Nationalism as we expect of our citizenry?

Why is it so wrong that people and corporations that profit solely because of the freedoms this country offer have a sense of patriotism when times are tough?

I asked these questions not to be sarcastic or snipent, but because it would seem to me that from a business standpoint these corparations would want to do anything that is possible to stay in the black and that maybe taking a bite of this global ripoff will lessen the impending downturn that will affect them as well. 

Why is it so wrong to advocate that corporations have the same sense of Nationalism as we expect of our citizenry?

Because the only thing that corporations and companies should do is make money.

Why is it so wrong that people and corporations that profit solely because of the freedoms this country offer have a sense of patriotism when times are tough?

They profit because there is a need for what they are selling.

I asked these questions not to be sarcastic or snipent, but because it would seem to me that from a business standpoint these corparations would want to do anything that is possible to stay in the black and that maybe taking a bite of this global ripoff will lessen the impending downturn that will affect them as well.

"Global ripoff"? Are you kidding? They are dealing with global ripoffs in the form of government. Not just our own government, mind you, but governments of every other country they operate and sell in.

Free: Likwid is right;  the only global ripoff going on is govt in all parts of the world.  Most are far worse than our govt, but it is a ripoff all the same.  They take our money and use it for their own purposes to retain power.  Our govt’s social programs are simply vote-buying programs.

Could I ask that if you respond to my inquiry, that responses pertain to the corporations and not governments as that was the subject of my reply.

Thank you. 

No, freep. We will respond in any manner we wish. This is America, after all.

Free: You stated that corps are engaged in a global ripoff.  We simply pointed out the real global ripoff.  Corps sell the product at the price set by the govts.  If you don’t want the product, you don’t have to buy it, but govts take their money no matter what you want.  See the difference?  If you are so concerned with global ripoffs, go after the real ripoff artists, the govts.

No, freep. We will respond in any manner we wish. This is America, after all.

My bad.  Expecting discussion to stay on topic…ON THE INTERNET!

I’m such an Idiot, Gosh!

You stated that corps are engaged in a global ripoff.

No.  Again, please read what I actually wrote: 

"I asked these questions not to be sarcastic or snipent, but because it would seem to me that from a business standpoint these corparations would want to do anything that is possible to stay in the black and that maybe taking a bite of this global ripoff will lessen the impending downturn that will affect them as well. "

I suggested they should take a bite of this global ripoff.  Maybe I wasn’t clear, I meant that they should swallow some of the loss.  Now how could they be swallowing a loss if they were part of a conspiracy?

You know what the problem is here, I just realized it!

You (everyonehere) assume that my criticism is based in the same logical as the Left’s.

FreeRepublicans.com said, I’m such an Idiot, Gosh!

I’m quoting you on this.

Maybe I wasn’t clear, I meant that they should swallow some of the loss.

Why would they do that? Did you pay them more during the years where earnings were bleak? You didn’t?!? Well why not?

Exxon has how many mechanized divisions ?

Free: How could they "take a bite out of the ripoff" if they weren’t the ones doing the ripping off?  You accused them of a global ripoff;  at least be honest enough to admit that.

Free…I understood your point quite clearly and I also believe that it is to a corporation’s advantage to take its social responsibilities seriously. That said, docdave is right in that the energy is cyclical and these boom times make up for the bust times…not to say that individual corps are not capable of taking advantage in times like these but one shouldn’t assume that every corp engages in such practises at all times.

You also said

You (everyonehere) assume that my criticism is based in the same logical as the Left’s.

Welcome to the land of ideological blinkers  where the citizenry never met a piece of nuanced and objective analysis that it couldn’t dismiss as leftist claptrap.

Free…I understood your point quite clearly and I also believe that it is to a corporation’s advantage to take its social responsibilities seriously.

I, too, understood his point quite clearly. I just quite clearly disagreed with it. I also, quite clearly, understand and disagee with your supposition that a corporation has "social responsibilities". A corporation, business, company, or whatever only has one responsibility: to make as much money as they can within the confines of the law.

Welcome to the land of ideological blinkers where the citizenry never met a piece of nuanced and objective analysis that it couldn’t dismiss as leftist claptrap.

Speaking of ideological blinkers, hello MikeAdamson.

Oh and MikeAdamson - the claim that the positions you take are "nuanced and objective" - what leftist claptrap man.

Hahahaha…

lik said

I, too, understood his point quite clearly.

Based on your comment at 7:10 PM I would say you don’t. In fairness you do show some grasp of the up and down nature of energy earnings in your  8:03 comment.

I also, quite clearly, understand and disagee with your supposition that a corporation has "social responsibilities".

So stay in the 19th century and your econ textbooks. You disagree with about 500 CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies but what do they know? 

the claim that the positions you take are "nuanced and objective"

Never said I did although the abilities to see more than one side of an issue and the willingness to contemplate possible consequences of positions and actions taken are definitely foreign to some people. 

Based on your comment at 7:10 PM I would say you don’t. In fairness you do show some grasp of the up and down nature of energy earnings in your 8:03 comment.

What? In what way?

So stay in the 19th century and your econ textbooks.

