Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Capitalist versus Capitalism


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Ives

Ives
  • 4320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 19 April 2009 - 10:41 PM

In many respects, recent bourgeoise (owners and executives, anyways) seem to be written off as capitalists for their amorality and inefficency (we can attribute this to self interest.) However, with America (along with most other western nations) being a mixed economy (having been that way since the 1930s), there has most certainly been a great deal of cooperation among the government and companies (for example, the speed which exxon mobil merged.)

The question is, in a mixed economy, what extent do we attribute this axiomatic amorality of the bourgeoise to free market tendencies, and to what extent should we attribute this amorality to government? There is a consensus that both should take blame, but the balance, going off recent government policy, seems to be attributing more of this inefficency and amorality to capitalism.

Plain english:

How much is the problem of greed reducing living standards the governments intervening policies, and how much of it is capitalism?



#2 Mr. Hobo

Mr. Hobo
  • 8152 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 April 2009 - 02:52 AM

I'd say that reduction of the standard of living caused by the government is due to capitalism pervading it. (Lobbyists, funding for campaigns ect.)

#3 Ives

Ives
  • 4320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 April 2009 - 09:20 AM

Hmmm..would you then attribute government more or less power?

#4 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 April 2009 - 10:35 AM

73% greed.

Oh wait, you didn't want a mathamatical answer?

#5 Mr. Hobo

Mr. Hobo
  • 8152 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 April 2009 - 11:38 AM

Less, coupled with a thorough purging and the removal of a hefty amount of the perks of being in office and allow the citizens to control the government through easy replacement of their representitives

#6 Myrddin

Myrddin
  • 31 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 04:32 PM

QUOTE (Athean @ Apr 19 2009, 11:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In many respects, recent bourgeoise (owners and executives, anyways) seem to be written off as capitalists for their amorality and inefficency (we can attribute this to self interest.) However, with America (along with most other western nations) being a mixed economy (having been that way since the 1930s), there has most certainly been a great deal of cooperation among the government and companies (for example, the speed which exxon mobil merged.)

The question is, in a mixed economy, what extent do we attribute this axiomatic amorality of the bourgeoise to free market tendencies, and to what extent should we attribute this amorality to government? There is a consensus that both should take blame, but the balance, going off recent government policy, seems to be attributing more of this inefficency and amorality to capitalism.

Plain english:

How much is the problem of greed reducing living standards the governments intervening policies, and how much of it is capitalism?


Some body learned some new words lately "bourgeoise" grats man on using a word that has no place in a modern context

never seen such an awe inspiring statement of raw ignorance i commend you

#7 Mr. Hobo

Mr. Hobo
  • 8152 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 April 2009 - 05:02 PM

Elaborate please. And whats with the hostility?

Nevermind you're just a troll

#8 Ives

Ives
  • 4320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 April 2009 - 09:14 PM

QUOTE (Myrddin @ Apr 21 2009, 05:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Some body learned some new words lately "bourgeoise" grats man on using a word that has no place in a modern context

never seen such an awe inspiring statement of raw ignorance i commend you


I know firsthand how dumb I am. But hey, if I'm gonna fail, I'll fail hard. (I have a feeling you're just giving me shit for the sake of giving me shit though, and thats cool too. I hope you win.)

Bourgeoise doesnt have relevance, no - Ive just been on a marxist/neo marxist kick recently and I dont give a fuck as to how anachronistic my wording is.

Edited by Athean, 29 April 2009 - 09:15 PM.


#9 Grizzly

Grizzly
  • <img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>

  • 3964 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 April 2009 - 12:01 AM

Lol still creepin around the debate forums high, eh Athean?
I presume your 420 went well

#10 Ives

Ives
  • 4320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 April 2009 - 07:56 AM

Suprisingly sober as of recent, just reading too many fucked up ideas. Ive always preferred stoner language.. My 4/20 went well though..How are you?

#11 Grizzly

Grizzly
  • <img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>

  • 3964 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 April 2009 - 12:08 PM

QUOTE (Athean @ Apr 30 2009, 09:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Suprisingly sober as of recent, just reading too many fucked up ideas. Ive always preferred stoner language.. My 4/20 went well though..How are you?


I've been surprisingly sober myself. Been conserving my brain for the summer I s'pose.
Ha, I don't think we have the same definition of stoner language.

#12 Ives

Ives
  • 4320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 April 2009 - 04:57 PM

You're right man, its just my language...I'm me, you know? Don't really care what others think. I post my esoteric old fuck rants. I'm probably an idiot. But hey, I might be onto a little bit of something, and that keeps me going.


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users