I'm pretty sure I'm not delusional, just high there are many forms of capitalism, however currently there is just one dominant form. The irony of capitalism is that it suggests it regulates itself through competition a la the invisible hand. However, contrarily it looks to elimnate competition at all cost, the corporations/or individual's real motive...only motive, is to make a profit. ...And you must know where i get my education, yet I am to assume you went to Stanford University for economics? Don't question my education, as its legitimate, and i won't question yours Additionally, i would argue that corporatism would not be possibly without capitalism, it is like saying you can drive a car without wheels. And I'm not conflating corporatism with capitalism. First off corporatism is subjective and can be manipluted to fit any agenda. Socialists can use corporatism as well as capitalists. Corporatism is synonymous cooperation, which can vary on several different levels I agree with you that in Smith's classical economics, corporations would not exist, in that he promoted individualism. However it was classical economics that inevitably led to neoclassical economics to social democracy/Keynesian economics (the promotion of the development project) to the neoliberal capitalist agenda of today. The flaws in smith's work ended up expressing themselves, as he suggested that people are self-interested, rational human beings. Yet through that rationality and selfishness, humans will find a way to obliterate competition and destroy the invisible hand. I don't have a problem with Smith's philosophy, i am simply suggesting its flaws and that "corporatism," as you call it, was in inevitable consequence of classical economics. There you go with insulting my intellegence again. I'm educated (in a way that doesn't involve the internet ) and know what I'm talking about. We happen to disagree, thats fine. I'm not suggesting that you an overly aggressive, young kid who just took macro-economics and got butthurt when he had read someone's dissenting opinion on a pothead forum. So let's be civil, I will refrain from making judgements about you if you do the same to me. I aggree with you that the current neoliberal capitalist policies would not have been possible without government intervention. Form modernization theory, to the development project, to the creation of the Bretton Woods institutions, to the lost decade and SAPs, governments have all enforced these concepts, theories, and regulations on people. Yes, in a way, capitalism has lost its path. I would say though that is because of the inherent flaws within the basic tenets of classical economics. I have an immense problem with Smith's assumptions that human's are innately only self-interested, rational, selfish (or self-loving as he would say) and naturally inclined to make money. First off I think we are driven by other inherent motivations, however that is a different debate. However Smith's assumptions, that we inherently are self-interested (hey, its nature ), have led to the legitimization of current greed by corporations today. And to the bold: I'm not a socialist, as I'm not a capitalist. The problem with traditional economics in academia is that they refuse to teach you alternatives of the two. I'm a critical modernist, with post-structuralist leanings, and if you don't know what that is, I will be happy to educate you
[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=co9wl5hA9LM]YouTube - If your a lazy ass the health care bill has you covered.flv[/ame] Oh Nancy, you so silly.
So what? Do you want to control how people feel and want now? Yeah lets use the Ludivicho Technique on them!
And what about those people who dont have a job? Let 'em die? Healthcare is a human right and should be treated as one in a country as wealthy as the the United States.
As a visual artist, a musician and a writer, I am fucking rivetted that Pelsoi hypothetically supports giving me a free ride and letting me do my thang Edit; Totally missed the obvious point the first time around... how is having healthcare going to enable me to 'quit my day job' and work unhindered? I like the concept of quitting my day job etc, but I don't see how having healthcare would magically enable one to do this...
She's quite simply a stupid bitch who's never had to worry about anything in her life. I'm a musician but lets face it, I have to work doing something else in order to pay to pursue my dreams.
there are many forms of capitalism, however currently there is just one dominant form. The irony of capitalism is that it suggests it regulates itself through competition a la the invisible hand. However, contrarily it looks to elimnate competition at all cost, the corporations/or individual's real motive...only motive, is to make a profit.[/quote] You're right that there's very many forms of capitalism, but what the majority of the world operates under is not 'capitalism' in the traditional sense. It is not laissez-faire at all. You're EXACTLY right that businesses seek to eliminate competition. That's why I laugh when people say capitalism is pro-business, because actual capitalism is anti-business and pro-competition. Where I initially learned Economics is not important, because my view of economics (The Austrian school) isn't taught at major universities. It is considered heterodoxal, and thus not very mainstream. As far as being an Austrian, I am completely self-taught, but I do have some formal education in Economics, which doesn't matter, since I've rejected almost all of it. I disagree. I think corporatism arises because Governments are inherently a haven for the rich. Adam Smith himself even said that Governments purport this lie that they are there to aid the poor, when in reality they help the already-rich. That's why Smith proposed a laissez-faire approach to the economy, as a means to keep the Government away from businesses. -Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, Book 4, Chapter 8) See? Corporatism is simply when business tries to get in bed with Government. You're right that it's 'subjective'. Yea, you're right in this regard. Smith very much laid the groundwork for Keynes (even for Marx!). Marx borrowed a bunch of things from Smith, such as the labor theory of value, among others. Yes, Smith was definitely wrong on this front. All agents are clearly not rational, and they're not profit and utility maximizing either. However, he may not have known it, but he was right that self-organization through self-interest was why the free market was so successful. I don't think he explicitly said this, or understood it like that, but that's basically what he implicitly said. I guess you could say that's what he meant by 'the invisible hand'. That's an interesting hypothesis. As I said above, I'm more of the thought that corporatism was inevitable because of Government, and not an economic system. Heh, sometimes I get a little hot-headed, you'll have to forgive me. I'm just so used to little kiddies on here saying CAPITUHLISM DONT WERK LOLOL, when it's clear you're not that type of person. Yea, us Austrians use this fact heavily to support our idea that intervention leads to unintended consequences, which is why we're laissez-faire, while also against stuff like the efficient-market hypothesis, et al. When most people hear that Austrians are against shit like EMH and 'rational agents', they're shocked. It's funny seeing their reaction. EGADS! A capitalist who doesn't think all agents in an economy are rational!? Well, you're making the assumption that Smith's version of capitalism is the true form of capitalism. While, he was considered one of the first economists, capitalism has moved far away from him. I consider the Austrian school to be the pole-bearer for 'capitalism' or at least the free market, and Austrians reject both classical and neo-classical economics. Austrians don't believe in the efficient-market hypothesis, nor the labor theory of value. We reject the idea that all agents in a market are perfectly rational, and utility maximizing. That dogma is reserved for the classical and neoclassical economists. Instead, the Austrians argue that intervention in the market causes more harm than if there were no interventions at all. Simply put, Governments create unintended consequences when they meddle in the market, and therefore must be abolished. I agree with you that Smith is outdated, and even flawed to a point, but free market economics look TOTALLY different than Smith. We still retain some of the same ideas, laissez-faire (well, mostly) for example, but on the whole, our methodology is completely different. Modern Austrian econ is based on marginalism and the subjective theory of value, and we reject many aspects of classical and neoclassical econ, on some fairly major points like price theory, and the like. People like to generalize Austrian econ in with Smith and what is traditionally known as free market economics, but today, we are not even close. So true!