Whatever. What rubbish rhetoric. Care to explain why you said it anyways? I need a laugh.

You disagree with about 500 CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies but what do they know?

I do? You sure about that? Well I haven’t talked to these 500 CEOs like you obviously have, but I’m willing to bet that you’re talking out of your ass here. The reality is that the 500 CEOs of Fortune 500 companies know that there are certain things that they have to do to attract the best talent and/or to keep the public eye from asking too many public relations questions and/or bowing to public pressure. I wouldn’t hedge my bets on all 500 believing that they have "corporate responsibilities" other than making as much money as they can. They might talk a different game for PR purposes though. That’s not to say that there aren’t CEO’s out there who really believe that they have "corporate responsibilities" beyond making money, but as I said before, I haven’t talked to those 500 CEOs like you have.

Never said I did although the abilities to see more than one side of an issue and the willingness to contemplate possible consequences of positions and actions taken are definitely foreign to some people.

Well, true that. I’m glad that you’re no longer lumping everyone in together. You’re now a bit more nuanced and objective in your explanation.

MikeA: Corporations in this country have no social(ist) responsibilities other than to generate wealth and obey the laws.  To make the economic system beholden to social goals is socialism.  Period.  To put it another way, if business has any social responsibility, it is to generate wealth so that it can be reinvested in making more business and yielding even more employment opportunities for those who choose to be employees.

Clearly my point was lost.

The global ropoff is OPEC - the fact that I have to spell that out says little your reading comprehension.

Now, to the extent that the oil companies live by OPECs edicts, yes, they are in cahoots at some level.  However, I really don’t blam the companies persay as they are as beholden to OPEC as the rest of us.

But there would be something to be said if these corporations would use their unfathomable profits to push change in the region instead of only be subsidized by the American taxpayer via the military/foreign policy cabal.

I am not suggesting that the oil companies be converted to public utility or non-profit status like some who rail against them for different motives.

I am suggesting that the oil companies who have benifited throughout recent history by the foreign policy of the government that has been funded by the taxpayer. 

And as for the ‘social responsibility issue’ - yes, I think they do have some; but I would put my suggestion that they should have some Nationalism in a seperate category. 

Free: Thanks for the Marxist rant.  Now we know who you are. 

lol

FreeRepublicans.com said, The global ropoff is OPEC - the fact that I have to spell that out says little your reading comprehension.

Listen asshole: this is the first time you have mentioned OPEC. And who is OPEC made up of? Well goll-ee Mr. Dustin! It looks like OPEC is made up of a group of countries that have banded together.

So clearly your point wasn’t lost. You’re the one who is not up to speed.

But there would be something to be said if these corporations would use their unfathomable profits to push change in the region instead of only be subsidized by the American taxpayer via the military/foreign policy cabal.

How are they going to use their "unfathomable profits" to push change in the OPEC producing regions? You don’t think they want to?

And how are the oil companies being "subsidized by the American taxpayer viat the military/foreign policy cabal"?

I am suggesting that the oil companies who have benifited throughout recent history by the foreign policy of the government that has been funded by the taxpayer.

You’re suggesting what? You’ve been kind of vague through this whole thing. So far we’ve only gotten that they should "push change".

And as for the ‘social responsibility issue’ - yes, I think they do have some; but I would put my suggestion that they should have some Nationalism in a seperate category.

Why? Their country is the acquisition of money, not America. These are transnational oil companies we’re talking about, not home-brewed mostly American companies.

Man, you bitch about being called a socialist by some here, but you sure talk like one at times.

Great.  Good to know!  Thanks for clarifying all that for me.

I bet someone saw "Syriana" more than once, eh?

BTW, when Google, Yahoo, Sysco and MSN quit allowing China to use their programing and hardware to censor free speech and arrest dissidents "in the name on nationalism" you can take a free shot at oil companies.

Or when drug companies quit selling in America at inflated prices to exploit insurance companies "in the name of nationalism" you can take a free run at oil companies.

Or when auto makers, chip makers and clothing makers refuse to send production jobs oversees "in the name of nationalism" you can take a free jab at oil companies.

That list of industries that don’t factor nationalism goes on and on.

Also a point of note, Exxon and ChevronTexaco are US companies.  BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Eni, Amaco, Valero and Citgo aren’t. So don’t expect a lot a nationalism from them.  Especially Citgo, which is owned by Chavez down in Veneszula. He kind hates us, but he loves our money.

Rob B:  Thanks for the note of sanity.  The marxist antibusiness cr*p has been getting pretty deep around here lately from some posters.

Welcome to the land of ideological blinkers  where the citizenry never met a piece of nuanced and objective analysis that it couldn’t dismiss as leftist claptrap.

LOL

Free, your problem is trying to carry on debate when this is clearly just a name-calling site.  I come her to relax and get the aggression out of my system since finding this little piece of NeoCON hell.  Just relax and enjoy it and don’t worry:  Some of us can understand your points and just don’t comment for fear of taking another pie in the face.    LOL

Anyway, it’s more fun to sling and roll around in the mud with the likes of Bobby, Zsa and lik, ain’t it? ;p

On the topic of the thread: The oil companies have a heart of gold. Actually, they should be given charity status.  And the stock market manipulation has nothing to do with oil prices, nor does a President whose family is in oil up to their hamhocks, not to mention a VP who is swimming in it. 

