Northshore parents are reporting...

HHusky said:

creepycoug said:

HHusky said:

creepycoug said:

HHusky said:

pawz said:

HHusky said:

Time to suggest equal time for the other side?

Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.

Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?

Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.

Then what does?

And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.

Interested in your serious response here.

Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.

The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.

I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.

The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.

I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.

People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.

Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it.

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

creepycoug said:

HHusky said:

creepycoug said:

HHusky said:

pawz said:

HHusky said:

Time to suggest equal time for the other side?

Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.

Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?

Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.

Then what does?

And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.

Interested in your serious response here.

Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.

The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.

I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.

The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.

I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.

People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.

Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it.

Do you feel that the rising cost of a college education is somehow the fault of capitalism Dazzler?

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

Houhusky said:

HHusky said:

creepycoug said:

HHusky said:

creepycoug said:

HHusky said:

pawz said:

HHusky said:

Time to suggest equal time for the other side?

Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.

Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?

Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.

Then what does?

And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.

Interested in your serious response here.

Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.

The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.

I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.

The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.

I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.

People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.

Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it.

You are using the example of skyrocketing college tuition to illustrate the problems of capitalism? wtf?

Why don't you just pretend that I am so that you can more easily avoid engaging with what I actually said?

Fuck off Dazzler, You talk about how capitalism isn't working for the current 20 and 30 somethings and the example you provide in support of that claim is the rising cost of college tuition. Why are you always such a fucking dishonest hack?

RaceBannon said:

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

Houhusky said:

HHusky said:

creepycoug said:

HHusky said:

creepycoug said:

HHusky said:

pawz said:

HHusky said:

Time to suggest equal time for the other side?

Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.

Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?

Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.

Then what does?

And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.

Interested in your serious response here.

Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.

The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.

I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.

The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.

I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.

People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.

Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it.

You are using the example of skyrocketing college tuition to illustrate the problems of capitalism? wtf?

Why don't you just pretend that I am so that you can more easily avoid engaging with what I actually said?

Fuck off Dazzler, You talk about how capitalism isn't working for the current 20 and 30 somethings and the example you provide in support of that claim is the rising cost of college tuition. Why are you always such a fucking dishonest hack?

I guess you forgot that the capitalists of our era heavily subsidized our education. Of course, that wasn't the only thing I cited, but you don't really want a conversation, blob.

Citation please

It didn't cost less because it was subsidized

Good grief

WestlinnDuck said:

creepycoug said:

HHusky said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

HHusky said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

HHusky said:

pawz said:

HHusky said:

Time to suggest equal time for the other side?

Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.

Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?

Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.

Not even the Chinese would agree with you.

China is your example of unfettered capitalism?

Good luck with that.

Who said unfettered? The point is that even Communist China can thank countless ventures into capitalism for boosting nearly a billion people into the middle class.

Perhaps you missed the TugCon memo. When they say capitalism, they're talking laissez-faire. Anything less is socialism.

But capitalism is laissez-faire. That is its intellectual essence. Of course we make exceptions and dabble in socialist policy (and of course when we do that it's almost always fraught with inefficiency, but that's another chat). But to support capitalism is to support liberty and freedom for markets to work things out. Regulation is necessary on the margins. Most people acknowledge that. But it's always a question of degree and necessesity. In the end, though, to believe in capitalism is to believe in allowing markets to work as free from external interference as possible.

Public highways built by private labor by the lowest bidder was an efficient regulatory project until the tax revenue was captured by big money, big labor. Now we get expensive trains to nowhere, dangerous public transportation and the outlawing of ride sharing in Cali. Basic traffic rules need to be enforced but now we have the traffic cops being treated as a revenue system with fines and penalties out of synch with reality.