Capitalism

[Snorri1234]

The "capitalism without limits" crowd are as stupid and unaware of human behaviour as communists. The do exactly the same thing as communists, that is; they ignore any proof that their system is retarded simply because the idea is so awesome. I challenge any "capitalism wins everything"-people to a debate.

It will be fun.

[captain.crazy]

The "capitalism without limits" crowd are as stupid and unaware of human behaviour as communists. The do exactly the same thing as communists, that is; they ignore any proof that their system is retarded simply because the idea is so awesome. I challenge any "capitalism wins everything"-people to a debate.

It will be fun.

I'm your huckleberry.

Capitalism, when implemented in its completely natural form, is absolutely the best way of life that there is. If left to my own devices, I can, through the guidance of my family and god, determine what it is that I love to do, develop a plan with which to develop that skill, and make for myself a suitable living doing just that.

the point is that I will not be "given" a job that I do not want to do. I may "take" a job that I do not care for, in order to make ends meet, or to transition myself to a point in life where I can establish myself in my field of choice, but ultimately, I am free to follow my own path in life and make what I can and want of it. It is not my fault if my neighbor is unable to fulfill their dreams. It is their responsibility to know themselves in that way.

For example, if I am interested in becoming a musician, I should put myself in a place where I can be around music and musicians as much as possible. If I like being a criminal, then I suppose that I can put myself around criminals to learn the trade. In either case, I, by the nature of my own decisions, and ultimately responsible for my own freedom.

[got tonkaed]

I think sometimes people can take the freedom to pursue one's objectives a little too far. While certainly in a capitalist structure you have an enhanced oppertunity to do different jobs, that doesnt really mean everyone gets to do what they want. Now as mr crazy suggests people can "choose" (ive always thought choosing is a little more complex of a word here than its given credit for) to do jobs that they may not want to for any number of reasons. But without people choosing to do jobs that you do not want to do (you being a plural thats rather ambigous) its hard to really make the system go.

Even putting aside simplistic views of equality (things like primary goods, income, etc) the benefits of capitalism, even the non-material ones are seemingly always going to be concentrated unevenly. This is probably more so in the "ideal form" so to speak. This isnt to say that some benefits, especially non-material ones dont get dispersed widely through the system (its really hard to measure a lot of the non-material stuff) or to say that everything has to be concentrated equally.

But I would say this...nearly all systems of social organization value some from of equality. Granted its not often equality as we think of it, but in order for it to be deemed as reasonable equality must in some way be present. Capitalism for better or for worse places its equality more in abstraction, which means there will always be material inequalities between individuals. The potential benefit of any "less than pure" capitalism is that some of the negative consequences of these material inequalities may be addressed.

[Snorri1234]

I'm your huckleberry.

Yay.

Capitalism, when implemented in its completely natural form, is absolutely the best way of life that there is. If left to my own devices, I can, through the guidance of my family and god, determine what it is that I love to do, develop a plan with which to develop that skill, and make for myself a suitable living doing just that.

That is indeed what capitalism is supposed to be. I am not here to argue about the definition.

the point is that I will not be "given" a job that I do not want to do. I may "take" a job that I do not care for, in order to make ends meet, or to transition myself to a point in life where I can establish myself in my field of choice, but ultimately, I am free to follow my own path in life and make what I can and want of it. It is not my fault if my neighbor is unable to fulfill their dreams. It is their responsibility to know themselves in that way.

So you think that social factors are completely unimportant? That noone is limited by their environment?

For example, if I am interested in becoming a musician, I should put myself in a place where I can be around music and musicians as much as possible.

So yeah, not related but.....what if you're just really bad at making music? Say that you're dead-set on becoming a musician but don't have any musical talent. Is that your fault for not wanting it enough?

If I like being a criminal, then I suppose that I can put myself around criminals to learn the trade. In either case, I, by the nature of my own decisions, and ultimately responsible for my own freedom.

So yes, you do state that social factors are totally unimportant. That how, when and where you were born doesn't matter. That the place you grew up in has no bearing on your potential.



Anyway, what I actually want to discuss is entirely different. That is, whether unchecked capitalism leads to a better society. I am fully aware of the ideas behind capitalism, I just wanna discuss whether those ideas work and if anyone actually follows those ideas truthfully. (Not just claim they do, but actually honestly do in all aspects of life.)

[b.k. barunt]

Unchecked capitalism leads inevitably to the big ones eating the little ones - peachy keen if you're a big one, sucks if you're a little one. Crucial clue - there's hardly any big ones, and a whole shitload of little ones.