Oh, thank goodness, thank goodness the Prez brought the $$ of oil down today, eh???

LOLOLOL

Wondered how long and by what tortuous rationale our resident monomaniac would justify her sick obsession.

On the topic of the thread: The oil companies have a heart of gold. Actually, they should be given charity status.  And the stock market manipulation has nothing to do with oil prices, nor does a President whose family is in oil up to their hamhocks, not to mention a VP who is swimming in it.

Finally, a voice of reason that recognizes that oil is a GLOBAL commodity and a global market and therefore can not be controlled by any one country. Of course we all know that stock manipulation can’t effect oil prices because oil is traded as a commodity on NYMEX but to go further and point out that the price can be effected by the news, as most speculative commodities are, is sheer brilliance.

Now as far as suggesting that we oil moguls have hearts of gold, it made me blush. But seriously, we’re the same as the folks in other industries. We put our pants on one leg at a time, just like the other professionals out there do. All those warm and fuzzy feeling have me so happy that ...

Hey, you were being sarcastic weren’t you?

Now as far as suggesting that we oil moguls have hearts of gold, it made me blush

If you’re really an oilman, I’m thinking about leaving my husband.  Of course, depending on where your oil is, you may or may not be interested in a dhimmi dhummi like me.  

You see, in this thread I’ve gotten off on Bush and talked about myself as well.  I’m getting better at this as time goes by.

BTW, when Google, Yahoo, Sysco and MSN quit allowing China to use their programing and hardware to censor free speech

I thought Sysco was the company with them big ol’ trucks that deliver food stuff to foodservice places.  Or was that Cisco?

I’m like the Dr. Frankenstein of SA threads.  If I type one word, it becomes a monster.

Rob B. said, BTW, when Google, Yahoo, Sysco and MSN quit allowing China to use their programing and hardware to censor free speech and arrest dissidents "in the name on nationalism" you can take a free shot at oil companies.

Hell, with the routers they’re putting into place in China right now, pretty soon Google, Yahoo and MSN will no longer have to censor. China will control it at the gates. You can thank Sysco for that.

diane says, Free, your problem is trying to carry on debate when this is clearly just a name-calling site.

...and then wastes no time saying…

I come her to relax and get the aggression out of my system since finding this little piece of NeoCON hell.

Nice hypocrisy diane.

Anyway, it’s more fun to sling and roll around in the mud with the likes of Bobby, Zsa and lik, ain’t it? ;p

Please diane. No jokes. I’ve never called you any name and yet you have consistently been rude and called me names. So don’t schlep your behavior onto others.

On the topic of the thread: The oil companies have a heart of gold. Actually, they should be given charity status.  And the stock market manipulation has nothing to do with oil prices, nor does a President whose family is in oil up to their hamhocks, not to mention a VP who is swimming in it.

Perhaps you should make a reasoned argument instead. I don’t know,...just a suggestion.

LOLOLOL

Are you 17 and just getting out of an AIM chat? Just asking…

lik, I stumbled across this hornet’s nest by accident and actually stayed to post something that should have brought about a response other than name-calling.  My evaluation of the site as a place to just relax and get out aggressions is so obvious that anyone without blinders on should see it.   If you want to fantasize it as a site where there is intellectual exchange taking place, go for it.

Come on..it’s a bunch of NeoCONS calling everyone else ‘lefties’ ‘libs’ and all the other worn out names.

Fess up, girl.

lik, I stumbled across this hornet’s nest by accident and actually stayed to post something that should have brought about a response other than name-calling.

Yeah, you’ve mentioned that before. I don’t know what thread you are talking about and I know that I haven’t seen it because the first time that I saw you, most of the regulars already seemed to know you and you appeared to have just come out of a hornet’s nest yourself. All I know is, you came out rude and insulting right from the start and then excused yourself when questioned by bringing up a thread that I haven’t seen.

My evaluation of the site as a place to just relax and get out aggressions is so obvious that anyone without blinders on should see it.

Oh no, that much is obvious.

If you want to fantasize it as a site where there is intellectual exchange taking place, go for it.

Whatever.

Come on..it’s a bunch of NeoCONS calling everyone else ‘lefties’ ‘libs’ and all the other worn out names.

Well,..a bunch of us here aren’t "Neocons", myself included, and none of us are "NeoCONS".

Fess up, girl.

Uh…I’m a guy. Heh.

My evaluation of the site as a place to just relax and get out aggressions is so obvious that anyone without blinders on should see it.

Doesn’t this by definition make her a troll? If you guys decided to ban her account I (for one) wouldn’t have any problem with it. She’s made numerous points stating that her purpose is merely to antagonize.

