Capitalism Is Perfect Or Not?

[havok579257]

Nothing to show for her time there?  For 19 years she worked for free?

 

What else was she doing during those 19 years?  What was she studying or working on so that she could step up to a better job somewhere else?

 

i think we know what he meant when he said nothing to show for it.  He meant no retirement, stuff like that.  Working 19 years and getting no retirement is not right.  Also being fired for no legit reason is not fair.  

 

Why does she need to have been going to school /studying during this time?  She showed loyalty by working at this job for 19 years.  Also doesn't matter what she studied because after working 19 years for an employer how is it fair she has to start over all again.  Also many employers will not hire an older lady.  Women statistically get paid worse than men and find it harder to find jobs.  Being an older woman, have fun with that one.

[Winchester]

What exactly is the anti-capitalist argument, here? If it's against protectionism in all its forms, then I'm in. 

[CrossCuT]

Look at what I said above.  To that you said - and I quote - "I don't believe you."  I then proceeded to show you that the government itself, not "capitalism", is the primary student loan lender and originator - with 93% of all student loans in 2011 coming directly from the government.   

 

This isn't just the government regulating private industry, this is the government nationalizing the industry.  Since the loans come from government agencies they are, by definition, regulated.  I'm honestly not sure how to get ahold of their working regulations online (even if I could, I'm not sure I could read them), but you can read through the wikipedia article and google all the relevant legislation it references.  Here you can read up on bankruptcy law and student loans.

I wanted you to provide evidence for your claim because you are saying things that aren't reality.

 

If there are indeed regulations on these things, why is it that  banks can borrow money at interest rates lower than 1% then turn around and make students pay 12938198372%? Thats literally just money right into their pockets.

 

Please provide information on the regulations you said are in existence in regards to student loans.

 

The wiki article you linked had talks about the history and such, but again, there are no regulations listed. Do you know what I mean by regulation? Laws that determine how much interest can be applied etc. Those types. Obviously the government is handing them out but there are no constraints on them. They can do almost whatever the heck they want

 

 

Some believe that the growth of student loan debt is reaching problematic levels. Economists point to a drag on the economy as a whole because of high levels of student debt.^[15] One way that has been suggested to help students with loan repayment is to lower interest on balances. U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal urged,"We must reduce the student loan interest rate back to 3.4 percent immediately, and then even lower, and develop ways for past students to reduce and erase the $1 trillion in existing debt. The failure of Congress to act now threatens our all too slow and fragile economic recovery and job creation."^[16] Another way to deal with debt to income levels is to require higher learning accountability. "Only recently have government regulators demanded accountability for the educational benefits universities produce and the efficiency with which they produce them: What does college cost? How many students are admitted? How many graduate? How long does it take them to graduate? How many get good jobs? At the same time, accrediting bodies have changed their measurement emphasis from inputs and activities to outcomes...Students want not just high-paying jobs, but an acceptable ratio of starting salary to student debt. Governments likewise care not just about the number of graduates but the total cost of producing each graduate.” ^[17] These questions warrant consideration in the future conversations about the Federal Student Loan Program.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying... low paying jobs are bad and we should get rid of them?  

No, what we are saying is low paying jobs are inhumane.

 

The perfect fluffy world of "these are just character building jobs...everyone moves onto something better" is not reality. People dont always have that opportunity. The result of this mentality is fine from a business standpoint because free market capitalism is indifferent and holds money at its core interest,not people.

 

When people start to suffer because we are so focused on making a profit, thats when a system turns bad. We cannot forget our christian values. And even if this peves off your political sensibilities, you need to understand that the quality of peoples lives are being lost in all this ish. That should be our #1 priority: people.

[NotreDame]

I wanted you to provide evidence for your claim because you are saying things that aren't reality.

 

If there are indeed regulations on these things, why is it that  banks can borrow money at interest rates lower than 1% then turn around and make students pay 12938198372%? Thats literally just money right into their pockets.

 

Please provide information on the regulations you said are in existence in regards to student loans.

