By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - T.C.O.W. 1: Is Capitalism the justification for Corporatism..

 

Is Capitalism the justification for Corporatism.

Capitalism is outdated, t... 7 21.88%
 
Of course. 2 6.25%
 
Of course not. 10 31.25%
 
Can the two be mutually exclusive? 5 15.63%
 
See results 8 25.00%
 
Total:32
HappySqurriel on 08 March 2012
Rath said:
HappySqurriel said:
I would personally argue that "Democratic Socialism" is far more likely to lead to corporatism than free market capitalism ...

In a free market (laissez faire) system the rules are supposed to be equitable for all participants in the system and the market is supposed to determine who is successful of not. In this system there is no advantage for businesses to get "into bed" with the government because there is nothing the government can do to benefit them.

In contrast, in a social democracy the government is always arbitrarily deciding what has "merit" or what is "damaging" which often determines who is successful or a failure. With this in mind there is a significant incentive for businesses to manipulate the government.

As an example, in a social democracy a company that manufactures electric automobiles can become far more profitable if they can manipulate the processes of the government to pay for R&D, provide buying incentives for customers, and introduce legislation that creates fines on their competition.

While I agree that political influence of corporations does rely on the government regulating things - true free-market capitalism would kill the planet, kill people and screw workers. It's a really bad idea to allow corporations to have completely free rein.

Personally I don't think the problem in America is with the capitalism - it's with the system of government. Capitalism doesn't require that the corporations have to have the ability to make donations and fund campaigns to bribe politicians into voting for things that favour them.

I don't see why "true free-market capitalism would kill the planet, kill people and screw workers" ...

For the most part, companies (regardless of whether they're large corporations or small businesses) are driven to act in ways that their clients/customers, investors, and employees desire; and this is rarely in a way that is excessively damaging in the long run.



Around the Network
Rath on 08 March 2012
HappySqurriel said:
Rath said:

While I agree that political influence of corporations does rely on the government regulating things - true free-market capitalism would kill the planet, kill people and screw workers. It's a really bad idea to allow corporations to have completely free rein.

Personally I don't think the problem in America is with the capitalism - it's with the system of government. Capitalism doesn't require that the corporations have to have the ability to make donations and fund campaigns to bribe politicians into voting for things that favour them.

I don't see why "true free-market capitalism would kill the planet, kill people and screw workers" ...

For the most part, companies (regardless of whether they're large corporations or small businesses) are driven to act in ways that their clients/customers, investors, and employees desire; and this is rarely in a way that is excessively damaging in the long run.

Because high risk entails high rewards. If you can release a drug onto the market without adequate testing that will net billions of dollars a company will. That drug could then end up causing huge damage. If you can drill an oil well for much cheaper than it currently can be done a company will. That well could then end up causing huge damage. The aim of regulation is essentially to force companies to lower risks because there is an inherent relationship in business between risk and reward.



HappySqurriel on 08 March 2012
Rath said:
HappySqurriel said:
Rath said:
 

While I agree that political influence of corporations does rely on the government regulating things - true free-market capitalism would kill the planet, kill people and screw workers. It's a really bad idea to allow corporations to have completely free rein.

Personally I don't think the problem in America is with the capitalism - it's with the system of government. Capitalism doesn't require that the corporations have to have the ability to make donations and fund campaigns to bribe politicians into voting for things that favour them.

I don't see why "true free-market capitalism would kill the planet, kill people and screw workers" ...

For the most part, companies (regardless of whether they're large corporations or small businesses) are driven to act in ways that their clients/customers, investors, and employees desire; and this is rarely in a way that is excessively damaging in the long run.

Because high risk entails high rewards. If you can release a drug onto the market without adequate testing that will net billions of dollars a company will. That drug could then end up causing huge damage. If you can drill an oil well for much cheaper than it currently can be done a company will. That well could then end up causing huge damage. The aim of regulation is essentially to force companies to lower risks because there is an inherent relationship in business between risk and reward.

If you release a drug onto the market without adequate testing you will face a massive class-action lawsuit and lose billions of dollars. If you dig an oil well that causes environmental damage you will either face a substantial fee to clean the land imposed by the land-owner or face substantial negative coverage due to the influence of environmental groups.

Realistically, I don't think anyone is arguing for the elimination of all government regulation, but the vast majority of government regulation is completely unnecessary and primarily designed to protect the interest of large powerful incumbents.



Mr Khan on 08 March 2012
HappySqurriel said:
Dark_Lord_2008 said:
Corporations are the things, they will lead us to economic and political freedom! Only they don't, they ship jobs and industrial capacity overseas to pump up this quarter's profits to increase bonuses, if they don't they are fired.

Ingrained in us from our first school days, the government should stay out of the world of business. That's communism.
The government shouldn't make laws that protect the individual. That's communism.
The government shouldn't help the less fortunate, that's socialism. The government shouldn't make sure that all of its citizens have healthcare and are highly educated, that's communism.
The government shouldn't invest in the future, that's communism.
So now a huge ball of debt and a huge economy to rebuild, and we automatically reject any from the other camp.
http://voices.yahoo.com/stalins-revenge-why-america-losing-cold-7899978.html


Actually, government making laws that protect the individual is the complete opposite of communism; and is the core of what democratic capitalism is about.

At its core communism is taking utilitarianism and applying it to a political system. This means that any harm inflicted on an individual (including death, sterilization, or any other atrocity) can be justified if the total benefit of this action throughout the country is of greater value. Unfortunately, the values are determined by a collection of high ranking members of a political party making any harm inflicted on an individual or group justifiable  as long as the benefit to the political leadership is of greater value.