The problem with you, Dave, is that you really don’t like free speech unless you feel you are smarter than the others, which you obviously do.  But, if you feel I’m a troll, please put me back under the bridge.  If I stay, I’ll continue to point out the dance going on here which consists mainly of name-calling, not just calling me names, but anyone who disagrees with the mainline thought pattern, and I’ll continue pointing out the immorality of the war and how ridiculous both parties are and corrupt, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

I also would have no problem, Dave, with your being considered a troll, since you find it acceptable to spend time on nonsense such as your last post.

Either way, no skin off my nose.  What I post, whether it’s about Bush, the war, or anything else for that matter, has validity and hasn’t been refuted.  It’s just the personal style that offends sensitive people like yourself who enjoy kibbutzing with Neocons and getting nowhere.

"Fess up, girl. Uh…I’m a guy. Heh."

Hmmm….interesting; you’re so gentle and nurturing. Well, my mistake. Just my sexist observation, I guess. 

It’s pretty sad that the people I agree with here is the smeared "Marxist ranter" and the self-proclaimed liberal woman. 

 
Let me ask all you neo-morons somethings, in your zeal to defend of all things oil companies.  LOL  Would any of you have any problem with the oil industry, tech, pharm etc decide one day to pack up and send ALL jobs to our new saviours, India as well as China and Africa, in order to make a money?  I remember reading that above that a company is meant to only make money.  I do remember that that was not the way companies of old used to work where they actually cared about their people.  So, again, what if all these industries decided to decimate the US working population by moving all jobs overseas in order to make money, is everyone "kosher" with that?  Because that is the extreme to what you bunch of morons are defending.

Don’t bother with nitpicking of spelling mistakes.  A favorite of certain imbeciles here.  The comment was rushed.

EC spits, Let me ask all you neo-morons somethings, in your zeal to defend of all things oil companies.  LOL

We have another condescending joker who likes to insult and say "LOL".

The people you malign here are defending the free market EC.

Would any of you have any problem with the oil industry, tech, pharm etc decide one day to pack up and send ALL jobs to our new saviours, India as well as China and Africa, in order to make a money?

Money will move to where it is treated best. If "ALL jobs" move out of the U.S. and into India, China and Africa, then that is a clear signal that the business environment is a lot worse in the U.S. than it is in those three countries. We’d have to lower the amount of taxes and regulations and possibly rethink our wages for those jobs to return. It’s called “competition” EC, and I suggest that you get acquainted with the concept. You’re not owed anything in this life. You have to work for it. In the end, no amount of appeals to nationalism nor to a “corporate responsibility” will save your job. If there is someone, somewhere that can make a better product cheaper, you’re out of a job. That’s just the way it is and no amount of bitching or insulting will change it.

I remember reading that above that a company is meant to only make money.

Within the confines of the law, yes.

I do remember that that was not the way companies of old used to work where they actually cared about their people.

Caring about people and/or creating a good work environment where people are happy and healthy is good because it equals better production and ergo - more money made. So in a very real sense, it actually pays to care about the employees. Of course as a company gets big, it tends to get depersonalized.

So, again, what if all these industries decided to decimate the US working population by moving all jobs overseas in order to make money, is everyone "kosher" with that?  Because that is the extreme to what you bunch of morons are defending.

No "morons" are defending that. Some here, including myself, are advocating, not "defending", business that makes as much money as it possibly can within the confines of the law. That is their only purpose.

Listen EC, it’s obvious at this point that you need to take a remedial reading comprehension class and a remedial applied logic class to keep up with this conversation. When you get done with those two, I suggest a basic manners course. You desperately need all three.

lik…you’ve nailed my hyperbolic claim that 500 CEO’s of the Fortune 500 companies recognise that a corporation has social responsibilities. As you suspected, I haven’t talked to all 500 of them but I can give you a link to an National Review article that examines the issue. You will enjoy this article because the author shares your opinion but please note how the corporate leaders feel about it.

Social responsibility is a good business practise. While it does sully a pure utopian version of capitalism as found in the textbook, it does square with a realistic assessment of the world in which corporations operate. 

Can a capitalist country remain a country?

Todays idea of capaitalism has no borders, it has no country, it thrives off the idea to successfully stabilize other countries in hopes to gain a profit. this error emerged from the un-hurtfull intellectual notion of allowing the mass production of minor manufactured items overseas to purchase at a lower cost while concentrating on the advancement of our own technology.

Agriculture the source for the survival of any nation, as well as the grand  bartering implement also served for us as key to this theory. Free enterprise when played between Patriots is the competition to make the better cheaper mouse trap not for ones pockets but for the better of the nation.

Our borders have been neglected under the new definition of the word capitalism. America as a sovereign nation should not be tied down to anyone or any entity. America should not involve Herself in any dispute or war  but those that are a direct threat to her and our own sovereignty.

America should not concern itself with the wellfare of the world, It should thrive on becomming idependent. The problem is there is very little patriotism left, that patriotism has been replaced by a growing amount of treason.

Diane, I already have a wife but if i move to Utah…

But as to EC’s question, let me get socratic and answer the question with a question. 

"Why would oil companies move thier jobs overseas when they run global exploration from here, have more freedom here and the US is the largest consumer in the world with a GDP larger than any other country and the whole European Union combinded?"

