Page 9 of 12 [ 178 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

TenMinutes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2021
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,955

23 Jul 2023, 2:58 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
I think social safety nets are a red herring in the capitalism discussion. Basically every country with a strong social net finances it either through bottomless oil wealth (which you either have or you don't), or by creating a very favourable business environment. Look at countries like Sweden or Finland.


These are the top oil exporters:

Saudi Arabia: US$224.8 billion (16.7% of exported crude oil)
Canada: $120.5 billion (8.9%)
Russia: $119.5 billion (8.9%)
United States: $117 billion (8.7%)
United Arab Emirates: $112.7 billion (8.4%)
Iraq: $82.3 billion (6.1%)

Next on the list is Norway. The top 15 producers account for 85% of the oil. Sweden and Finland aren't on the list.

Quote:
Capitalists tend to support social safety nets.


I think that what you're trying to get at is that the Scandinavian countries have generous social safety nets. And it's true. You might also mean that most of the civilized world funds their social safety nets to some degree.

But surely you aren't talking about the USA, which is one of the world's richest countries with regard to natural resources, including oil.

Problem with USA oil is that it is privately owned. In fact, the USA ACTUALLY SUBSIDIZES IT'S OIL INDUSTRY. It does not support the social safety net, IT SUCKS REOURCES FROM THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET.



TenMinutes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2021
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,955

23 Jul 2023, 3:08 pm

There's a meme that I cannot find that goes something like this...

Why can't we be like the democratic socialist countries, like Denmark and Sweden?

-Actually, Denmark and Sweden are strongly capitalist, with a generous social safety net.

Okay, then, why can't we be strongly capitalist, with a generous social safety net, like Denmark and Sweden?



TenMinutes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2021
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,955

23 Jul 2023, 3:15 pm

Also, Danish millennials have more spendable income than American boomers.



Aspiegaming
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,074
Location: Hagerstown, MD

23 Jul 2023, 3:16 pm

TenMinutes wrote:
There's a meme that I cannot find that goes something like this...

Why can't we be like the democratic socialist countries, like Denmark and Sweden?

-Actually, Denmark and Sweden are strongly capitalist, with a generous social safety net.

Okay, then, why can't we be strongly capitalist, with a generous social safety net, like Denmark and Sweden?


America has this thing called the Wild West Mentality.
"Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps [or die.]"

I personally believe that people who truly do not have a chance in hell with their financial situation should be exempt from this mentality.


_________________
I am sick, and in so being I am the healthy one.

If my darkness or eccentricness offends you, I don't really care.

I will not apologize for being me.


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,808
Location: London

23 Jul 2023, 3:20 pm

TenMinutes wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I think social safety nets are a red herring in the capitalism discussion. Basically every country with a strong social net finances it either through bottomless oil wealth (which you either have or you don't), or by creating a very favourable business environment. Look at countries like Sweden or Finland.


These are the top oil exporters:

Saudi Arabia: US$224.8 billion (16.7% of exported crude oil)
Canada: $120.5 billion (8.9%)
Russia: $119.5 billion (8.9%)
United States: $117 billion (8.7%)
United Arab Emirates: $112.7 billion (8.4%)
Iraq: $82.3 billion (6.1%)

Next on the list is Norway. The top 15 producers account for 85% of the oil. Sweden and Finland aren't on the list.

I wasn't saying they were. They are, however, two of the most business-friendly countries in the world.

The Saudis and the UAE have essentially a class of people who live off the oil money. I don't think anyone would describe them as "social democracies", given their poor humans rights records, but their mineral wealth could theoretically fund such a state without needing to be pro-business.
TenMinutes wrote:
Quote:
Capitalists tend to support social safety nets.


I think that what you're trying to get at is that the Scandinavian countries have generous social safety nets. And it's true. You might also mean that most of the civilized world funds their social safety nets to some degree.

But surely you aren't talking about the USA

I know it can come as a shock to Americans, but you aren't the only country in the world :wink: And of course, the US does have the Alaska Permanent Fund, which is a basic income provided by oil money.

That being said, there are two ways of looking at this.

The first is that the statement "capitalism is good" does not remotely suggest "everything about the USA is good". There is no logical connection between those two statements.

The second is that, conversely, the statement "there are problems in the US" does not lead to "and therefore we should overthrow capitalism in favour of ???". There is no doubt that capitalism is a huge force for good in the world - saying that we should get rid of it just because you don't like one aspect of one of many capitalist countries is not a compelling argument.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,681
Location: the island of defective toy santas

23 Jul 2023, 7:20 pm

Nades wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
capitalism is designed to work only for capitalists [those born with entrepreneurial intelligence]. and capitalists wonder why some of the working class are disenchanted.


