Thomas Sowell (former Marxist) Dismantles Leftist Ideology

[eye_of_the_storm]

[Apech]

He was a Marxist briefly in his 20's and clearly didn't really understand the theory ... quickly dumped it when employed in government. Nothing he says demolishes anything ... especially when you see this is just Fox News propaganda anyway.

[joeblast]

is "but then I realized that the government was nowhere near capable of doing the things the leftists wanted it to do" fox news propaganda? I dont think so. Been quite a while since I seen anything from there.

 

"and the best they wind up doing is not making anything any worse" sums up government pretty well.

 

and "things that work in theory"....yet are proved time and again to be failures where the rubber meets the road...

 

hm....now whyyyyy do I keep seeing that concept

 

never seeing the fact that the helping hand extended too far merely morphs into the enabling hand

 

 

but of course he misses the biggest thing - if you want poor people to be able to make more money, you kinda have to STOP THE SKIM HAPPENING AT THE TOP...

 

but wall st wouldnt like THAT...

 

 

 

 

but yes it does destroy some leftist statist solutions...

 

Compared to what? Saying that Sweden has great state provided healthcare doesnt mean that model will work in the US or would port well to it, look at all the disastrous things Obamacare has done already (and nevermind the completely unconstitutional inception, incestuous creation, illegal modifications by both executive and judicial branches...etc, etc, etc) Our expensive healthcare is not going to be fixed by simply chiseling the price distortions in stone and adding layers of bureaucracy that will further obscure costs and saying one bill fits all will work better for someplace very very different than the places its compared to.

 

At what cost? Well, considering that price discovery mechanisms and broken if not completely destroyed, this becomes tricky - the best thing to do is return to fundamentals so that a real price discovery mechanism can be set up. Having the government take control is again just sweeping the problem under the rug and feeding it morsels.

Doubly bad since the government is in the pockets of people that dont have the interests of the USA or its citizens as their own interests.

 

What hard evidence do you have? Mangled statistics can say whatever the person wishes, and being mindful of poor statistical application sheds some needed light on the subject - like in the healthcare example where a rather small country with a completely different history is compared to a much larger one with completely different demographics and history - the comparison, if attempted to be asserted in a manner of congruency - loses most of its potency. Just like those few trees in yamal lose their potency when considered with the whole rest of the climate record

Edited August 20, 2014 by joeblast

[Apech]

@joeblast

 

You don't really have a left wing in the US. What he is referring to is centre right in any other country. Given the overall right wing bias of any US Government it not surprising they can't make policies which are about alleviation of poverty work.

 

Skimming of the top is exactly what capitalism promotes. It is not the fair competition of idealistic free market thinkers but is actually rigged against the ordinary working person. Banks are the exemplars of this ... as are I imagine the backers of Fox News.

 

Nordic social systems don't work anywhere except in Scandinavia because of the particular social, economic and historical circumstances. But that does not mean ideas cannot be borrowed. The whole 'compared to what?' argument falls down because it presupposes that the basic system remains the same ... a system which makes other models unworkable.

 

The costs have to be calculated on the basis of nett gains and not just on the initial outlay. for instance if intervention puts more people in work then more tax is collected to pay for more intervention and so on.

 

Hard evidence is all around. You just have to look and see injustice, anger, disgraceful poverty in the richest nation or earth (still)... if you don't think change is necessary then you are in denial.

[joeblast]

Skimming off the top as we have here is plain out bastardized "capitalism" its not capitalism in any way shape or form. Its CAPITOL-ism. Cronyism. Fascism is defined by the bedroom antics of big business and government, not capitalism.

 

Sorry Apech, mass theft at the top is not part of capitalism and its intellectually dishonest to assert that it is.

[Brian]

In the last century or so, we've allowed corporatism to be passed off as capitalism and then used as "proof" that open trade doesn't work, despite hundreds of centuries of human experience to the contrary.

 

I believe the objective is control of human energy on a global scale.

[joeblast]

no instead we get "open trade" shaftings life NAFTA...

 

other top 2 bubba failure was signing that GS repeal, but they had to make some things legal ex post facto...as to which was worse...did it hurt more that punch with the right hand, or the left...