Honibaz

[captain.crazy]

I disagree that ones origins can really be a factor when determining the ability of one to find success in a capitalist society. Indeed, our own president came from humble beginnings, so did I. So do many, and likewise, many that are born into prosperity are not free from the prospect of finding that they were not made of the same stuff that their parents were made of, and quickly find that they are destined to lead a life of struggle.

The simple fact is that, if a society is to survive, all of its members have to find their usefulness in it. In a tribe, all of the men participate in the hunt, the women gather and the elderly tend to children, and teach. no one is left out, everyone works. Some find that they are better at making spears than fermenting social beverages, and others are really good at drumming around the campfire. If you chose to only sit on the sidelines and never help, never contribute, then why should you partake of the fruits of the labors of others. Why should you be entitled to an equal share. If that is you, then you can suck the marrow out of the unwanted bones of the kill. You can eat the husks of the harvest, for you are not entitled to the good stuff. I contend that if you are smart about your money, work hard and always strive to do your best, you will not be overlooked when it is time to be promoted in your trade, and if you are, and it does not sit well with you, you are then free to move on to another place of employment.

The socialist approach for the American Auto Worker is anti capitalist, as is the notion that the federal reserve be permitted to control the interest rates of banks lendings. It should be to the discretion of the market to administer its own self regulation. A free market is, after all, as organic a system as any on the planet, and is well equipped to regulate itself. Not all will do well, some will fail, and that is a natural dichotomy in and of itself. It is for the overall better good of the society as a whole, that the majority of its people thrive and succeed. As Margret Thatcher said, "The only problem with socialism is that eventually, you will run out of other people's money," and I believe that.

I also contend that here, in america, at least before Obama gets his way by taxing the charitable contributions of the rich, Americans, especially the rich ones, are notorious for making large donations. In this way, it seems to me to be a healthier way to get help to people that need it, so that they can get back up on their feet if they have been knocked down. I, personally, have no interest whatsoever, in supporting anyone that intends to be a career welfare recipient. I have a hard enough time taking care of my self.

[GabonX]

Anybody with average intelligence and average hearing can be a great musician if they spend 1,000 hours or more practicing.

Success is mainly a matter of effort and as a general rule if you have average potential in a field and you spend 1,000 hours doing it you will be very good. Most people never approach their true potential in anything.

I would argue that surroundings do not limit success because in a free society, which most capitalists advocate, a person can leave. It's a matter of walking.

[Snorri1234]

I disagree that ones origins can really be a factor when determining the ability of one to find success in a capitalist society. Indeed, our own president came from humble beginnings, so did I. So do many, and likewise, many that are born into prosperity are not free from the prospect of finding that they were not made of the same stuff that their parents were made of, and quickly find that they are destined to lead a life of struggle.

Ah.

So you actually believe, despite all the research and evidence and common sense, that people aren't in any way limited by their environment? Likewise, you believe that incompetent rich bastards won't achieve a position of power?


Well, for one I wonder why you even suscribe to NWO-shit when admitting power doesn't last. And for seconds I wonder whether you've ever paid attention to the world around you. A girl who dropped out of highschool to take care of her younger siblings could ofcourse suddenly be a rocket scientist, but it's pretty absurd to say that she has equal chance as the person who has a rich family who funds their entire higher education.

The simple fact is that, if a society is to survive, all of its members have to find their usefulness in it. In a tribe, all of the men participate in the hunt, the women gather and the elderly tend to children, and teach. no one is left out, everyone works. Some find that they are better at making spears than fermenting social beverages, and others are really good at drumming around the campfire. If you chose to only sit on the sidelines and never help, never contribute, then why should you partake of the fruits of the labors of others. Why should you be entitled to an equal share. If that is you, then you can suck the marrow out of the unwanted bones of the kill. You can eat the husks of the harvest, for you are not entitled to the good stuff. I contend that if you are smart about your money, work hard and always strive to do your best, you will not be overlooked when it is time to be promoted in your trade, and if you are, and it does not sit well with you, you are then free to move on to another place of employment.

We didn't magically become a tribe right now.

But still, that's just what capitalism tells you. Not what actually happens. Unless you can actually show me how unchecked capitalism in modern society works better than any other system, you're just repeating the old rhetoric.

