On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 03:59:38PM -0600, \0xDynamite wrote: > > A capitalist, or “free market,” system is one in which the prices of > > goods and services are determined by consumers and the open market, > > in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any > > intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other > > authority. > > WOAH WOAH woah, hold it right there. You've just conflated two major > topics of economic theory: the free market and capitalism -- NOT THE > SAME. You can have a FREE MARKET under socialism and COLLECTIVE > ownership. But all the owners have to agree generally to sell it on > the open market.
Firstly, you are quoting the article I posted. > > Equally as bad is the fact that, in these same countries, large > > corporations have become so powerful that, by contributing equally to > > the campaigns of each major political party, they’re able to demand > > rewards following the elections, that not only guarantee them funds > > from the public coffers, but protect them against any possible > > prosecution as a result of this form of bribery. > > This is the real issue. Apparently the drive and advantage given to > individualism by the FREE MARKET itself (because the consumers have to > REWARD the individual for him/her to become a giant) has given them > enormous advantage, politically. So again, the real question is: why > do the people do this? Secondly: - Are you saying the American government is democratic? - Are you also saying that corporations succeed because in America there is a FREE MARKET (to use your all caps)? - Are you saying that "the people" who "do this" are acting in, on, or otherwise by, free market and democratic principles? > > There’s a word for this form of governance, and it’s fascism. > > And there's a word for this type of effect: APATHY (from the people). > There is an undiagnosed mental illness in the general populace, > probably caused by mass injections of polio to children. It is > clinically diagnosable using the criteria of the DSM. > > > Many people today, if asked to describe fascism, would refer to > > Mussolini, black boots, and tyranny. They would state with confidence > > that they, themselves, do not live under fascism. But, in fact, > > fascism is, by definition, a state in which joint rule by business > > and state exists. (Mussolini himself stated that fascism would better > > be called corporatism, for this reason.) > > I think this is a distortion of fascism, which to me simply means rule > by ideology, not specifically business. May be so. > > The choice of the reader is to look upon the world as his oyster - to > > assess whether he is more or less content with the country he’s in > > and confident that it will continue to be a good place in which to > > live, work, invest, and prosper, or, if not, to consider > > diversifying, or even moving entirely, to a more rewarding, more > > capitalist jurisdiction. > > Huh? No, what needs to happen is a diversification of economic experiments. And the article you responded to above is pointing out the obvious - that we do not have a modern democractic, or capitalist, experiment ... at least that's what I think it's saying…