[Apech]

Skimming off the top as we have here is plain out bastardized "capitalism" its not capitalism in any way shape or form. Its CAPITOL-ism. Cronyism. Fascism is defined by the bedroom antics of big business and government, not capitalism.

 

Sorry Apech, mass theft at the top is not part of capitalism and its intellectually dishonest to assert that it is.

 

 

Oh what? Capitalism goes wrong and suddenly its not capitalism any more! Ha! What made skimming such a phenomena? Deregulation of the financial sector. Revolving door of jobs for the boys between big business and banks and regulators. Why? To feed their greed.

[joeblast]

Suddenly?? Aint no suddenly about it my dear Apech From the creation of the federal reserve to the removal of the state's input in congress (17th) to the purchasing of all 3 branches of congress...I mean how much of history are you considering when you're saying "capitalism has gone wrong??"

 

If not for the government allowing itself to be purchased, the founding fathers construction might actually still remain, but it dont. And along with that sailing of the ship of representation, also sailed the ship of capitalism.

 

The financial sector has been the problem, the entire time. And when the government listens to the financial sector on how the financial sector might run better....well hell law is complicated, let's just have the financial sector write the law...what, you guys have already been doing this for years? Ok, now let's write the law to legalize that ex post facto...

 

If you're only considering the last 20, 30 years... still but a snapshot. And you cant honestly assert that capitalism all of a sudden broke, or was even functional in any of our lifetimes...

[Apech]

Suddenly?? Aint no suddenly about it my dear Apech From the creation of the federal reserve to the removal of the state's input in congress (17th) to the purchasing of all 3 branches of congress...I mean how much of history are you considering when you're saying "capitalism has gone wrong??"

 

If not for the government allowing itself to be purchased, the founding fathers construction might actually still remain, but it dont. And along with that sailing of the ship of representation, also sailed the ship of capitalism.

 

The financial sector has been the problem, the entire time. And when the government listens to the financial sector on how the financial sector might run better....well hell law is complicated, let's just have the financial sector write the law...what, you guys have already been doing this for years? Ok, now let's write the law to legalize that ex post facto...

 

If you're only considering the last 20, 30 years... still but a snapshot. And you cant honestly assert that capitalism all of a sudden broke, or was even functional in any of our lifetimes...

 

As usual you are confusing America with The World.

 

The word 'suddenly' indicates the jump in your ideas about capitalism and not the slow march of history.

 

So ... capitalism as a system threw up all the central banks, political affiliations and regulatory bodies in order to preserve itself. So what we have now is a product of capitalism and you cannot divorce them from it. The forces that drive capitalism produce greed and greed means hoarding wealth, which means skimming etc.

[Brian]

The problem is that greed is not a product of capitalism. The former is a base human characteristic independent of political structure or system of trade. If greed were truly a product of capitalism then greed would only exist in purely capitalistic societies (of which we have none).

[joeblast]

As usual you are confusing America with The World.

 

The word 'suddenly' indicates the jump in your ideas about capitalism and not the slow march of history.

 

So ... capitalism as a system threw up all the central banks, political affiliations and regulatory bodies in order to preserve itself. So what we have now is a product of capitalism and you cannot divorce them from it. The forces that drive capitalism produce greed and greed means hoarding wealth, which means skimming etc.

methinks you have a little more reading to do about history, if you think that is the case. america just has easy examples that I am more well versed in.

 

like banks were never a problem before america or capitalism came about? no, they're mercantilist relics that derive their living from usury and loan sharking. why you guys feel the need to equate loan sharking with capitalism is beyond me!

[GrandmasterP]

Marxism's a busted flush.

It never worked in practice cos it doesn't take human nature into account.

The party apparatchiks all lived like Ottoman potentates whilst the poor bleddy workers had to queue up for bread.

Edited August 21, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Apech]

The problem is that greed is not a product of capitalism. The former is a base human characteristic independent of political structure or system of trade. If greed were truly a product of capitalism then greed would only exist in purely capitalistic societies (of which we have none).

I didn't say 'a product of' I said 'a force that drives'.

[Brian]

True. You said, "The forces that drive capitalism produce greed and greed means hoarding wealth, which means skimming etc." which to me implies skimming and the hoarding of wealth and greed are all products of "the forces that drive capitalism."

