What does it mean to be 'Greedy' ?

[brewmama]

Well what the hell is it doing in there??

LA

Those evil Norwegians, getting rich off oil! Don't they know about the global warming lie and how much the cool Westerners hate oil?

 

[PureX]

Well what the hell is it doing in there??

LA

Where else would it be? (Thanks for reading the essay.)

 

[brewmama]

It's the whole reason Norway is so successful and wealthy.

 

[PureX]

It's the whole reason Norway is so successful and wealthy.

Actually, no, it's not. But you didn't bother to read the essay, so you won't learn what are the real reasons. And since you're determined to remain ignorant, and therefor always right in your own mind, I'm sure you'll succeed.

 

[meshak]

Actually, no, it's not. But you didn't bother to read the essay, so you won't learn what are the real reasons. And since you're determined to remain ignorant, and therefor always right in your own mind, I'm sure you'll succeed.

Hey, it's a long read, brother.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Where else would it be? (Thanks for reading the essay.)

I am interested to see if they follow the Biblical principle of sharing ones wealth with others that they may do the same to others, and not build bigger barns for themselves.

It is not in giving handouts to those who refuse to work, but many accused of not wanting to work actually will work under the right circumstances (not as slaves of others get rich schemes)

The money system has been hijacked by criminals in suits.

LA

 

[PureX]

I am interested to see if they follow the Biblical principle of sharing ones wealth with others that they may do the same to others, and not build bigger barns for themselves.

Why would you anticipate any government, anywhere, to follow biblical principal? Governments are not religions. And they are not established to promote religious ideals. They are established to create and maintain order, promote freedom and prosperity, and defend the people governed from internal and external threats. Who chooses to follow what principals is mostly an individual matter, not a matter of the state.

They already appear to understand that the wealth a nation generates, is generated cooperatively, and therefor belongs to everyone, and not just to those who manage to gain control of it. So they use it to ensure that everyone has their basic needs met before they allow anyone to accumulate it for themselves. And they have found that in doing so, they have freed up their people to seek their own unique ways of contributing to the quality of life in their country. One could easily choose to spend their lives helping others, without having to worry about their own survival. This sounds like something that Jesus would approve of, to me.

It is not in giving handouts to those who refuse to work, but many accused of not wanting to work actually will work under the right circumstances (not as slaves of others get rich schemes)

That's exactly what they have found. Once everyone's basic needs are being met, people look for ways they can contribute according to their own gifts and desires. Some become artists. Some become teachers. Some become businessmen. Many open their own small businesses in fields of interest that inspire them. People WANT to feel they are contributing members of their society. Poverty in America comes from hopelessness, not lack of money. The poor here know they are not wanted, respected, or appreciated, and that they never will be in a society that worship profits at the cost of humanity.

The money system has been hijacked by criminals in suits.

It always will be if we do not impose the rule of law on our commerce. Especially when we don't recognize the difference between greed and ambition.

 

[Clete]

Why would you anticipate any government, anywhere, to follow biblical principal? Governments are not religions. And they are not established to promote religious ideals. They are established to create and maintain order, promote freedom and prosperity, and defend the people governed from internal and external threats.

All of which are religious principles.

They already appear to understand that the wealth a nation generates, is generated cooperatively, and therefor belongs to everyone, and not just to those who manage to gain control of it. So they use it to ensure that everyone has their basic needs met before they allow anyone to accumulate it for themselves.

Basic needs? Defined by who, you?

Who gets to pay for these undefined "basic needs"?

There is only one possible answer - the people who produce the products and services that are "needed" by those who cannot or will not produce them for themselves.

And they have found that in doing so, they have freed up their people to seek their own unique ways of contributing to the quality of life in their country.

Quality of life? Defined by who, you?

Who pays for the freed up time that these folks use to "contribute" rather than to provide for their own undefined "basic needs"?

There is only one possible answer - those people who produce the products and services that the "freed up" people "need" but who cannot or will not produce for themselves.