The socialist approach for the American Auto Worker is anti capitalist, as is the notion that the federal reserve be permitted to control the interest rates of banks lendings. It should be to the discretion of the market to administer its own self regulation. A free market is, after all, as organic a system as any on the planet, and is well equipped to regulate itself. Not all will do well, some will fail, and that is a natural dichotomy in and of itself. It is for the overall better good of the society as a whole, that the majority of its people thrive and succeed. As Margret Thatcher said, "The only problem with socialism is that eventually, you will run out of other people's money," and I believe that.

Markets aren't organisms. They are controlled and affected by people, and sadly people are usually irrational.

I also contend that here, in america, at least before Obama gets his way by taxing the charitable contributions of the rich, Americans, especially the rich ones, are notorious for making large donations.

Whooohooo!

In this way, it seems to me to be a healthier way to get help to people that need it, so that they can get back up on their feet if they have been knocked down.

So people aren't affected by their circumstances but charity helps???

Really?

[Snorri1234]

Anybody with average intelligence and average hearing can be a great musician if they spend 1,000 hours or more practicing.

Success is mainly a matter of effort and as a general rule if you have average potential in a field and you spend 1,000 hours doing it you will be very good. Most people never approach their true potential in anything.

I would argue that surroundings do not limit success because in a free society, which most capitalists advocate, a person can leave. It's a matter of walking.

Wow. Holy shit. I knew people like you existed but I never thought I would meet any.

[got tonkaed]

Anybody with average intelligence and average hearing can be a great musician if they spend 1,000 hours or more practicing.

Success is mainly a matter of effort and as a general rule if you have average potential in a field and you spend 1,000 hours doing it you will be very good. Most people never approach their true potential in anything.

I would argue that surroundings do not limit success because in a free society, which most capitalists advocate, a person can leave. It's a matter of walking.

In terms of a pure system, there would immediatly be problems (or at least tangible issues) with this because without a state mechanism for filtering prospects you have the opportunity for larger companies to very easily determine what is average potential as it were. Now you can certainly argue its within the companies rights to argue what is or isnt the right worker, but that begins to pick away at the argument that it is so simple to be successful.

Also, you should theoretically be prolegalizing most immigration, as immigration laws prevent the flow of people which in turn hinders the ability of producers to hire the workers they choose for a variety of positions.

[captain.crazy]

I disagree that ones origins can really be a factor when determining the ability of one to find success in a capitalist society. Indeed, our own president came from humble beginnings, so did I. So do many, and likewise, many that are born into prosperity are not free from the prospect of finding that they were not made of the same stuff that their parents were made of, and quickly find that they are destined to lead a life of struggle.

Ah.

So you actually believe, despite all the research and evidence and common sense, that people aren't in any way limited by their environment? Likewise, you believe that incompetent rich bastards won't achieve a position of power?


Well, for one I wonder why you even suscribe to NWO-shit when admitting power doesn't last. And for seconds I wonder whether you've ever paid attention to the world around you. A girl who dropped out of highschool to take care of her younger siblings could ofcourse suddenly be a rocket scientist, but it's pretty absurd to say that she has equal chance as the person who has a rich family who funds their entire higher education.

The simple fact is that, if a society is to survive, all of its members have to find their usefulness in it. In a tribe, all of the men participate in the hunt, the women gather and the elderly tend to children, and teach. no one is left out, everyone works. Some find that they are better at making spears than fermenting social beverages, and others are really good at drumming around the campfire. If you chose to only sit on the sidelines and never help, never contribute, then why should you partake of the fruits of the labors of others. Why should you be entitled to an equal share. If that is you, then you can suck the marrow out of the unwanted bones of the kill. You can eat the husks of the harvest, for you are not entitled to the good stuff. I contend that if you are smart about your money, work hard and always strive to do your best, you will not be overlooked when it is time to be promoted in your trade, and if you are, and it does not sit well with you, you are then free to move on to another place of employment.

We didn't magically become a tribe right now.

But still, that's just what capitalism tells you. Not what actually happens. Unless you can actually show me how unchecked capitalism in modern society works better than any other system, you're just repeating the old rhetoric.

The socialist approach for the American Auto Worker is anti capitalist, as is the notion that the federal reserve be permitted to control the interest rates of banks lendings. It should be to the discretion of the market to administer its own self regulation. A free market is, after all, as organic a system as any on the planet, and is well equipped to regulate itself. Not all will do well, some will fail, and that is a natural dichotomy in and of itself. It is for the overall better good of the society as a whole, that the majority of its people thrive and succeed. As Margret Thatcher said, "The only problem with socialism is that eventually, you will run out of other people's money," and I believe that.

