Post by Athans on Jan 7, 2016 13:34:50 GMT -6
"Part of my business degree was economics (basics, like micro and macro) and included international and business economics.
Covering things like trade policy and policy, specifically how it applies to business and business decisions."
First, no offense. I understand the value of your training in our world. I am a math class away from having an Associates in Business. But your education on economics is comparable to a theology major's education on the Bible...It lacks historical context.
Besides studying history, I had a class specifically on Capitalism. The History of Capitalism was the name of it. Unlike micro and macro economics (courses required in my education major) it showed the history and results of capitalism using real world examples. I can take many different paths, but I will address the topic we were discussing...that pure capitalism has existed...
It has not, and cannot in a democratic system. In a democratic system people elect people to the government. Influence and money usually lead to election. There is nothing from stopping a rich CEO, or someone being paid by one, from running. They are usually elected...look at the US...Once a person with a specific interest is elected, what is there to stop them from passing laws in their own interest? This is the root of the problem. Government becomes involved in economics and capitalism because democracy allows people with a business interest to become involved. When law makers are paid employees, or have the interest of a corporation in mind, they pass laws to benefit their business. Government is involved in business because business is involved in government. There is no escaping this in a democracy. Your argument that pure capitalism has existed is not true...Let me point you to the beginning of capitalism...
"Sir Robert Peel, 2nd Baronet (5 February 1788 – 2 July 1850) was a British statesman and member of the Conservative Party, who twice served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1834–1835 and 1841–1846) and twice served as Home Secretary (1822–1827 and 1828–1830). He is regarded as the father of the modern British police and as one of the founders of the modern Conservative Party.
The son of wealthy textile manufacturer and politician Sir Robert Peel, 1st Baronet, he was educated at Bury Grammar School and Harrow School and earned a double first in classics and mathematics from Christ Church, Oxford. He entered the House of Commons in 1809 under the tutelage of his father and Sir Arthur Wellesley, the future Duke of Wellington. Peel was widely seen as a "rising star" in the Conservative Party and served in various junior ministerial offices, including Chief Secretary for Ireland (1812–1818) and Chairman of the Bullion Committee."
"Law enforcement in the United Kingdom is organised separately in each of the legal systems of the United Kingdom: England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.[nb 1] Most law enforcement is carried out by police officers serving in regional police forces within one of these jurisdictions. These regional forces are complemented by UK-wide agencies, such as the National Crime Agency, and specialist bodies hosted by regional police forces, such as the Specialist Operations directorate of the Metropolitan Police.
Police officers are granted certain powers to enable them to execute their duties. Their primary duties are the protection of life and property, preservation of the peace, and prevention and detection of criminal offences.[1] In the British model of policing, officers exercise their powers to police with the implicit consent of the public. "Policing by consent" is the phrase used to describe this. It expresses that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so."
In short, he created the British police force to protect him from those trying to destroy his business, which gave him an unfair advantage in economics because he had the power and influence. This was in the early 1800's...When did capitalism come about? On the topic of textiles, what were they made from? Cotton...what did the US colonies make their money on? Cotton. The Civil War was not about freeing slaves, it was an economic war. Money from those plantations went straight back to England and offered nothing to the American economy. That is what the war was about.
Government became involved in capitalism instantly. As soon as a business could get a person in power to serve their interests they gained an unfair advantage. The idea that a democratic government can be separate from capitalism is silly. That is why we have the issue we do today. That is why the big banks actually run the world.
Another thing they don't teach you about in business school is GOVERNMENT DIRECTED capitalism. Some of the Asian counties had their government direct their capitalism and their products. They also encouraged innovation by rewarding those that innovated, as opposed to Western capitalism. Slavery, which was preferred, because it reduced cost, limited innovation because you wanted to get the most out of your tools (slaves) and you did so by beating them harder. Why innovate and not maximize the investment? Because of government directed capitalism and forced innovation, Asian counties grew to rivaling the US and surpassing other Western countries in an economic sense.
You assume government can be kept out of capitalism, it cannot. You also assume, incorrectly, that government cannot improve capitalism. Yes, it can also harm it. You can end up with this crony-capitalism, cronyism, that we have in the US. The difference between me and you is that you believe capitalism is flawless (even tho it's very basis is flawed.) I know it is corruptible and has many downsides. I also know it has many good sides. The same goes for socialism. It has many down sides, but also good sides. I propose a system in which we take the good from both and get rid of the bad from both. You seem to think Capitalism is perfect, even though we have known it to be flawed since the early 1900s.