I'm working class and a capitalist. It's all panned out quite well for me.

you have the entrepreneurial genes for it.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,818
Location: Stendec

23 Jul 2023, 8:13 pm

Let me try to spell this out again.

• For those who CANNOT choose to make Capitalism work for them, they SHOULD receive support.

• For those who CAN choose to make Capitalism work for them, they should choose well.

• One bad choice can waste every previous good choice. My bad choice was trusting a traitor -- my ex-wife -- with managing my finances.

• One right choice can wipe out all previous bad choices. Gamblers know this well.

Got bad genes?  Don't blame Capitalism, blame your ancestors.  Mine left me with ASD, a malformed cardiac artery, and a type of eczema/urticaria that made me smell like dead fish.  My father was a bigoted, bullying alcoholic with a bipolar disorder.  He also smoked two packs a day, which gave me a life-long case of asthma.

So yeah . . . people are born with deficiencies and disabilities.  For those who cannot overcome these, no economic system will benefit them.  For those who can overcome them, success and failure rely heavily on the choices they make.

Now . . . let the "yeah-buts" and other excuses begin . . . :roll:


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1933
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,801
Location: wales

24 Jul 2023, 12:59 am

auntblabby wrote:
Nades wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
capitalism is designed to work only for capitalists [those born with entrepreneurial intelligence]. and capitalists wonder why some of the working class are disenchanted.


I'm working class and a capitalist. It's all panned out quite well for me.

you have the entrepreneurial genes for it.


I wouldn't consider myself an entrepreneur. All I really done was buy cheap houses in my area.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,681
Location: the island of defective toy santas

24 Jul 2023, 1:22 am

Nades wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Nades wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
capitalism is designed to work only for capitalists [those born with entrepreneurial intelligence]. and capitalists wonder why some of the working class are disenchanted.


I'm working class and a capitalist. It's all panned out quite well for me.

you have the entrepreneurial genes for it.


I wouldn't consider myself an entrepreneur. All I really done was buy cheap houses in my area.

that takes timing. some of us have rotten timing and we buy at the height of the market.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,428
Location: Right over your left shoulder

24 Jul 2023, 7:05 am

Fnord wrote:
Let me try to spell this out again.

• For those who CANNOT choose to make Capitalism work for them, they SHOULD receive support.

• For those who CAN choose to make Capitalism work for them, they should choose well.


And for the people who fall between those extremes? :chin:


_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,428
Location: Right over your left shoulder

24 Jul 2023, 7:06 am

The_Walrus wrote:
Capitalists tend to support social safety nets.


Some capitalists, not all.


_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Lecia_Wynter
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2022
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 411

24 Jul 2023, 9:21 am

The_Walrus wrote:
I think social safety nets are a red herring in the capitalism discussion. Basically every country with a strong social net finances it either through bottomless oil wealth (which you either have or you don't), or by creating a very favourable business environment. Look at countries like Sweden or Finland.

Capitalists tend to support social safety nets.

People have been saying for 150 years that capitalism is going to collapse any day now. At this point I think it's safe to view those predictions the same way we view cult leaders predicting the end of the world.


Nice try but that argument just doesn't fly.

Checkmate capatalists, I got an argument that can't be beat.

I think capitalists have been suppressing clean energy. Clean energy is also cheap energy. Your argument is that oil creates enough money to sustain a first world lifestyle. But I think the capatalists are creating problems then acting like they are the solution to those problems. If we had clean energy in the 60's people wouldn't need as much welfare in the first place. The economy would be better and there would be more money to go around. Think about it like this, somebody invents a way to power cars and homes with water or sunlight only and its cheap. Capatalist hate this because they have no way to exploit people with monthly fees. Look at modern software, its all about capatalist exploitation of monthly fees, instead of software in the past that was pay once software. Now look at it like this. Capatilist censor ways of cheap energy like water or sunlight powered homes and cars. Yeah they let solar panels become a thing, but there were better ways of cheap energy than that they censored. Solar panels are extremely expensive and I'm talking about cheap energy. Think of it in this way. Lets say someone banned cars and computers to keep humanity in the 1800s. Would banning cars and computers benefit or hinder the economy? The quality of life overall would go down. This is the same as banning clean cheap energy. And your argument is oil is neccesary to maintain first world safety nets. That's like saying banning cars and banning computers is neccesary to maintain first world conditions. You are saying having inefficient workflows and needing to do more work benefits society because "more work more profits". That's like saying society should become more inefficient in order so greedy capatalists can get more profits then pay more taxes for welfare. It sounds bass ackwards to me.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,818
Location: Stendec

24 Jul 2023, 1:07 pm

Capitalism -- An economic system wherein people either lead, follow, or shut up and get out of the way of those who would make better lives for themselves.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,808
Location: London

24 Jul 2023, 1:49 pm

Lecia_Wynter wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I think social safety nets are a red herring in the capitalism discussion. Basically every country with a strong social net finances it either through bottomless oil wealth (which you either have or you don't), or by creating a very favourable business environment. Look at countries like Sweden or Finland.

