I know we have had this argument before.
But what we have in America is not the capitalism our forefathers inventioned. What we have is corporatism, not capitalism, and I feel you malign the capitalism our forefathers invisioned by assosicating it with corporatism.
The problem with the American form of economics is corporations.
Corporations are the new government. We don't see it yet. But they really are the new governments.
Ask yourself this simple question.
Suppose that today an arms race began between ExxonMobil and Iran. On whom would you place your bets to be the first to be a nuclear power? The global corporations of today can raise standing armies anytime the wanted. Many nearly have them now.
What the world needs to do is to curb corporate power. There are only a few ways to do that. Leally eliminate them or legally change them in a drastic manner.
But I have no problem with capitalism and the right of an individual to seek his own livelihood as long as there are resonable regulations to prevent greed and the accumulation of obscene wealth.
The accumulation of obscene wealth and obscene power occurs in socialistic societies just as much as it does in capitalist ones.
I just want governments to regulate the accumulation of power and wealth. If we don't, we are all doomed to slavery. And slavery is a socialistic society is just as much slavery as in a capitalistic one.
not at all
Not me David. I always make a distinction between capitalism and corporatism and promote the model of small farming - a mix of small scale private ownership and socialism.
I must have you confused with someone else. We are of the same mind at least with respect to small scale private ownership. Socialsim is such a loaded word that I never am sure what people mean by it. I believe in socialistic ideals with respect to the welfare of people but not socialistic economics as government determined labor and employment.
I only use the word socialism here. You don't have to use the word to promote the concept.
What is socialism to you
if not small scall private ownership?
I'm a neophyte for these kinds of discussions, but it seems to me
that division of labor beat incorporation to the punch in knocking out economic equality in America.
Government determined labor and employment
is totalitarianism, not socialism. At least as I understand it.
Socialism is about worker ownership of the means of production. That is direct, not mediated by government. Am I missing something besides the great weight of totalitarian history and the protestations of the Von Mises set?
I suppose my point was that is what most people equate
With the word socialism.
According to your definition an employee owned corporation (ESOP) would qualify.
A pale facsimilie
is about as far as I could go in agreement.
Having only won too many arguments with a lawyer-boyfriend I later laft in a snit, I am not too sure I am qualified to chat about it with you :)