Covering things like trade policy and policy, specifically how it applies to business and business decisions."
First, no offense. I understand the value of your training in our world. I am a math class away from having an Associates in Business. But your education on economics is comparable to a theology major's education on the Bible...It lacks historical context.
Besides studying history, I had a class specifically on Capitalism. The History of Capitalism was the name of it. Unlike micro and macro economics (courses required in my education major) it showed the history and results of capitalism using real world examples. I can take many different paths, but I will address the topic we were discussing...that pure capitalism has existed...
It has not, and cannot in a democratic system. In a democratic system people elect people to the government. Influence and money usually lead to election. There is nothing from stopping a rich CEO, or someone being paid by one, from running. They are usually elected...look at the US...Once a person with a specific interest is elected, what is there to stop them from passing laws in their own interest? This is the root of the problem. Government becomes involved in economics and capitalism because democracy allows people with a business interest to become involved. When law makers are paid employees, or have the interest of a corporation in mind, they pass laws to benefit their business. Government is involved in business because business is involved in government. There is no escaping this in a democracy. Your argument that pure capitalism has existed is not true...Let me point you to the beginning of capitalism...
"Sir Robert Peel, 2nd Baronet (5 February 1788 – 2 July 1850) was a British statesman and member of the Conservative Party, who twice served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1834–1835 and 1841–1846) and twice served as Home Secretary (1822–1827 and 1828–1830). He is regarded as the father of the modern British police and as one of the founders of the modern Conservative Party.
The son of wealthy textile manufacturer and politician Sir Robert Peel, 1st Baronet, he was educated at Bury Grammar School and Harrow School and earned a double first in classics and mathematics from Christ Church, Oxford. He entered the House of Commons in 1809 under the tutelage of his father and Sir Arthur Wellesley, the future Duke of Wellington. Peel was widely seen as a "rising star" in the Conservative Party and served in various junior ministerial offices, including Chief Secretary for Ireland (1812–1818) and Chairman of the Bullion Committee."
"Law enforcement in the United Kingdom is organised separately in each of the legal systems of the United Kingdom: England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.[nb 1] Most law enforcement is carried out by police officers serving in regional police forces within one of these jurisdictions. These regional forces are complemented by UK-wide agencies, such as the National Crime Agency, and specialist bodies hosted by regional police forces, such as the Specialist Operations directorate of the Metropolitan Police.
Police officers are granted certain powers to enable them to execute their duties. Their primary duties are the protection of life and property, preservation of the peace, and prevention and detection of criminal offences.[1] In the British model of policing, officers exercise their powers to police with the implicit consent of the public. "Policing by consent" is the phrase used to describe this. It expresses that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so."
In short, he created the British police force to protect him from those trying to destroy his business, which gave him an unfair advantage in economics because he had the power and influence. This was in the early 1800's...When did capitalism come about? On the topic of textiles, what were they made from? Cotton...what did the US colonies make their money on? Cotton. The Civil War was not about freeing slaves, it was an economic war. Money from those plantations went straight back to England and offered nothing to the American economy. That is what the war was about.
Government became involved in capitalism instantly. As soon as a business could get a person in power to serve their interests they gained an unfair advantage. The idea that a democratic government can be separate from capitalism is silly. That is why we have the issue we do today. That is why the big banks actually run the world.
Another thing they don't teach you about in business school is GOVERNMENT DIRECTED capitalism. Some of the Asian counties had their government direct their capitalism and their products. They also encouraged innovation by rewarding those that innovated, as opposed to Western capitalism. Slavery, which was preferred, because it reduced cost, limited innovation because you wanted to get the most out of your tools (slaves) and you did so by beating them harder. Why innovate and not maximize the investment? Because of government directed capitalism and forced innovation, Asian counties grew to rivaling the US and surpassing other Western countries in an economic sense.
You assume government can be kept out of capitalism, it cannot. You also assume, incorrectly, that government cannot improve capitalism. Yes, it can also harm it. You can end up with this crony-capitalism, cronyism, that we have in the US. The difference between me and you is that you believe capitalism is flawless (even tho it's very basis is flawed.) I know it is corruptible and has many downsides. I also know it has many good sides. The same goes for socialism. It has many down sides, but also good sides. I propose a system in which we take the good from both and get rid of the bad from both. You seem to think Capitalism is perfect, even though we have known it to be flawed since the early 1900s.