 

The wiki article you linked had talks about the history and such, but again, there are no regulations listed. Do you know what I mean by regulation? Laws that determine how much interest can be applied etc. Those types. Obviously the government is handing them out but there are no constraints on them. They can do almost whatever the heck they want

 

Crosscut, I have backed up all my claims.  I have done my best to explain all of these issues to you.  I have acted quite gracious towards you, in fact.  I would have hoped at one point that you would begin to act like a normal person and engage in a real conversation on something, but that's obviously not going to happen. 

 

The bottom-line is that the big bullies that extorting students and running up the cost of tuition aren't doing so because of the free-market system.   There is nothing "free market" about student loans.  In fact it is the government lending 80%+ of the money and, as you pointed out, state schools receiving much of that money.  

[CrossCuT]

Crosscut, I have backed up all my claims.  I have done my best to explain all of these issues to you.  I have acted quite gracious towards you, in fact.  I would have hoped at one point that you would begin to act like a normal person and engage in a real conversation on something, but that's obviously not going to happen. 

 

The bottom-line is that the big bullies that extorting students and running up the cost of tuition aren't doing so because of the free-market system.   There is nothing "free market" about student loans.  In fact it is the government lending 80%+ of the money and, as you pointed out, state schools receiving much of that money.  

 

First of all. Wt.f rude much? Im not acting like a normal person?? Are you resorting to ad hominem because you have nothing  better to say?

 

You also havent pointed out ANY regulations. Im still waiting! So can we agree that there arent regulations on student loans? That is what Im gathering because you havent presented any. You are discussing things that arent pertaining to my question about regulation so you havent actually explained anything to me. I dont think that you can either because the reality is...there are none.

[CrossCuT]

reg·u·late

 transitive verb \ˈre-gyÉ™-ËŒlāt also Ëˆrā-\

: to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something)

: to bring (something) under the control of authority

: to make rules or laws that control (something)

 

[Winchester]

 

 

If there are indeed regulations on these things, why is it that  banks can borrow money at interest rates lower than 1% then turn around and make students pay 12938198372%? Thats literally just money right into their pockets.

 

 

Because of our "mixed economy" that utilizes a central bank to produce money that connected entities then have access to? 

 

Student loans are one area where credit expansion has greatly increased prices. You can look at the history of every bubble and find monetary expansion, and the realization that such expansion in the monetary base results in a general rise in prices dates back to the Spanish Scholastics. So you don't even have to go outside of the Church to find these answers.

 

As far as subsidizing the jobs of poorly producing workers, there's only so much of that activity that a business will tolerate. I'm certain that if you were willing to give up some of your paycheck and bestow it upon a fellow worker that there would be no problem. Of course, the compassionate government would still want you to pay taxes on that portion. Or else.

 

Because compassion. Like when Jesus stabbed those guys who didn't help the beggar.

[CrossCuT]

Because of our "mixed economy" that utilizes a central bank to produce money that connected entities then have access to? 

 

Student loans are one area where credit expansion has greatly increased prices. You can look at the history of every bubble and find monetary expansion, and the realization that such expansion in the monetary base results in a general rise in prices dates back to the Spanish Scholastics. So you don't even have to go outside of the Church to find these answers.

 

As far as subsidizing the jobs of poorly producing workers, there's only so much of that activity that a business will tolerate. I'm certain that if you were willing to give up some of your paycheck and bestow it upon a fellow worker that there would be no problem. Of course, the compassionate government would still want you to pay taxes on that portion. Or else.

 

Because compassion. Like when Jesus stabbed those guys who didn't help the beggar.

 

Youre focusing on the economy, which doesn't make sense to do here. The whole point is that the economy shouldn't have any effect on the education level of the country and that they should not be thought of in the same sentence. Seems like youre just throwing jargon around; creating your own dots to connect. Mixed economy is definitely not the cause of these issues. Thats like saying planet earth is responsible for car accidents; the existence of the planet is not the reason they happen.

Edited March 17, 2014 by CrossCuT

[CrossCuT]

poorly producing workers

 

And right here, again, is where my problem really comes into play. We are now reducing people to profit machines. The idea that we can start treating them more poorly as proportional to how much profit they turn out for us. 