Markets aren't organisms. They are controlled and affected by people, and sadly people are usually irrational.

I also contend that here, in america, at least before Obama gets his way by taxing the charitable contributions of the rich, Americans, especially the rich ones, are notorious for making large donations.

Whooohooo!

In this way, it seems to me to be a healthier way to get help to people that need it, so that they can get back up on their feet if they have been knocked down.

So people aren't affected by their circumstances but charity helps???

Really?

I'm sorry, I mistook you for a rational human being. I thought that you wanted to express your views as to why you thought socialism is better than capitalism. You are supposed to try to change my mind, not degrade me... I suppose that you have no valued arguments to support your stance, therefore you fail.

Thanks for the thread, though. Just as you would likely do in a capitalist society, it failed.

Say, how does it feel to be so mediocre, you know, unable to rely on yourself to survive? I don't know what that's like and I'm curious.

[mpjh]

Capitalism is unnatural. Even bacteria colonies know that to grow and succeed cooperation is necessary. Bacteria will stop acting in their individual self interest at a critical stage and begin to cooperate taking less for the good of the colony. This is evident throughout nature. Cooperation is as important, and at certain stages, more important than individual maximization of gain. Capitalism is equivalent to the monster plant, grown artificially for its grotesque exaggeration of size.

[Snorri1234]

Post reserved for wiping the floor with captain wackjob when I'm less drunk.

[got tonkaed]

mr. crazy your argument has a few potential holes in it.

Regarding freedom to move back and forth...while theoretically it exists, the very examples you cite show why in terms of practical approach it isnt so simple. Take yourself for instance, who pointed out you have a hard enough time taking care of yourself (to the point of not wanting to support welfare cheats as it were). Presumably, you could go and find better employment to the point that you could support all the welfare cheats youd like, because you have become more economically successful.

However, its safe to say you arent quitting your job tomorrow. why not? Because there are not parallel ladders of work skills and advancement across companies and industries. While within your own field its possible you could go to a competitor relatively easy (but perhaps not in bad economic times like we currently have in the real world - again we are just doing a theoretical example right) but thats no guarantee that you could do so across industries if your industry were to die out so to speak.

The fact that demand for product can vary widely over time and the fact that markets rise and fall seems to dictate that no person has the required perfect information to make the type of choices that you are suggesting are simple. In the amount of time it would take to get credentialed in a professional society, you have lost some of the opportunity to become credentialed in another. To argue that you can simply hop back and forth, between widely varying industries is a larger stretch than you are implying.

You are correct that markets can and do correct themselves. But it is too simplistic to say that some people will succeed and others will not. It sort of pushes under the mat the varying amounts of people who will succeed and who will fail if left to its own devices. And when you start to talk about a scarity of successful positions, you begin to erode away the type of instrumental rationality in decision making which can allow for a meritocracy.

[captain.crazy]

Anybody with average intelligence and average hearing can be a great musician if they spend 1,000 hours or more practicing.

Success is mainly a matter of effort and as a general rule if you have average potential in a field and you spend 1,000 hours doing it you will be very good. Most people never approach their true potential in anything.

I would argue that surroundings do not limit success because in a free society, which most capitalists advocate, a person can leave. It's a matter of walking.

In terms of a pure system, there would immediatly be problems (or at least tangible issues) with this because without a state mechanism for filtering prospects you have the opportunity for larger companies to very easily determine what is average potential as it were. Now you can certainly argue its within the companies rights to argue what is or isnt the right worker, but that begins to pick away at the argument that it is so simple to be successful.

Also, you should theoretically be prolegalizing most immigration, as immigration laws prevent the flow of people which in turn hinders the ability of producers to hire the workers they choose for a variety of positions.

We have this situation here in America... consider Starbucks. They have all the money and resources, though they were born of humble beginnings. As they grow, they threaten the other small coffee shops around the country. Those shops are then tasked with either going out of business, or challenging the status quo. I know of many small business coffee shops, some that survived the initial wave and some that have come on the scene after the Starbucks invasion, and are doing quite well. As a company grows, it is almost conclusive (at least from what I perceive) that their quality goes down, and in the end, open that opportunity for competition to challenge their market share.

regarding the migration of workers, I am quite certain that if you removed the chance for people to enter the country illegally, and only allowed legal workers into the country, that wages would be higher for the work that people had for hire, more Americans would be doing those jobs, and legal migrants would enjoy a more welcoming opportunity to thrive in our country.

[mpjh]

You are correct that markets can and do correct themselves.