What we are searching for is an economic system that produces the Nash equilibrium; which is the best possible outcome for the individual and the group. For the most part, while their actions are well intended, the influence of government within the economy tends to move us away from the Nash equilibrium. Using education as an example, when the government manipulates the credit markets to make student loans more affordable they create an environment where universities are nearly unbounded in what they can charge for tuition and students can make foolish choices about what they study; and the net result of this is a large number of highly credentialed poorly educated people with massive debt loads that will take decades to pay off who are protesting against individuals who made more rational decisions.

The job market will be forced to adjust if there were a true imbalance of credentialed individuals against what the market demanded. Higher payoffs for engineering and such keep people in those majors even if the workload is greater, but ultimately if there are many individuals with certain skills, they will essentially force the creation of a market with those skills.

And the issue with allowing the natural consequences of bad actions to replace regulation is that A: there is always going to be someone who thinks they can get away with it unless they are explicitly not allowed to (even then, some will try, but the punishments will be yet more severe than the "natural" punishments under a deregulated system), and B: how many lives or how much of the earth would be ruined before the "consequences market" corrects industry?

Democratic capitalism can go down the same scary road of Non-Nash Equilibria Utilitarianism that Communism can, simply if the values in the populace do not match up with morality.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Dark_Lord_2008 on 08 March 2012

Capitalism requires the blood of the workers to keep it going. The capital business owners reap most of the profits from their workers. Workers literally generate 4 or 5 times their value. The difference in the wages paid to worker and the profits made for the company is surplus value.

Workers have every right to collude with each other and demand a fairer deal from their employer and receive more reward for their efforts. Unions are a good way of organising workers and negotiating with employers on behalf of workers.

Capitalism has good points out that weigh its bad points and it is one of the only system that allows democracy/voting rights. The system works well when banks, corporations and governments act ethically and morally. However,  greed, corruption and self-interest poisons the system.



Around the Network
Rath on 08 March 2012
HappySqurriel said:
Rath said:

Because high risk entails high rewards. If you can release a drug onto the market without adequate testing that will net billions of dollars a company will. That drug could then end up causing huge damage. If you can drill an oil well for much cheaper than it currently can be done a company will. That well could then end up causing huge damage. The aim of regulation is essentially to force companies to lower risks because there is an inherent relationship in business between risk and reward.

If you release a drug onto the market without adequate testing you will face a massive class-action lawsuit and lose billions of dollars. If you dig an oil well that causes environmental damage you will either face a substantial fee to clean the land imposed by the land-owner or face substantial negative coverage due to the influence of environmental groups.

Realistically, I don't think anyone is arguing for the elimination of all government regulation, but the vast majority of government regulation is completely unnecessary and primarily designed to protect the interest of large powerful incumbents.


Yes the company will go bankrupt and the directors will go to jail. Will that make up for the lost lives or the environmental damage?

And people would try and cut corners if they could. Even with regulation they do their best to.



snakenobi on 08 March 2012
Rath said:
HappySqurriel said:
Rath said:
 

Because high risk entails high rewards. If you can release a drug onto the market without adequate testing that will net billions of dollars a company will. That drug could then end up causing huge damage. If you can drill an oil well for much cheaper than it currently can be done a company will. That well could then end up causing huge damage. The aim of regulation is essentially to force companies to lower risks because there is an inherent relationship in business between risk and reward.

If you release a drug onto the market without adequate testing you will face a massive class-action lawsuit and lose billions of dollars. If you dig an oil well that causes environmental damage you will either face a substantial fee to clean the land imposed by the land-owner or face substantial negative coverage due to the influence of environmental groups.

Realistically, I don't think anyone is arguing for the elimination of all government regulation, but the vast majority of government regulation is completely unnecessary and primarily designed to protect the interest of large powerful incumbents.


Yes the company will go bankrupt and the directors will go to jail. Will that make up for the lost lives or the environmental damage?

And people would try and cut corners if they could. Even with regulation they do their best to.


this pre-emptive thinking is why america is in such trouble

 

corporations wouldn't do such a thing if they knew it was harmfull to their reputation.

 

this fear-mongering is propaganda to take liberty and freedom of the people



Rath on 08 March 2012
snakenobi said:


this pre-emptive thinking is why america is in such trouble

 

corporations wouldn't do such a thing if they knew it was harmfull to their reputation.

 

this fear-mongering is propaganda to take liberty and freedom of the people

Corporations would do, have done and will continue to do these sorts of things.



richardhutnik on 08 March 2012
SmokedHostage said:

and/or can Corporatism be the endgame for Capitalism?

I'm just wondering what you guys think.  I tend to love reading political discussion so please reply.

I personally think it is btw but I'd love to be proven wrong.

You can have capitalism without there being a legal structure of ownership where the owners of a business suffer no legal liabilities for what they own, which is what a corporation is.  There are pros and cons to this form of legal structure for ownership.

In corporatism, the corporate form of ownership becomes the dominate driving force in shaping laws and values in a society that has it.  So, you can not only have capitalism without corporatism, you also can have capitalism without corporations.



snakenobi on 09 March 2012
Rath said:

Corporations would do, have done and will continue to do these sorts of things.

and how did they get free of their crimes?

it was because they had control over the currency system.

 

the only way a corporation doesn't get convicted of its crime was cause the fiat system and corporatism.

 

In a free market capitalistic economy,money isn't fiat

 

we haven't had free market since 1913 when the Federal Reserve System was created.