Also, i defend oil companies because I work in one everyday so I’ve been dealing with energy issues and this subject for years. America is in, and has been, in denial. People are just now beginning to grasp that there is sometihing going on.

And guess what? Our government CAN ONLY EFFECT THE PRICE OF OIL THROUGH ENERGY CONSERVATION.  (I used caps because it is that important.) Global demand is going up, not down. Supplies are down, not up. Anyone that took highschool economics understands that mean higher prices, but the point that people are missing is that oil companies don’t set the price. Oil companies set the supply and believe me right now we are selling every drop we can get at $75 oil.  Hell, my lawn mover is up in value just because of the oil i have in it.

MikeA: "Capitalism" is not an utopian philosophy.  The concept of free people making free choices is the yearning of the human spirit, but does not require perfection to work very well.  The more freedom, the better it works.  If you want more prosperity, try more freedom.  If you want less prosperity in search of predetermined social outcomes, try less freedom.  It’s a choice.  If we impose some concept of "social responsibiity" on businesses, they will simply become less prosperous.

"Capitalism" is not an utopian philosophy.

From Wikipedia

Utopia, in its most common and general positive meaning, refers to the human efforts to create a better, or perhaps perfect society.

Although some authors have described their utopias in detail, and with an effort to show a level of practicality, the term "utopia" has come to be applied to notions that are (supposedly) too optimistic and idealistic for practical application.

 

 My Take:

1.  Capitalism tries to create a better society by promoting efficiencies and demoting inefficiencies.

2.  Pure Laizze Faire Capitalism (i.e. Anarcho-Capitalism) is too optimistic and idealistic for practical applications.

Using this sort of logic, Capitalism indeed could be concidered a Utopia of sorts. 

Free: "Capitalism" is completely unconcerned with "creating a better society".  It is completely concerned with producing wealth by ensuring the the maximum amount of demand is supplied.  Period.

Some Frenchman invented the concept of laissez-faire capitalism.  It has no relationship to the real world, and is not the position of real free enterprisers, like me.  It is a concept that appeals to you, perhaps.

The tremendous generation of wealth by the free enterprise system attracts the political class like the pile of gold it is.  The real battle here is between the producers and the controllers, and will continue forever.  I am not limited to your overheated fantasies about utopianism.  In fact, "capitalism" is not a philosophy at all;  it is the description of unfettered human behavior in relation to the production and distribution of goods and services. 

Obtaining wealth not necessarily producing wealth.

Prisons are full of " unfettered human behavior  " cases, financial and others.

"Capitalism" is completely unconcerned with "creating a better society".  It is completely concerned with producing wealth by ensuring the the maximum amount of demand is supplied.

Capitalism is contingent upon growth.  If society isn’t continually improving, then the economy can’t grow.  

Some Frenchman invented the concept of laissez-faire capitalism.  It has no relationship to the real world, and is not the position of real free enterprisers, like me.  It is a concept that appeals to you, perhaps.

Of course it’s not reality.  No one said it was.  But theoretically it would be the pinnicle of capitalism where only self-intrest is appreciated and society is not the least bit of a concern.

‘The Robber Barron’ era or Serfdom itself was the closest that the world’s gotten to laizze faire.

 The tremendous generation of wealth by the free enterprise system attracts the political class like the pile of gold it is.  The real battle here is between the producers and the controllers, and will continue forever.

How do you seperate the Producers and the Controllers?  The Producers are the Haves, and those who have the gold make the rules.  Those with the gold make the rules that the Controllers enforce. 

So in reality, the Controllers are subservient to the Producers.

In fact, "capitalism" is not a philosophy at all;  it is the description of unfettered human behavior in relation to the production and distribution of goods and services. 

It’s an Economic Philosophy just as Communism is.

 it is the description of unfettered human behavior in relation to the production and distribution of goods and services.

Thats Laize Fairre Capitalism.  "Unfettered" means Uncontrolled. 

Free: You must have picked up your economic "knowledge" from a marxist econ text.  A hint: It’s entirely wrong about everything.  That is why marxism fails and free enterprise succeeds.  Think about it.

Free: You must have picked up your economic "knowledge" from a marxist econ text.  A hint: It’s entirely wrong about everything.  That is why marxism fails and free enterprise succeeds.  Think about it.

What spawned this ad hominimn diatribe this time? 

Free asks
What spawned this ad hominimn diatribe this time?

You’ve punched one of r108’s hot buttons…capitalism (free markets) is best because it is best. By examining capitalism as one might examine marxism, you fall into the dark abyss where leftist claptrap reigns…and no weasel talk about mixed economies either because we’ll know that you just don’t like America.

Free, when you advocate things which are Marxist you’re going to be criticized that those who think that Marx was a fool.  Why don’t you just try being clear about what you mean and standing behind what you say rather than whining about lables?

Mike: We’ve had a lot of discussions about Marxism vs. Capitalism on this blog.  I know I’ll probably never convert you to my way of thinking, but I will say this: Marxism is anti-American.  This country was founded on capitalism.  It embraced the free market from day 1 by creating a system of government that allowed for free people to make free choices.