One could easily choose to spend their lives helping others, without having to worry about their own survival.

This only applies to the free loaders! Those who get stuck with having to produce all of their undefined "basic needs" don't have the luxury of spending their lives in any way at all other than to service those who cannot or will not provide for themselves.

This sounds like something that Jesus would approve of, to me.

Jesus did not, would not, will not and cannot ever approve of slavery, which is precisely what you are proposing, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

Once everyone's basic needs are being met, people look for ways they can contribute according to their own gifts and desires.

I have no doubt that those who get all of their "basic needs" met without the need to pay for them what they're worth, they'd find all kinds of free time with which to do all sort of things. Their free time is being paid for by those who produce the things that the free loaders no longer have to earn (i.e. pay for).

Some become artists. Some become teachers. Some become businessmen. Many open their own small businesses in fields of interest that inspire them. People WANT to feel they are contributing members of their society.

Then let them BE contributing members of society by exchanging value for value? Why should someone else have to pay for their "basic needs" before they can do something worthwhile?

Poverty in America comes from hopelessness, not lack of money.

Poverty in America comes from government welfare checks! The government paying people money that someone else had to make and they the recipients did not earn gives those recipients an incentive to be lazy. Some hunger in their belly would give them an incentive to work.

2 Thessalonians 3:10

The poor here know they are not wanted, respected, or appreciated, and that they never will be in a society that worship profits at the cost of humanity.

Leftist clap trap!

The United States is directly responsible for lifting more people from more diverse places all over the globe out of poverty than any other nation that has ever existed on the face of planet Earth. The whole country was founded upon the idea that you can come here and make of yourself whatever your desires, intelligence, skills and work ethic would permit you to become.

To whatever extent it was or has become something other than that is the extent to which government got in the way of freedom and began picking winners and losers. In short, the extent to which our system has failed is the extent to which we aren't (or haven't been) capitalists but have instead been socialist/fascist.

It always will be if we do not impose the rule of law on our commerce. Especially when we don't recognize the difference between greed and ambition.

The rule of law is itself a religious concept. It is a nation codifying "right and wrong". It is a nation saying that x is right and y is wrong. If you doubt that its a religious issue then answer the following question. You say that it is wrong for a man to spend his life (i.e. his time and talent) producing something and to keep what he produces if someone else of lesser ability or desire goes wanting. You say it is right for that man's production to be taken from him and given to another so that his "basic needs" are met.

BY WHAT STANDARD?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Why would you anticipate any government, anywhere, to follow biblical principal? Governments are not religions. And they are not established to promote religious ideals. They are established to create and maintain order, promote freedom and prosperity, and defend the people governed from internal and external threats. Who chooses to follow what principals is mostly an individual matter, not a matter of the state.

They already appear to understand that the wealth a nation generates, is generated cooperatively, and therefor belongs to everyone, and not just to those who manage to gain control of it. So they use it to ensure that everyone has their basic needs met before they allow anyone to accumulate it for themselves. And they have found that in doing so, they have freed up their people to seek their own unique ways of contributing to the quality of life in their country. One could easily choose to spend their lives helping others, without having to worry about their own survival. This sounds like something that Jesus would approve of, to me.
That's exactly what they have found. Once everyone's basic needs are being met, people look for ways they can contribute according to their own gifts and desires. Some become artists. Some become teachers. Some become businessmen. Many open their own small businesses in fields of interest that inspire them. People WANT to feel they are contributing members of their society. Poverty in America comes from hopelessness, not lack of money. The poor here know they are not wanted, respected, or appreciated, and that they never will be in a society that worship profits at the cost of humanity.
It always will be if we do not impose the rule of law on our commerce. Especially when we don't recognize the difference between greed and ambition.

Your view does not require governments to hold to biblical principle then you want it to take from the rich to give to the poor by force.

A recipe for bad communism.

LA

 

[PureX]

Your view does not require governments to hold to biblical principle then you want it to take from the rich to give to the poor by force.