Capitalists tend to support social safety nets.

People have been saying for 150 years that capitalism is going to collapse any day now. At this point I think it's safe to view those predictions the same way we view cult leaders predicting the end of the world.


Nice try but that argument just doesn't fly.

Checkmate capatalists, I got an argument that can't be beat.

I think capitalists have been suppressing clean energy. Clean energy is also cheap energy. Your argument is that oil creates enough money to sustain a first world lifestyle. But I think the capatalists are creating problems then acting like they are the solution to those problems. If we had clean energy in the 60's people wouldn't need as much welfare in the first place. The economy would be better and there would be more money to go around. Think about it like this, somebody invents a way to power cars and homes with water or sunlight only and its cheap. Capatalist hate this because they have no way to exploit people with monthly fees. Look at modern software, its all about capatalist exploitation of monthly fees, instead of software in the past that was pay once software. Now look at it like this. Capatilist censor ways of cheap energy like water or sunlight powered homes and cars. Yeah they let solar panels become a thing, but there were better ways of cheap energy than that they censored. Solar panels are extremely expensive and I'm talking about cheap energy. Think of it in this way. Lets say someone banned cars and computers to keep humanity in the 1800s. Would banning cars and computers benefit or hinder the economy? The quality of life overall would go down. This is the same as banning clean cheap energy. And your argument is oil is neccesary to maintain first world safety nets. That's like saying banning cars and banning computers is neccesary to maintain first world conditions. You are saying having inefficient workflows and needing to do more work benefits society because "more work more profits". That's like saying society should become more inefficient in order so greedy capatalists can get more profits then pay more taxes for welfare. It sounds bass ackwards to me.

This isn't an argument, it's a conspiracy theory. It has no resemblance to the real world.

Quote:
I think capitalists have been suppressing clean energy. Clean energy is also cheap energy.

There is no evidence to support this claim and quite a lot to oppose it. After all, capitalists want cheap energy.

Quote:
Your argument is that oil creates enough money to sustain a first world lifestyle.

No it isn't. I did make the point that some of the gulf states generate enough oil revenue to fund a welfare state. Oil has also, until fairly recently, been a crucial part of our economy. We can now see a path to mostly weaning ourselves off it, but energy abundance is a crucial part of prosperity.

Quote:
Think about it like this, somebody invents a way to power cars and homes with water or sunlight only and its cheap. Capatalist hate this because they have no way to exploit people with monthly fees.

Nope, that's not how it works. At all. Capitalists like cheap energy because it drives down their costs. That's why solar power and wind power are being so strongly pushed right now. A person who provides cheap, clean electricity can make a lot of money from it by cornering the electricity market - you just need to be slightly cheaper than your competition, after all, and if you charge 0.01 per kWh for thousands of TWhs then you make a lot of money.
Quote:
Yeah they let solar panels become a thing, but there were better ways of cheap energy than that they censored. Solar panels are extremely expensive and I'm talking about cheap energy.

Provide some evidence for this claim. You can't just blindly assert that "clean energy is being censored".

(Solar panels also aren't expensive any more)



Lecia_Wynter
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2022
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 411

24 Jul 2023, 5:15 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
This isn't an argument, it's a conspiracy theory. It has no resemblance to the real world.

You probably have never bothered to research any of this, and just discard it for two reasons. 1 because if you accepted it as fact, it would not help your argument for Capatalism. 2. Because you have a rosy view of people and don't believe conspiracies exist, this common naivety is a human flaw, its why people keep electing dark triads over and over and why we have a dystopian world.

This video explains why this keeps happening:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eBN_9rMoVI

The other reason is statistics, because statistically most people are good people, maybe 90% are good or something like that, so obviously there are bad people doing bad things, so the odds are 0% that there are no conspiracies, it would actually be statistically bizarre if there were 0 bad people doing conspiracies.


Quote:
Quote:
I think capitalists have been suppressing clean energy. Clean energy is also cheap energy.

There is no evidence to support this claim and quite a lot to oppose it. After all, capitalists want cheap energy.

Capitalism is not about cheap energy its about profitable energy. Gas stations barely make profits from gas, they profit from all the other stuff. Capitalism is about monthly payment fees. You cannot get monthly payment fees from water powered cars, solar and wind energy, or quantum energy. I'm actually surprised the capitalists allowed solar and wind, but they have censored even better and cheaper forms of energy than that, the solar and wind they allowed isn't currently practical for most people right now.

