News Why Do People Criticize Capitalism?

[chaos_5]

Based on what I have read in other threads, I have only one thought to share. Don’t bother wasting good argument on fools who will never listen.

 

[Smurf]

Based on what I have read in other threads, I have only one thought to share. Don’t bother wasting good argument on fools who will never listen.

And seeing as this is your first post, I can assume that you've read the entire archive in the past year or so?

 

[chaos_5]

And seeing as this is your first post, I can assume that you've read the entire archive in the past year or so?

I don’t need to read a years worth of mindless dribble from a bunch of leftwing socialists to know that there is no point in arguing with them about capitalism..

 

[Skyhunter]

average taxation in US- 30%
average taxation in france- 48.3%
(source = http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/tax_tot_tax_wed_sin_wor&ob=ws )
therefore, in the US, you have the freedom to choose what to do with about 70% of your money, compared to about 50% you get in France.
US = 7/5 as much freedom as France

average taxation in Mexico- 15.6%

So according to the logic used to support your argument the Mexicans have twice the freedom of Americans, yet they still keep coming across the border in droves.

 

[Smurf]

I don’t need to read a years worth of mindless dribble from a bunch of leftwing socialists to know that there is no point in arguing with them about capitalism..

Okay, you're new so I'll let you off this time, but from now on, I'm an "anarchist" not a "socialist". In fact there's only one socialist on this forum, and she's not posting recently.

P.S. If you dislike us so much, why join just to make that one post? I think someone needs a hug.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

US = 7/5 as much freedom as France

This reminds me of a saying about the Statue of Liberty, a gift from the French who have too little liberty to the Americans who have too much.
For the record, I don't think we have too much, I just like the saying.

 

[Smurf]

This reminds me of a saying about the Statue of Liberty, a gift from the French who have too little liberty to the Americans who have too much.
For the record, I don't think we have too much, I just like the saying.

that's great, I'm going to remember that.

 

[chaos_5]

Just the facts mam'

P.S. If you dislike us so much, why join just to make that one post? I think someone needs a hug.

I didn’t join to make just one post. In fact is, I joined because I like math and physics, and the like. I was checking out the site (very cool I think) and happened upon this thread, which ended up being the first post.
I would like to take this opportunity to at least mention that I don’t dislike you all, but chances are we will mostly disagree on politics. It didn’t take long to figure out that left leaning ideals dominate the political threads here. The truth be told, I'm sick of politics (ergo my initial comment). It’s always the same predictable party mantras going back and forth. From forum to forum, thread to thread.

Anyway, have a nice day!

 

[Smurf]

I would like to take this opportunity to at least mention that I don’t dislike you all,

Wait for it, it hasn't hit you yet.

but chances are we will mostly disagree on politics.

Chances are you'll mostly be on the wrong side too.

It didn’t take long to figure out that left leaning ideals dominate the political threads here.

That's a matter of perspective, and I think it shows how indoctrinated you are that you actually think of it as an absolute.

The truth be told, I'm sick of politics (ergo my initial comment). It’s always the same predictable party mantras going back and forth. From forum to forum, thread to thread.

What a sheltered life you've lived. I pity you.

 

[chaos_5]

I pity you.

I feel so wholly enriched now, with the knowledge that your pity will be with me. Like a shining star to guide me in the darkest of nights.

 

[Smurf]

I feel so wholly enriched now, with the knowledge that your pity will be with me. Like a shining star to guide me in the darkest of nights.

I was thinking light at the end of a tunnel actually.

 

[alexandra]

How could a system based on greed possibly result in prosperity for all? Many people simply refuse to look past the strangeness of the theory (QM, anyone?) and flat-out refuse to accept the fact that it works.

The reason some people argue against this position is that it is not supported by the data. Below is just one recent example (published September 2005) of data that claims that far from prosperity for all, there has been a general decline in prosperity and living standards.
The paper, The Scorecard on Development: 25 Years of Diminished Progress, is published by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. The first paragraph of its Executive Summary states:

This paper looks at the available data on economic growth and various social indicators — including health outcomes and education — and compares the last 25 years (1980-2005)1 with the prior two decades (1960-1980). The paper finds that, contrary to popular belief, the past 25 years (1980-2005) have seen a sharply slower rate of economic growth and reduced progress on social indicators for the vast majority of low- and middle-income countries.
More: http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/quality/2005/09scorecard.pdf

 

[loseyourname]

The reason some people argue against this position is that it is not supported by the data. Below is just one recent example (published September 2005) of data that claims that far from prosperity for all, there has been a general decline in prosperity and living standards.

Now there is a devious argumentative tactic, equating these two statements:

1) The rate of prosperity growth has slowed over the last 25 years relative to the 20 years prior; however, prosperity is still growing.

2) The proposition that prosperity is increasing across the board is false.

I can only assume that you were yourself fooled and are not intentionally trying to deceive the board with this fallacy of equivocation.