A recipe for bad communism.

LA

The purpose of government is to control the way people behave toward each other for the well-being of all. And in part, doing that will require that the wealth a nation generates remains equitably spread among the citizens. Because if it does not, the society will collapse into anarchy and bloodshed. And unregulated commerce will inevitably result in all the wealth piling up in the hands of a very few, which will eventually destroy the society, if it remain unregulated. So all successful societies have had to regulate commerce in such a way as to keep the wealth of the nation distributed among the citizens of the nation, or they risk collapse. And those within the society who want to accumulate massive piles of wealth don't like that, even though it is ultimately being done for their own well-being as well as for everyone else's. Greed warps the hearts and minds of those who succumb to it.

Whining about "force" is just plain childish. When humans live together in a cooperative society, they will inevitably be "forced" to do some things for the well-being of society as a whole, rather than just for their own well-being. (The fact that one cannot recognize that these are goals are mutually beneficial is what's so childish.) And if you are trying to claim that organized societies inevitably become corrupt, that's a different issue. Any form of government can become corrupted. But anarchy and lawlessness are not a reasonable alternative. So the obvious solution is intelligent government, not minimal or no government, and so far that seems to mean moderate socialism, coupled with a limited constitutional democracy. And I posted that essay to shed a little light how such a system can work, and is working quite well at the present time for the small number of nations that have been employing it. And the folks in this countries are not whining about being forced to pay high taxes to support a 'nanny state", because they can all see for themselves how much happier, healthier, freer, and secure they all are as a result.

 

[Clete]

The purpose of government is to control the way people behave toward each other for the well-being of all. And in part, doing that will require that the wealth a nation generates remains equitably spread among the citizens. Because if it does not, the society will collapse into anarchy and bloodshed. And unregulated commerce will inevitably result in all the wealth piling up in the hands of a very few, which will eventually destroy the society, if it remain unregulated. So all successful societies have had to regulate commerce in such a way as to keep the wealth of the nation distributed among the citizens of the nation, or they risk collapse. And those within the society who want to accumulate massive piles of wealth don't like that, even though it is ultimately being done for their own well-being as well as for everyone else's. Greed warps the hearts and minds of those who succumb to it.

The unstated premise is that a full separation of commerce and state has failed every time its been tried.

The problem with such a premise is that it has never even once been tried and that the only nation that has ever gotten remotely close to it turned out to be the biggest wealth generating and wealth spreading nation the world has ever seen.

Whining about "force" is just plain childish. When humans live together in a cooperative society, they will inevitably be "forced" to do some things for the well-being of society as a whole, rather than just for their own well-being.

Well being?

Who gets to decide what "their own well-being" means and by what standard?

The fact is that my self-interests and yours are NEVER in conflict unless one or both of us want something we haven't earned or are unwilling to pay for.
Not that there aren't honest disputes over what belongs to who but that's what contracts and the court system are for.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Greed: excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions (dictionary.com)

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all [g]sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Colossians 3:5
Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.
​

This topic often comes up when I start discussing socialism versus capitalism. In our culture, they have attempted to ingrain the idea that capitalism is godly, and socialism is evil - and even that Greed is good. Even good Christians I know try to defend Capitalism and greed as beneficial for society; and I find this boils down to a divide on what 'greed' is.

As the definition above says, greed is an "excessive desire." But what makes a desire excessive? For some, this is anything that you don't strictly need. Any self-satisfying desire that goes beyond your necessities is greed. I'm not convinced by this myself, but it is a position that some have taken.

For others, an excessive desire is when you want as much of something as you can possibly get even when you no longer have a use for it. If you continually strive after money when you are the richest person in the world, what is the point? Will it really enrich your life in anyway?

This position is a little better, but I think still insufficient. This supposes that one can only be greedy if one has acquired an abundance of whatever it is they desire - and then continues to want more. Thus, under this understanding, a poor person - or a person who lacked the object of their desire - could never be greedy. I very much disagree - and instead defend the next position.