This is not true, and it has never been proven with either economic theory or practice. Beyond a certain point of market destabilization, there is not mathematical model that predicts any self correction. This is why the capitalist classes always freak out when deflation raises its ugly head, because they know there is no market force counteracting it.

[captain.crazy]

Capitalism is unnatural. Even bacteria colonies know that to grow and succeed cooperation is necessary. Bacteria will stop acting in their individual self interest at a critical stage and begin to cooperate taking less for the good of the colony. This is evident throughout nature. Cooperation is as important, and at certain stages, more important than individual maximization of gain. Capitalism is equivalent to the monster plant, grown artificially for its grotesque exaggeration of size.

I believe that corruption is evident in any institution, be it capitalist, socialist, or communist. They all have potential to breed corruption. The idea behind capitalism as we intended it here in the states was to not have a strong central government that corrupt people could lobby against to strengthen their corporate power over the market place. This is not a true capitalism that we have here in the states, it is an abomination.

True capitalism requires that there be cooperation between the entities that participate in its system. The problem is that we have a high school popularity contest instead of an election on true principals, so that we then are stuck with liars and thieves that need a neck stretching.

Bear in mind that there was a bit of a recession prior to the great depression in which nothing was done...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-WWI_recession

This was a recession that resulted naturally and relatively quickly corrected itself. We never hear about this, I think, because nothing really came of it. We only hear about the Great Depression, which, Ironically, was deepened and lengthened by big government plans and intervention. Then, it was WWII that corrected that. Not the best way to end economic strife, if you ask me.

[got tonkaed]

We have this situation here in America... consider Starbucks. They have all the money and resources, though they were born of humble beginnings. As they grow, they threaten the other small coffee shops around the country. Those shops are then tasked with either going out of business, or challenging the status quo. I know of many small business coffee shops, some that survived the initial wave and some that have come on the scene after the Starbucks invasion, and are doing quite well. As a company grows, it is almost conclusive (at least from what I perceive) that their quality goes down, and in the end, open that opportunity for competition to challenge their market share.

regarding the migration of workers, I am quite certain that if you removed the chance for people to enter the country illegally, and only allowed legal workers into the country, that wages would be higher for the work that people had for hire, more Americans would be doing those jobs, and legal migrants would enjoy a more welcoming opportunity to thrive in our country.

I am in more agreement with you thank you think i believe, about the mechanism itself. In a far greater way than other systems, capitalist systems allow for companies and goods to be created. However, this only occurs in situations where the barriers to entry are low, which i believe people are taking for granted. The thread was sort of proposed as an argument that capitalism is never wrong, and i was taking up the position that without the state (which seems to be getting a bit of flack recently from the libertarian crowd) there are some severe potential issues with the leaving the market to itself.

You are correct about Starbucks rising to the top, but if things were left to themselves, the prospect of other "Starbucks's" rising to challenge them at a certain point becomes less and less. Of course it may still happen, but larger companies without regulation are better able to control the entrypoints. Historically this seems to have been shown before we had strong states, it is possible it would be different today, but its also possible it wouldnt be. While companies are surviving and thriving despite the larger success of Starbucks, it still provides a great limitation to how much a company can expand. A small mom and pop coffee shop may be successful, and fulfill its role in society as you suggest, but thats only as long as Starbucks cannot be bothered to overcome them. It also doesnt provide much of a safety net for the people who own the coffee shop when a company gets large enough that they can close them down if they try to expand, which hinders arguments that people can simply freely move and sustain a lifestyle they had before.

Im also still of the opinion that if your going to take purely capitalist stances you cannot allow for immigration laws as it were. Any law which prohibts the employer from hiring who they want to work damages their bottom line, and as a result damages the bottom line for the workforce, which makes it more difficult for them to succeed under the system. As evidence of this see the continually moving textile industry, which cant even compete in places like Mexico strongly anymore, because the wages are just too high. At least thats the logic of the position. Also even if your take your modified stance it likely requires the intervention of a state strong enough that it will be able and willing to force its own goals onto business. Its unrealistic to assume that government would only assist businesses this way, without expecting anything in return.

Mpjh, let me look that over, im more arguing from just a theoretical stance here. But im pretty sure that there is theory that supports that.

[captain.crazy]

You are correct that markets can and do correct themselves.

This is not true, and it has never been proven with either economic theory or practice. Beyond a certain point of market destabilization, there is not mathematical model that predicts any self correction. This is why the capitalist classes always freak out when deflation raises its ugly head, because they know there is no market force counteracting it.