In the 200 plus years since politicians have done a lot to hinder free people and their free choices, but the basic structure remains and it is still what makes America great.  Any effort to move away from that basic structure is, by definition, a move away from this country’s roots.

You enjoy paying high taxes to your government so that it can take care of you and your fellow citizens.  That’s all well and good for Canada, but here in America many of us would rather see citizens empowered to take care of themselves.  That’s all robert is saying. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

By examining capitalism as one might examine marxism, you fall into the dark abyss where leftist claptrap reigns…and no weasel talk about mixed economies either because we’ll know that you just don’t like America.

LoL.

I said Capitalism and Communism are both Economic Philosophies.

Communism has been religated to the ash-heap of history, so saying they are both philosophies does not demonstrate validity or preference.

I said Capitalism and Communism are both Economic Philosophies.

Actually, they’re not.

Capitalism, or "free people making free choices," isn’t any sort of a system, philosophy or belief system.  It is the natural state of things.  It is what happens when no one interferes with transactions made between individuals and other individuals, individuals and businesses or businesses and businesses.  In essence, when you do nothing to regulate an economy capitalism is what happens automatically.

Mike will disagree with me on that as we’ve had this discussion before, but I doubt he’ll be able to tell me now (as he wasn’t able previously) why capitalism is not the basic, natural form of economic interaction between individuals. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

That’s all robert is saying.

If that’s all he was saying then I wouldn’t bother with my quixotic comments. I have no love for marxist economics either but at least I recognise that capitalism is not above analysis and critique…as does the Roman Catholic Church which is not marxist in my book.

I’ll also add that Marx was no more anti-American than he was anti-British, anti-French, anti-German, etc. etc. 

Mike, I didn’t say that Marx was anti-American…I said that Marxism is anti-American because it is contrary to the ideals this country was founded upon.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

"free people making free choices,"

Sounds Philosophical to me!

It is the natural state of things.

Nature is full of philosophy.  For everything there is a season.  

  In essence, when you do nothing to regulate an economy capitalism is what happens automatically.

Once again, if that were possible and would exist it would be Laizze Fairre  Captialism.

There is another, fundmental difference between Capitalism and Communism:  Captialism works, Communism doesn’t.

Sounds Philosophical to me!

Philosophies have rules, belief systems and guidelines.  Capitalism just happens without anyone having to do anything other than exchange goods/services/money with each other.

Once again, if that were possible and would exist it would be Laizze Fairre  Captialism.

It would just be unregulated capitalism.  Now, speaking for myself, I recognize that a certain amount of limited government regulation is needed for a healthy, capitalist society.  This is what America started with.  We’ve gotten away from that a bit since, though.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

I’ll also add that Marx was no more anti-American than he was anti-British, anti-French, anti-German, etc. etc.

Marx himself said that Communism would never succeed in Russia, and maybe not in his home of Germany.

He did say that the Freedom of America would allow an easier transition.  And thats why we must be eternally vigilent against communism.

Philosophies have rules, belief systems and guidelines.

Not really. Philosophies, for the most part, are more suggestive than anything. 

Communism is a belief system.

Capitalism is a belief system.

Some people believe they are communist; some believe they are capitalist.

—-

I’m not saying they are equal - but the fact they are diametricly opposed means they are both opposites on the same line. 

Not really. Philosophies, for the most part, are more suggestive than anything. 

Communism is a belief system.

Capitalism is a belief system.

Some people believe they are communist; some believe they are capitalist.

Saying that capitalism is a belief system is like saying that math is a belief system.  2+2=4, whether you want to believe it or not.  Capitalism is what happens when people are free to make free choices, whether you want to believe it or not.

Communism is a belief system because it requires you to believe that a centrally-controlled economy is better than free people making free choices. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Free:  You wrote:  "Marx himself said that Communism would never succeed in Russia, and maybe not in his home of Germany."  As with everything else, Marx was wrong about this.

And again: "He did say that the Freedom of America would allow an easier transition.  And thats why we must be eternally vigilent against communism."  Again, totally wrong. Marx had fundamentally wrong premises, therefore his conclusions were wrong.

Capitalism is not a belief system;  it is the result of free people making free choices.  The theories you call capitalism are the result of observing human behavior regarding the production and distribution of goods and services.  "Unfettered" does not mean "uncontrolled".  Unfettered means not subject to outside control.  The individual is in control of his or her own resources, not some a-hole in a govt office somewhere.  That is the difference.  Communism is a belief system based on an utopian philosophy of how one man thought human society should be.

This one gets the biggest laugh:  "I’m not saying they are equal - but the fact they are diametricly opposed means they are both opposites on the same line."

They are only "diametrically opposed" in your mind.  One is natural, the other is contrived.  They are not "on the same line".

Any outside-imposed system that tries to produce an utopian ideal of equal outcome in a group of diverse human beings is doomed to fail in every way you can think of.  Primarily, by attempting to suppress demand and control supply by jiggering with prices, it only accomplishes economic stagnation.  Witness Europe. 

Saying that capitalism is a belief system is like saying that math is a belief system.  2+2=4, whether you want to believe it or not.  Capitalism is what happens when people are free to make free choices, whether you want to believe it or not.