Quote:
Quote:
Your argument is that oil creates enough money to sustain a first world lifestyle.

No it isn't. I did make the point that some of the gulf states generate enough oil revenue to fund a welfare state. Oil has also, until fairly recently, been a crucial part of our economy. We can now see a path to mostly weaning ourselves off it, but energy abundance is a crucial part of prosperity.

Yeah but capitalists want profit, look at the video earlier I posted there is no "conspiracy theory" its mainstream af. You don't have to believe in free energy that has been censored so there is no proof of free energy. I am talking wind and solar energy that is mainstream and proven. And in the video you hear these greedy capatalist talking about how wind and solar is not enough profit for them because they need 8-12% profits. This is not a conspiracy theory or alternative science about quantum or free energy, this is mainstream examples of capatalists being capatalists. Capitalists do not want energy abundance, what they want is exploitable energy that causes financial profits. And they are old boomers that could care less if future generations suffer and the planet explodes from global warming.

Quote:
Quote:
Think about it like this, somebody invents a way to power cars and homes with water or sunlight only and its cheap. Capatalist hate this because they have no way to exploit people with monthly fees.

Nope, that's not how it works. At all. Capitalists like cheap energy because it drives down their costs.


You are talking small time capitalists, like small businesses, not big time capitalists and barons.

Quote:
Provide some evidence for this claim. You can't just blindly assert that "clean energy is being censored".

(Solar panels also aren't expensive any more)

Do the research yourself, my guess is you haven't done the research and just trust whatever mainstream sources you happen to read.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,808
Location: London

24 Jul 2023, 6:39 pm

Lecia_Wynter wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
This isn't an argument, it's a conspiracy theory. It has no resemblance to the real world.

You probably have never bothered to research any of this

:roll:

I literally work in this field. I know much more about this than you do.

Quote:
Quote:
I think capitalists have been suppressing clean energy. Clean energy is also cheap energy.

There is no evidence to support this claim and quite a lot to oppose it. After all, capitalists want cheap energy.

Capitalism is not about cheap energy its about profitable energy. Gas stations barely make profits from gas, they profit from all the other stuff. Capitalism is about monthly payment fees. You cannot get monthly payment fees from water powered cars, solar and wind energy, or quantum energy. I'm actually surprised the capitalists allowed solar and wind, but they have censored even better and cheaper forms of energy than that, the solar and wind they allowed isn't currently practical for most people right now.[/quote]
Again this is just wrong, on multiple levels.

Firstly, there is a lot of profit in wind and solar because operating costs and capital costs are both relatively low.

Secondly, there is more to capitalism than BP and Shell. What about, for example, factory owners? Do they want expensive electricity? No, they want cheap electricity. What about electricity suppliers? They make their money by buying electricity as cheaply as possible from generators, then selling it to consumers. They have a huge financial incentive to switch to cheaper electricity, and no shortage of capital to fund it with.

You absolutely can get monthly payment fees from cars and renewable energy. Wind and solar are not only practical right now, in much of the world they are generating a large portion of the electricity.

Again, provide some actual evidence for "better and cheaper" technologies being "censored". It's not enough to say "some people are psychopaths", because the same logic could apply to almost any crazy statement.

Quote:


Capitalists do not want energy abundance, what they want is exploitable energy that causes financial profits. And they are old boomers that could care less if future generations suffer and the planet explodes from global warming.

Again, that just isn't how it works! Capitalism isn't a cartel.

Some people want to be able to keep selling oil for profit. Other people think they can make profits by doing something different. Look at Vestas, for example.

Quote:
Quote:
Think about it like this, somebody invents a way to power cars and homes with water or sunlight only and its cheap. Capatalist hate this because they have no way to exploit people with monthly fees.

Nope, that's not how it works. At all. Capitalists like cheap energy because it drives down their costs.


You are talking small time capitalists, like small businesses, not big time capitalists and barons.[/quote]
Nope, lots of businesses benefit from cheap energy. Ford, GM, Nestle, Coca-Cola, Monsanto, Amazon, Google, mining companies, shipping companies, steelmakers, glassmakers. They all use large amounts of energy and have a lot to gain from reducing energy costs.

Quote:
Quote:
Provide some evidence for this claim. You can't just blindly assert that "clean energy is being censored".

(Solar panels also aren't expensive any more)

Do the research yourself, my guess is you haven't done the research and just trust whatever mainstream sources you happen to read.

If all you have is "do your own research" (again, I demonstrably know much more about this topic than you), then I'm forced to conclude that you just made it up.