 

[Art]

Now there is a devious argumentative tactic, equating these two statements:
1) The rate of prosperity growth has slowed over the last 25 years relative to the 20 years prior; however, prosperity is still growing.
2) The proposition that prosperity is increasing across the board is false.
I can only assume that you were yourself fooled and are not intentionally trying to deceive the board with this fallacy of equivocation.

I presume your hair-splitting is also not a deliberate attempt to subvert opinon on this board.

The rate of change has declined thus the trend is regressive i.e. negative..

 

[Smurf]

It's an interesting correlation that the date given for the change (1980s) is the around the same time Reagan and Thatcher started on their privatization binge.

 

[loseyourname]

I presume your hair-splitting is also not a deliberate attempt to subvert opinon on this board.

The rate of change has declined thus the trend is regressive i.e. negative..

The growth of the growth is regressive, sure, but we still have positive growth! Her contention was that because the rate of change of growth was regressive, we do not have positive growth. She made a false claim. Why is it hair-splitting to point out when someone makes a false claim?

 

[loseyourname]

It's an interesting correlation that the date given for the change (1980s) is the around the same time Reagan and Thatcher started on their privatization binge.

If I had to guess, I would say that the slowing of growth is probably due to the massive military buildup over this same span of time. Trillions of dollars have been funneled into operations that could have been more profitably allocated elsewhere.

 

[Smurf]

If I had to guess, I would say that the slowing of growth is probably due to the massive military buildup over this same span of time. Trillions of dollars have been funneled into operations that could have been more profitably allocated elsewhere.

What does government military spending have to do with slowing economic expansion and sharp fall in GDP growth? I would think that the privatization would have lessened the effect the government could have.

 

[Art]

The growth of the growth is regressive, sure, but we still have positive growth! Her contention was that because the rate of change of growth was regressive, we do not have positive growth. She made a false claim. Why is it hair-splitting to point out when someone makes a false claim?

I disagree. The central premise was to question the supposed correlation between prosperity and capitalism as claimed in Russ's post. I believe she did that successfully and cited a credible source to substantiate her position. If capitalism created growth then we would expect the more capitalism we have the more growth we would have whereas there is clearly either no correlation between the two or if there is a correlation it is negative.

 

[loseyourname]

I disagree. The central premise was to question the supposed correlation between prosperity and capitalism as claimed in Russ's post. I believe she did that successfully and cited a credible source to substantiate her position.

That doesn't mean you disagree. At least, you shouldn't disagree, given that all I said is that she equivocated on the meaning of the term "growth" and thus ended up making a fallacious argument. This is simply a matter of technical analysis and really isn't up for debate.

On the other hand, she may nonetheless be correct in her conclusion. That is a separate matter, however. Granted, I did say she made a "false" claim, when what I meant was that she made a "fallacious" claim. I apologize for my mistake.

If capitalism created growth then we would expect the more capitalism we have the more growth we would have whereas there is clearly either no correlation between the two or if there is a correlation it is negative.

You're going to have to help me here as to how she successfully demonstrated a correlation between increased capitalism and the slowed rate of growth. All she demonstrated was a slowed rate of growth. She didn't correlate this with anything other than the time span over which it occured.

 

[Smurf]

You're going to have to help me here as to how she successfully demonstrated a correlation between increased capitalism and the slowed rate of growth. All she demonstrated was a slowed rate of growth. She didn't correlate this with anything other than the time span over which it occured.

A timespan which involved mass privatization and increased free market and de-regulation across the world.

You know, I'm looking at parts of this report, it's really very very detailed and well written. Excellent find!

 

[loseyourname]

What does government military spending have to do with slowing economic expansion and sharp fall in GDP growth?

It takes a good deal of wealth out of the economy and places it in dead-end projects and destruction that eats up money.

I would think that the privatization would have lessened the effect the government could have.

Not given the way in which privatization has occured. All we have seen is that instead of using government monies to fund government-run programs, we now use government monies to fund privately run programs. However, the funds are still publicly raised, and there are questions as to how competitive the process that leads to the receiving of government contracts really is. Publicly subsidizing your friend's company is not the same as true privatization, which would entail programs being placed within a competitive marketplace that is privately funded (through consumer revenue, not taxation).

 

[Art]

That doesn't mean you disagree. At least, you shouldn't disagree, given that all I said is that she equivocated on the meaning of the term "growth" and thus ended up making a fallacious argument. This is simply a matter of technical analysis and really isn't up for debate.
On the other hand, she may nonetheless be correct in her conclusion. That is a separate matter, however. Granted, I did say she made a "false" claim, when what I meant was that she made a "fallacious" claim. I apologize for my mistake.

To borrow a term from Smurf's thread. This is

Argument By Selective Reading:
making it seem as if the weakest of an opponent's arguments was the best he had. Suppose the opponent gave a strong argument X and also a weaker argument Y. Simply rebut Y and then say the opponent has made a weak case.

You're going to have to help me here as to how she successfully demonstrated a correlation between increased capitalism and the slowed rate of growth. All she demonstrated was a slowed rate of growth. She didn't correlate this with anything other than the time span over which it occured.