That makes it sound like Capitalism is elementry and inherent in society.

Capitalism takes effort by all involved to work.  Liberalism, and Communism, are the easy ways out. 

 Communism is a belief system because it requires you to believe that a centrally-controlled economy is better than free people making free choices.

Yes. And we capitalist believe we are the best decision makers for our lives, thus, it is a philosophy. 

rob said

Capitalism just happens without anyone having to do anything other than exchange goods/services/money with each other.

I don’t want to reargue old threads and undult bog down the thread but capitalism is not freely exhanging goods, services and money…that would be a fancy system of barter. The genius of capitalism is that it efficiently mobilises resources such as capital, labour and raw materials and allows a rate of production, accumulation and development that the world had not seen previously. The exhange of goods and services, whether via barter or mediated by the use of money, is certainly a component of capitalism but it is the ability to concentrate the required resources and the premise of private ownership that characterise capitalism IMO.

It’s the most efficient economic model we have developed thus far but it’s no more "natural" than sun tan lotion. 

Free:  You wrote:  "Marx himself said that Communism would never succeed in Russia, and maybe not in his home of Germany."  As with everything else, Marx was wrong about this.

No. Communism failed in Russia, so he was right on that mark.

"Unfettered" does not mean "uncontrolled".  Unfettered means not subject to outside control.

Define "is?"  Then proceed to explain the concept of "symantics."

 Communism is a belief system based on an utopian philosophy of how one man thought human society should be.

Since you want to be nitpicky, you will realize that Marxism is a sub-set of Communism right?  They’re not totally interchangable.  Its like how a  square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a a square.  (Rob knows math apparently)

All Marxism is Communism, but not all Communism is Marxism. 

That makes it sound like Capitalism is elementry and inherent in society.

It is.

Ok, put everything aside for a moment.  You and I are cavemen.  You live in the woods, I live near a lake.  You need fish, I need lumber for fishing poles.

What happens between us?  I give you some of my fish, you give me some lumber.  That’s capitalism, and it doesn’t require any special belief system…just people who need things that other people have. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Free: You wrote:  "That makes it sound like Capitalism is elementry and inherent in society."  Exactly;  you have it now!

But then you lose it:  "Yes. And we capitalist believe we are the best decision makers for our lives, thus, it is a philosophy."  We don’t have to believe anything;  we just do what comes naturally when some a-holes in govt aren’t trying to manipulate us.  You, sir, are not a capitalist, as far as I can tell from what you write.  Your belief has nothing to do with it.

As I see it, your fundamental confusion is that "capitalism" has anything to do with politics.  All other systems require an political class to enforce them, so they are inherently political.  "Capitalism", on the other hand, is the default position of the free human being.  It requires no regulation to work;  in fact, the less regulation, the better it works.  That should be a big clue for you. 

I give you some of my fish, you give me some lumber.  That’s capitalism,

No. Thats the Barter System.  LoL.

Capitalism REQUIRES profit.  Two people fulfilling mutual needs would lack a profit margin.  Its just mutually benifitial.

And actually, what you descibed is more like pre-Marxist communalism. 

Mike, the term "capitalism" covers a a broad landscape of things.  It is best defined, as robert says again and again, as "free people making free choices."

Indian tribes exercised capitalism.  You yourself said that bartering is a part of capitalism.  That capitalism becomes more complicated when more people get involved and a certain level of regulation is applied is no reason to say that it is a manufactured, planned belief system.

To use your example, capitalism is the sun tan.  It happens when you’re in the sun.  It is natural.  The sun screen is the stuff you talk about, concentrating resources, etc.  Those things are done to enhance (or limit, depending on what we’re talkinga bout) the capitalist transactions already taking place naturally between free people.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Free…having engaged in this discussion previously I can tell you that much of the disagreement is based on semantics. There is not a shared definition of "capitalism" between the two sides and some participants believe that anything that is not capitalism is marxism. It can be frustrating for the uninitiated but once you learn the rules of the game you can pick and choose your spots.

Rob…I know how robert defines it but that doesn’t make it the right definition. Indian tribes did not practise capitalism BTW.

It can be frustrating for the uninitiated but once you learn the rules of the game you can pick and choose your spots.

Oh no, not really.  As I spent more of my life arguing their position than not I know the weakness of that arguement that they refuse to acknowledge. 

Free you’re wrong.  Capitalism is consistant with bartering.  As long as neither party is being coerced it fits right in as a small piece of a larger capitalistic pie.

The beauty of this is that if the fisherman specializes in catching fish, and the lumberjack specializes in supplying lumber both parties should wind up richer than they would have been.

Capitalism is consistant with bartering. 

Bartering is a small piece of Capitalism.  Bartering = proto-Capitalism 

Free: You are wrong.  Communism succeeded in taking over Russia.  You remember the Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union, I presume?  It failed ultimately because it isn’t based on human reality.

The barter system includes profit because both parties to the barter get something they didn’t have before, otherwise they wouldn’t make the deal.  They are free people making free choices.  