 

That is where all this falls short. That is where the problems start. We are losing sight of our christian morals and the inherent dignity of the human person. I dont really give two bothers if the economic system you worship dictates these cold rules....it works most of the time but when it comes to the very phrase you uttered is where it falls flat on its face.

[NotreDame]

So, I've ignored the past 6 or so pages at this point, so please just smack me if this has been asked already:

 

What about distributism? I am not a Chesterton expert nor a brilliant economist, but why wouldn't that be superior to both capitalism and socialism?

 

Rather than allow the state or corporations to own capital like equipment, only individuals would own capital. If it was something that an individual could not own, it would be owned collectively by those who operated it. So companies that owned capital equipment would be owned by their employees.

 

It would seem to me that this would reduce the dual socialist and capitalist problem of workers having no economic power or control due to having no access to capital.

 

EDIT: I said subsidiatiry when I meant to say distributism. My bad.

 

Arfink,

 

I do hope you read what Hasan shared.  Start with the below and read the rest of the piece from there:

 

[...] Burczak's treatment is highly sophisticated, but I am afraid I am not persuaded. The absolutely central and bottom-line problem is that an economy consisting of worker-owned and democratically controlled firms would impose a significant static efficiency loss on the economy and would severely retard scientific and entrepreneurial innovate. [...]

 

I also ran across this pdf below, which seems a reasonable piece:

 

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Distrib6.pdf

 

[...] For distributivism was, and is in its newer manifestations, more a movement in ethics than in economics per se. Its most famous early exponents, Hillaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton, were capacious thinkers for whom economic ideas and experience of economic systems were not foreign -- yet these men too were not economists. [...]

 

When reading your comment that was what stood out to me.  There doesn't seem to be any economics underlying distributivism (or the goals stated in your comment), it doesn't seem so much an economic theory or system, as it is an ideology, if I may use that term. 

 

I get the impression that faced with socialism on one side and industrialism on the other, Chester-belloc tried to picture an alternative ending in mind.  They did so and called it distributivism, then they worked backwards, figuring out what rules and requirements would be required to arrive at their desired end.

 

So to me this isn't an economics question.  Economically it would be a calamity.  If that's not obvious to you it's because, as you mentioned, you aren't an economics guy, so you'll have to be patient in arriving at the same conclusion, but you have both Hasan and I saying similar things, so you have to wonder where you'd get support.

 

So since this is more an ideology imposing a system, to me it is more a political question... It's scary to me really, how orwellian Belloc, who I enjoy, begins to sound (source here):

 

“Three provisos must be kept clearly in mind before we approach the problem and attempt its practical solution.

 

“The first proviso is that in the restoration of property we are not attempting, and could never reach, a mechanical perfection.  We are only attempting to change the general tone of society and restore property as a commonly present, not a universal, institution.

 

“The second proviso is that we cannot even begin such a reform unless there is a favorable state of mind present in society, a desire to own property, sufficient to support and maintain the movement and to nourish institutions which will make it permanent.

 

 â€œThe third proviso is that in this attempt to restore Economic Freedom, the powers of the State must be invoked”17.

 

So to paraphrase "in order to restore property rights, we first must over-ride them."  (Personally, I'd rather skip the second portion and just respect property rights.)  This is what scares me so much with these sorts of top-down ideologies is that ultimately you'd hand over incredible power to the state to implement the ideas, because no group would ever arrive at them on their own.  This is power which would likely never be relinquished.  Power which would likely be abused beginning on day one.  (Read Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" for an overview on that - for though distributism has different ends than marxism, the necessary means have much in common.)

 

I may have misunderstood distributivism or simplified some of it's arguments - and if I did I apologize - but to it's proponents I would encourage a different approach.  Don't start with some sort of utopian end in mind and work backwards.  That never ends well.  Take the world as it was, is, and will be.  Then add your values on top of that as a framework.

 

For example, "making everyone a property owner" and "eliminating companies" sounds great, but it would be hard to get from here to there without totalitarianism, and the ending would likely disappoint. 