You aught not depend so much on mathematical models... they are not the same thing as real life. Mathematical models cannot take into account all of the tiny real life intricacies that actually shape reality. Models are better left to airplanes and cars.

[mpjh]

Sorry to pop you bubble (pun intended), but the great depression happened because the capitalists shrank the money supply, dried up credit, and then waited for the market to correct. In stead, it collapsed. We recently had another attempt to deregulate the markets and let them self correct, and, guess what, they didn't.

Problem is this, the equalization of supply and demand, in the economic model, is dependent of several important assumptions. The market will be efficient, i.e., supply will adjust to meet demand if:

There is perfect information
There are many producers
There are many consumers
There are no significant externalities
There are no significant barriers to entry into the market
(among others)

None of these things are generally true.

This doesn't even consider the fact that there is no model for predicting how large an organization should exist for an efficient market.

Essentially markets are created by human beings, run by human beings, used by human beings, and there is no extra market "invisible hand" to make it all work. If we don't transparently regulate the market, the biggest players will regulate it to their advantage -- witness today's mess.

[captain.crazy]

Im also still of the opinion that if your going to take purely capitalist stances you cannot allow for immigration laws as it were. Any law which prohibts the employer from hiring who they want to work damages their bottom line, and as a result damages the bottom line for the workforce, which makes it more difficult for them to succeed under the system. As evidence of this see the continually moving textile industry, which cant even compete in places like Mexico strongly anymore, because the wages are just too high. At least thats the logic of the position. Also even if your take your modified stance it likely requires the intervention of a state strong enough that it will be able and willing to force its own goals onto business. Its unrealistic to assume that government would only assist businesses this way, without expecting anything in return.

In this case, I can conceed this point, but only if those that are working are responsible for their own social benefits. If their employer is not willing to pay for their healthcare and retirement, they are not to take from the workforce as a whole, meaning that they never applied for and received citizenship, do not receive state healthcare, or subsidy in any form. For that, citizenship is required.

I think that we may have a winner here!

[mpjh]

You are correct that markets can and do correct themselves.

This is not true, and it has never been proven with either economic theory or practice. Beyond a certain point of market destabilization, there is not mathematical model that predicts any self correction. This is why the capitalist classes always freak out when deflation raises its ugly head, because they know there is no market force counteracting it.

You aught not depend so much on mathematical models... they are not the same thing as real life. Mathematical models cannot take into account all of the tiny real life intricacies that actually shape reality. Models are better left to airplanes and cars.

Ahh so you have no theory for markets, nothing to test against reality, nothing to evaluate, just a belief that markets work. That is religion, not economics.

[got tonkaed]

You are correct that markets can and do correct themselves.

This is not true, and it has never been proven with either economic theory or practice. Beyond a certain point of market destabilization, there is not mathematical model that predicts any self correction. This is why the capitalist classes always freak out when deflation raises its ugly head, because they know there is no market force counteracting it.

I believe what i was attempting to talk about (rather sloppily) was something more akin to equilibrium. Now you can argue that it doesnt occur in the short term, but i think the notions behind the idea of capitalism as creative destruction, show a system that is somewhat self correcting. I think theres a very real disconnect between the system itself correcting and the outcomes on the individuals who comprise it, but i dont think that invalidates the premise behind it.

[Simon Viavant]

This was a recession that resulted naturally and relatively quickly corrected itself. We never hear about this, I think, because nothing really came of it. We only hear about the Great Depression, which, Ironically, was deepened and lengthened by big government plans and intervention. Then, it was WWII that corrected that. Not the best way to end economic strife, if you ask me.

What the f*ck do you think WWII was? It was a fucking lot of government spending.

Conservatives act like world war two was some natural event like an earthquake or something that somehow got us out of the recession.

[mpjh]

You are correct that markets can and do correct themselves.

This is not true, and it has never been proven with either economic theory or practice. Beyond a certain point of market destabilization, there is not mathematical model that predicts any self correction. This is why the capitalist classes always freak out when deflation raises its ugly head, because they know there is no market force counteracting it.

I believe what i was attempting to talk about (rather sloppily) was something more akin to equilibrium. Now you can argue that it doesnt occur in the short term, but i think the notions behind the idea of capitalism as creative destruction, show a system that is somewhat self correcting. I think theres a very real disconnect between the system itself correcting and the outcomes on the individuals who comprise it, but i dont think that invalidates the premise behind it.

My point is exactly that markets are NOT self correcting and that is why so many get screwed in our economic system.