 

What do you perceive to be "the forces that drive capitalism?"

 

My next question (and not necessarily directed at you, Apech) would be, "What does the word 'capitalism' mean to you?"

[GrandmasterP]

Not sure 'greed' is universally applicable.

John Lewis Partnership ( they own Waitrose amongst other things) for example.

The workers own the company, hence the checkout lasses at our local Waitrose are all on something like £40K a year plus bonus on profits.

It's a good model.

Edited August 21, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Apech]

methinks you have a little more reading to do about history, if you think that is the case. america just has easy examples that I am more well versed in.

 

like banks were never a problem before america or capitalism came about? no, they're mercantilist relics that derive their living from usury and loan sharking. why you guys feel the need to equate loan sharking with capitalism is beyond me!

 

You are right I (and everyone else) should read more history ... or we are doomed to repeat it.

 

Banking (in the modern sense) started in Renaissance Italy in Florence and Venice an so on. In fact bank derives from the word meaning bench where they used to trade in money loans. What I was saying was that the institutions, global business, international financiers and banks rose to power through the forces of capitalism protecting itself. If you think there is something like a pure form of capitalism which all good then that's just an abstract concept which never has and never will exist. Its not so much the existence of loan sharks and pay day loans and so on which is a criticism of the system but the failure to do anything about them. Why because the system is weighted in favour of the those that accumulate wealth for reasons of the self interest of those that run the system.

[Apech]

True. You said, "The forces that drive capitalism produce greed and greed means hoarding wealth, which means skimming etc." which to me implies skimming and the hoarding of wealth and greed are all products of "the forces that drive capitalism."

 

What do you perceive to be "the forces that drive capitalism?"

 

My next question (and not necessarily directed at you, Apech) would be, "What does the word 'capitalism' mean to you?"

 

The accumulation of capital of course. (in answer tot he first part not the second)

[Brian]

 

You are right I (and everyone else) should read more history ... or we are doomed to repeat it.

 

Banking (in the modern sense) started in Renaissance Italy in Florence and Venice an so on. In fact bank derives from the word meaning bench where they used to trade in money loans. What I was saying was that the institutions, global business, international financiers and banks rose to power through the forces of capitalism protecting itself. If you think there is something like a pure form of capitalism which all good then that's just an abstract concept which never has and never will exist. Its not so much the existence of loan sharks and pay day loans and so on which is a criticism of the system but the failure to do anything about them. Why because the system is weighted in favour of the those that accumulate wealth for reasons of the self interest of those that run the system.

^^^Here, in my opinion, is the nut of the problem. When the foxes guard the henhouse, it makes little difference what the henhouse's blueprints looked like.

[Apech]

Not sure 'greed' is universally applicable.

John Lewis Partnership ( they own Waitrose amongst other things) for example.

The workers own the company, hence the checkout lasses at our local Waitrose are all on something like £40K a year plus bonus on profits.

It's a good model.

 

yes because it has unusual values as follows;

 

'The first is historical. The John Lewis Partnership exists today because of the extraordinary vision and ideals of our Founder, John Spedan Lewis, who signed away his personal ownership rights in a growing retail company to allow future generations of employees to take forward his 'experiment in industrial democracy'. Not unreasonably, he wanted to leave some clear guidelines for his successors, so that the values which had motivated him would not be eroded with the passage of time.

The second reason looks forward. Spedan Lewis was committed to establishing a 'better form of business', and the challenge for Partners of today is to prove that a business which is not driven by the demands of outside shareholders and which sets high standards of behaviour can flourish in the competitive conditions of the third millennium. Indeed, we aim to demonstrate that adhering to these Principles and Rules enables us over the long term to outperform companies with conventional ownership structures.

The Constitution states that 'the happiness of its members' is the Partnership's ultimate purpose, recognising that such happiness depends on having a satisfying job in a successful business. It establishes a system of 'rights and responsibilities', which places on all Partners the obligation to work for the improvement of our business in the knowledge that we share the rewards of success.

The Constitution defines mechanisms to provide for the management of the Partnership, with checks and balances to ensure accountability, transparency and honesty. It established the representation of the co-owners on the Partnership Board through the election of Partners as Directors (Elected Directors) and it also determines the role of the Partners' Counsellor.