To borrow another term from the aforementioned thread

Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension):
attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.

Alex did not lay claim to a correlation between the two and I specifically stated the possibility of zero correlation in my post so why would you expect me to defend a non-existant position??

 

[Smurf]

I thought we agreed fancy language was the devil's work?

 

[alexandra]

The growth of the growth is regressive, sure, but we still have positive growth! Her contention was that because the rate of change of growth was regressive, we do not have positive growth. She made a false claim. Why is it hair-splitting to point out when someone makes a false claim?

LYN, I did not misunderstand what I read, and I did not try to make any false claims. As Art points out - the point is that unregulated capitalism, 'free market' policies such as privatisation, etc. are showing worse results than the earlier period of capitalism, which some on this board insist on misnaming (I wonder to what purpose) 'socialistic'. Yet many people I argue with on these boards claim that an unregulated global market economy shows *better* outcomes. According to this document, this latter statement is false. It's not a long document - only 26 pages, and the Executive Summary is only two pages long. Read it if you're interested in what it says.

alex

 

[alexandra]

If I had to guess, I would say that the slowing of growth is probably due to the massive military buildup over this same span of time. Trillions of dollars have been funneled into operations that could have been more profitably allocated elsewhere.

This may be true for some countries, but I wonder if it is true for all? I don't know - just asking the question.

 

[loseyourname]

To borrow a term from Smurf's thread. This is

Nope, I've addressed every single claim she's made in this thread, and in pretty much every other thread she's posted in. In fact, I pride myself on giving full and detailed responses to just about everything. If you haven't read them all, I cannot be blamed.

To borrow another term from the aforementioned thread Alex did not lay claim to a correlation between the two and I specifically stated the possibility of zero correlation in my post so why would you expect me to defend a non-existant position??

Here is her claim:

Below is just one recent example (published September 2005) of data that claims that far from prosperity for all, there has been a general decline in prosperity and living standards.

To back this up, she showed that there has been a slowing of the rate of growth. However, the growth is still net positive over the given time-span. That means that prosperity and living standards have not declined across the board. Her claim is not backed up by the evidence she presented.

You and smurf (or at least smurf, I'm having difficulty keeping track now), on the other hand, have weakened the claim to say only that there exists a correlation between the privatization of world markets over the given time span and the slowing rate of growth. That is certainly a true claim, but I can only presume that he (you?) wants to present a claim that there is not simply a correlation between these two events, but a causative link. As he has not yet made that claim, I am not going to evaluate it.

 

[loseyourname]

LYN, I did not misunderstand what I read, and I did not try to make any false claims. As Art points out - the point is that unregulated capitalism, 'free market' policies such as privatisation, etc. are showing worse results than the earlier period of capitalism, which some on this board insist on misnaming (I wonder to what purpose) 'socialistic'. Yet many people I argue with on these boards claim that an unregulated global market economy shows *better* outcomes. According to this document, this latter statement is false. It's not a long document - only 26 pages, and the Executive Summary is only two pages long. Read it if you're interested in what it says.
alex

I posted in my reply to Art the part of your claim that I disputed. You said that living standards and prosperity have declined in concert with the rise in liberalization of markets over the past 25 years. That is not true.

Again, if you are simply making the weaker claim that the rate of growth has slowed, so be it. I'm not going to argue with raw numbers.

 

[Art]

Nope, I've addressed every single claim she's made in this thread, and in pretty much every other thread she's posted in. In fact, I pride myself on giving full and detailed responses to just about everything. If you haven't read them all, I cannot be blamed.

I have read ALL of the posts in this thread which given your comments below vis a vis "it might have been you said this or maybe it was Smurf etc..." it would appear you haven't.

I thought you had missed the central point as did Smurf and having read Alex's recent posts it is clear she thought you did too. Is it just possible that we are right and you are wrong?

To back this up, she showed that there has been a slowing of the rate of growth. However, the growth is still net positive over the given time-span. That means that prosperity and living standards have not declined across the board. Her claim is not backed up by the evidence she presented.
You and smurf (or at least smurf, I'm having difficulty keeping track now), on the other hand, have weakened the claim to say only that there exists a correlation between the privatization of world markets over the given time span and the slowing rate of growth. That is certainly a true claim, but I can only presume that he (you?) wants to present a claim that there is not simply a correlation between these two events, but a causative link. As he has not yet made that claim, I am not going to evaluate it.

Personally I'd prefer if you evaluated what I actually did say rather than what you thought I might have said.

I never once mentioned privitisation nor sought to prove or disprove a causative link. As you missed it twice already I'll repeat myself a third time. I expressly said that the data suggests that there may be zero correlation between capitalism and prosperity. In case you did read it but didn't understand what that means, it means no causative effect.

I find it difficult to reconcile your claim to be trying to raise the standard of debate on this forum with the approach you have taken on this matter.

 

[Smurf]

I thought you had missed the central point as did Smurf

I didn't miss the central point, I just chose to address something else. It's unavoidable when your perspective of the world is rather different than most people in the forum.