 

Instead of taking property as an end, take it as a means to arrive at freedom, which for some is an end and for others, like Catholics is just a means itself.   That's one of the reasons I don't like the term "capitalism."  I've never referred to myself that way ever.  What I support is a free-market, for almost the same reasons Belloc supported distributivism. 

[NotreDame]

First of all. Wt.f rude much? Im not acting like a normal person?? Are you resorting to ad hominem because you have nothing  better to say?

 

You also havent pointed out ANY regulations. Im still waiting! So can we agree that there arent regulations on student loans? That is what Im gathering because you havent presented any. You are discussing things that arent pertaining to my question about regulation so you havent actually explained anything to me. I dont think that you can either because the reality is...there are none.

 

*sigh* - I will repeat myself this last time. 

 

~90% of student loans come from department of education.  It is a branch of the federal government.  By definition, everything it does is driven by laws or regulations, period.  Therefore student loans are regulated.  The DoE explains that on various sites, see here.

 

I have shown you that regulations of student loans exist.  I have shown you that nearly the entire student loan market has been and is nationalized.  I cannot give you more detail than that at this time.  Generally you need to hire a professional to help navigate through federal regulations.  I am not one of those people.

[NotreDame]

reg·u·late

 transitive verb \ˈre-gyÉ™-ËŒlāt also Ëˆrā-\

: to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something)

: to bring (something) under the control of authority

: to make rules or laws that control (something)

 

As I said, "Regulations/Regulate" have a recognized meaning in the context of government which is more specific than the above.  It doesn't surprise me that you don't know that.

[Winchester]

 

 

Youre focusing on the economy, which doesn't make sense to do here. The whole point is that the economy shouldn't have any effect on the education level of the country and that they should not be thought of in the same sentence. Seems like youre just throwing jargon around; creating your own dots to connect. Mixed economy is definitely not the cause of these issues. Thats like saying planet earth is responsible for car accidents; the existence of the planet is not the reason they happen.

 

 

 

Monetary expansion doesn't affect prices? 

[Winchester]

And right here, again, is where my problem really comes into play. We are now reducing people to profit machines. The idea that we can start treating them more poorly as proportional to how much profit they turn out for us. 

 

That is where all this falls short. That is where the problems start. We are losing sight of our christian morals and the inherent dignity of the human person. I dont really give two bothers if the economic system you worship dictates these cold rules....it works most of the time but when it comes to the very phrase you uttered is where it falls flat on its face.

Poor production levels are a reality. I'm not reducing people to profit machines, I'm making a statement about how the world works. It works this way in hunter/gatherer societies, too. Scarcity is an unavoidable reality, and it drives our decisions. If there weren't such a thing as poor producers, there would be no such thing as charitable donation. 

 

In the end, it is the consumer who is heartless. If consumers were not tempted by lower prices, wages could rise. I assume you make all your purchases when goods are at their most expensive.

[Pliny]

i think we know what he meant when he said nothing to show for it.  He meant no retirement, stuff like that.  Working 19 years and getting no retirement is not right.  Also being fired for no legit reason is not fair.  

 

Why does she need to have been going to school /studying during this time?  She showed loyalty by working at this job for 19 years.  Also doesn't matter what she studied because after working 19 years for an employer how is it fair she has to start over all again.  Also many employers will not hire an older lady.  Women statistically get paid worse than men and find it harder to find jobs.  Being an older woman, have fun with that one.

 

It's "not right" to not get a "retirement" after 19 years?  Where does the retirement money come from?  It doesn't grow on trees. Consumers would have to pay more to cover those increased costs, so poor people who shop at Wal-Mart would essentially receive a pay cut in the form of less purchasing power.

 

It's not right that someone is so short-sighted and so unambitious that they don't think about doing something bigger and better than working on a loading dock at Wal-Wart.

 

She showed no "loyalty" except to her need for a job.  She would have quit if someone offered her something better.  The loyalty on both sides is an agreement to exchange labor for dollars.  It's not a marriage for life.