[Apech]

^^^Here, in my opinion, is the nut of the problem. When the foxes guard the henhouse, it makes little difference what the henhouse's blueprints looked like.

 

If you look at the values of the John Lewis Partnership in UK which I posted above ... you can see the values enshrined as the 'happiness of the members' ... similar to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' - the American Constitution a product of the European Enlightenment and something of which I am sure you are justly proud.

 

This is not something based on capital but on human beings. Place human beings and their worth at the centre and things could improve.

[joeblast]

You are right I (and everyone else) should read more history ... or we are doomed to repeat it.

 

Banking (in the modern sense) started in Renaissance Italy in Florence and Venice an so on. In fact bank derives from the word meaning bench where they used to trade in money loans. What I was saying was that the institutions, global business, international financiers and banks rose to power through the forces of capitalism protecting itself. If you think there is something like a pure form of capitalism which all good then that's just an abstract concept which never has and never will exist. Its not so much the existence of loan sharks and pay day loans and so on which is a criticism of the system but the failure to do anything about them. Why because the system is weighted in favour of the those that accumulate wealth for reasons of the self interest of those that run the system.

so banking=capitalism?

[Brian]

 

The accumulation of capital of course. (in answer tot he first part not the second)

In my opinion, that is part of one part of the answer -- although clearly for some it is the sole objective.

 

I would say that "capitalism" (which is really just a description of our instinctive personal energy management processes) is composed of three primary elements.

 

One is the idea that each individual (without regard for race, creed, social status, etc.) has the opportunity to apply their personal energy as they see fit and to determine for themselves how the fruits of their labor are directed. Some will accumulate wealth and remove it from society ("hoarding" it)but most do not, either using their assets for personal/familial comfort/enjoyment/security or investing their assets in someone else's endeavor in hopes that it will also bear fruit or deliberately distributing their assets in a philanthropic manner -- with most people doing all three. In any of these latter cases, the capital is being injected back into society. Even for the case of the hoarder, it is generally only a temporary sequestration as the miser's heirs are likely to spend it. The alternative is for a small group of government bureaucrats to determine who gets how much of what.

 

The second leg of this three-legged stool is dynamic valuation of labor. In a capitalistic system, the value of labor is decided by the aggregated opinion of the participating population on an individual basis according to both the nature of and the quality of the work done. In this manner, an excellent waitress may be more valuable than a lousy one, and a refrigerator repairperson may be more valuable than ice-block delivery person. The alternative is for a small group of government bureaucrats to decide who gets how much for what.

 

The third leg is a competitive marketplace. Obviously, the three legs work together -- the competitive marketplace is where goods and services are exchanged at rates dynamically set by the market's participants in real-time (or near-real-time). If I bring spinach to the market and more people want spinach that day than vendors have brought, the value of my spinach might go up. If, instead, there is an e. coli outbreak, the value of my spinach might go down. Someone who has been accumulating wealth might choose to buy my devalued spinach in hopes that mine is clean and that the scare passes quickly. Someone else might decide to abandon the spinach-farming career and become a refrigerator repairman instead. The alternative is for a small group of government bureaucrats to decide who pays how much for what.

 

Personally, I prefer the system which is intended to allow me to decide what to do with my energy and to allow society itself determine the value of my contribution to that same society, even if that system is often corrupted by the very individuals sworn to protect the system from corruption.

 

As to politicians, bankers and businessmen, if I own a farm and I hire a farmer to run it for me and he in turn allows foxes to guard the henhouse mentioned above, I shouldn't blame the foxes when they start eating chickens. Instead, I should hold responsible the hired steward who promised to protect those chickens. If I just continue to put chickens by the truckload into that fox-infested coup, however, well...

[Apech]

so banking=capitalism?

 

Did I say that?

[Apech]

@Brian

 

I don't disagree with any of that as an aspiration. However what i generally refer to as capitalism is what we actually have in the world (warts and all) not some abstract perfected version. Maybe its just how we apply terms differently.

 

I think that individual liberty and the rule of law (which protects that liberty) is the key Western value which underpins the US, UK, Europe, Australia etc.