MikeA: The inherently superior method of combining capital and labor in a cooperative relationship to produce more prosperity is a natural outcome of the free enterprise system in an industrial society.  It is less clearcut in a primarily agrarian society.  Applying the idea of capitalist interaction to preindustrial societies is a bit dicey.  It would require a social system with a highly mobile labor source, which was not the case in those times.  People in a primarily agrarian society tend to be tied to a particular piece of land, so those principles don’t necessarily apply.  In an industrial society, both demand and supply increase drastically, so the advantage of cooperation between capital and labor is even greater. 

Capitalism REQUIRES profit.  Two people fulfilling mutual needs would lack a profit margin.  Its just mutually benifitial.

People don’t profit in the barter system?  My profit is the number of fish I get to keep while fulfilling my need for fishing rods.

There is not a shared definition of "capitalism" between the two sides and some participants believe that anything that is not capitalism is marxism.

I’ll agree that there is not a shared definition of capitalism.  That much is obvious since it is the definition of capitalism we are arguing about right now. 

The idea that capitalism is some developed belief system is at the heart of a lot of the obnoxious socialist rhetoric we hear at times.  The way they tell it, capitalism is a "system" invented by rich "robber barons" to oppress the working-class proletariat.  That couldn’t be further from the truth.  Capitalism just happened.  Nobody sat down and planned it.  Capitalism has no Karl Marx at its head.  Certainly plenty of clear-thinking scholars have observed and documented what capitalism is and means throughout the ages and many of the same have been active in protecting it from those who would disrupt it, but it was not something that had to be invented and it is not something that has to be enforced.  When you leave a free society alone, capitalism happens on its own.
 
I will point out, however, (in response to your mild jab) that I’m not one who believes that anything which isn’t capitalism is marxism.  There are other systems, like fedualsim and what not.  We don’t talk about those things today because most of the economies in the world are fairly evenly divided between two camps: Capitalism and socialism.  Not many people still practice feudalism.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

As I spent more of my life arguing their position than not I know the weakness of that arguement that they refuse to acknowledge.

So now you have a problem with advancing capitalism?

How would you have our economy run? 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

MikeA:  The two types of economic systems are demand systems and command systems.  Free people making free choices is a demand system.  Marxism is a command system.  Command systems are inherently inferior in economic outcome to demand systems.

It failed ultimately because it isn’t based on human reality.

1 day or a thousand years…either way it didnt work.

 The barter system includes profit because both parties to the barter get something they didn’t have before, otherwise they wouldn’t make the deal.

Specialization and Division of Labor creates Efficiencies which, in turn, result in excess supply.  That excess supply is then exchange for a good that is not in excess.

The only way that there can be profit in this ‘caveman’ scenario is if one or both end up with a non-perishable ‘kicker’ item they can exchange for other goods or services with another person. 

One you eat the fish, they’re gone.  And I don’t know how the real easte market was or what a 30 year mortgage was going for, but I’d guess people’s houses were destroyed before they could sell them. 

The real problem with the term "capitalism" is that it only describes part of the story.  Originally, capitalism was meant to mean that the return to capital was the be all and end all of that economic system.  Marx believed that was unjust, and that the entire "work product" should go to the workers, with no return to capital at all.  He insisted that capital exists to oppress labor, and that the workers would eventually rise up and overthrow the capitalists in a bloody revolution and sieze the means of production, thus ensuring social justice.  The fact that this has never happened in an industrial society is worth noting.  The reality of "capitalism" as we practice it is that capital and labor are engaged at all times in a mutually beneficial cooperative relationship.  Not only that, but we are free to make whatever choices we wish, and it is the job of business to supply us with what we demand.  That is why I object to the term "capitalism".  It is inaccurate, to say the least.

So now you have a problem with advancing capitalism?

No.  I just know the weaknesses of the arguments that are made.  Only by taking the otherside in arguments can I figure out how to plug those holes.

How would you have our economy run?

Not at all.

Free: Your last post is just incoherent.

Robert108,

You’ve been holding back on us.  You really do know what Marxism is about.  Bravo! 

Free: I was wrong.  Your last two posts are incoherent.

Free: Of course I do.  That’s how I know it’s totally wrong.

Now is it 3?

Free: Of course I do.  That’s how I know it’s totally wrong.

And all this time I assumed you were just uneducated.    You really had me fooled.

No, the last one made some sense.  Why the "Bravo!?" I refuted  everything about it.

I was giving you props for actually understanding Marxism rather than just spouting the typical talking point parroted drivel.

If you knew anything about economics you would have realized that a long time ago.

All you have to do is read Marx;  he is so obviously wrong that it takes only minimal intelligence to know that.  You shouldn’t need to be told that, you should be able to figure it out yourself.

If a parrot speaks the truth, it’s still the truth.  If a parrot speaks lies, they are still lies.  The value or lack thereof of information lies in the information itself, not in the one who speaks it.

All you have to do is read Marx;  he is so obviously wrong that it takes only minimal intelligence to know that. 

I know.  Most conservatives have never read Marx  because hey think that they will become communist, as if it were a disease of some sort that can catch - like being gay for example.