My view of Greed is that you are taking something - money, power, etc - and placing too much importance on it. You have done this to the extent that you have displaced other matters of importance in favor of this desire. This is why scripture says that greed is idolatry - you have displaced the love of God and your fellow man with the love of money. The result being that you act accordingly - choosing gain over the well-being of your fellowman. Capitalism has supplied no end of examples of this - and this is why it makes no sense for Christians to endorse such a system.

Under this view - even a poor person can be greedy - if they place so much importance on it that they are willing to harm their fellowman to acquire it.

What do you think about Greed and Capitalism? Which of the three views do you subscribe to on greed, or do you have an alternative? Is my view on Greed unfair with respects to Capitalism? If you accept that greed is bad, and still think socialism in principle is 'evil', why?

If you get enough people breaking this commandment, you end up with socialism:

Exodus 20:17 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.​

If you want to discuss Capitalism, then you need to clarify if you are referring to Corporate Capitalism or true Capitalism.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Thank God I am not greedy like other men.

:think:
Where have I heard that before?

Luke 18:11 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.​

 

[PureX]

The unstated premise is that a full separation of commerce and state has failed every time its been tried.

No one has proposed the "full separation of commerce and the state". Nor has anyone proposed that the state take total control of commerce.

If your mind cannot grasp the concept of moderation, or of compromise, and can only grasp reality by it's extremes; then you will be incapable of understanding much of anything in life but extremist ideology. And you will have nothing of value to contribute to this conversation (or probably any other).

 

[Clete]

No one has proposed the "full separation of commerce and the state".

The arguments you makes against capitalism imply that it not only has been proposed but that it has been tried and that it has failed.

Nor has anyone proposed that the state take total control of commerce.

The state taking total control of commerce is known as communism and it in fact has failed every time its been tried.

If your mind cannot grasp the concept of moderation, or of compromise, and can only grasp reality by it's extremes; then you will be incapable of understanding much of anything in life but extremist ideology.

That's a very extreme thing of you to say!

Moderation in steeling is still theft and it is still immoral and an economic system built on theft will always - always - fail because it works against itself. You will always eventually run out of other people's money.

Exodus 20:15 “You shall not steal.​

And you will have nothing of value to contribute to this conversation (or probably any other).

I've destroyed your every argument and your every premise, usually with a single sentence.

Who gets to decide what "basic needs" means?

Who gets to decide who's money gets jacked in order to pay for everyone else's "basic needs"?

Who get's to decide how much income is "too much" or "enough for anyone" or whatever other phrase is used to say that one person is rich and so he can afford to pay for someone else's way.

Who gets to decide who gets stolen from and who gets the loot?

I'll tell you who. The guys who gets the loot is the guy who has something on the guy in the position of power and the guy who gets jacked is the blackmailer's biggest enemy. It turns into a system of back stabbing, scheming, pull peddlers and the guy who ends up in power is whoever happens to be the most skilled at peddling pull.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[PureX]

The arguments you makes against capitalism imply that it not only has been proposed but that it has been tried and that it has failed.

Before we could debate this, we would have to understand what "capitalism" is. Capitalism is an economic system wherein the capital investors control the means of production, for the pursuit of a maximum return on the capital they've invested. And such a system has failure built into it because it's goal is antithetical to the well-being of the society that participates in it. In a nutshell, it is an economic value system that places profit above people. It is a system controlled by an investor class, intended to benefit that investor class, at the expense of everyone else. And to the degree to which it succeeds, it destroys the society in which it operates.

However, this does not mean that investment in commercial enterprise is a bad thing, in itself. It just means that the control of the means of production must be managed and shared in such a way as to benefit everyone involved in the commercial enterprise; and not just the investors. This is the basic realization and ideal of what we generally refer to as "socialism".

The state taking total control of commerce is known as communism and it in fact has failed every time its been tried.

No one is suggesting that anyone take TOTAL CONTROL of anything. Free market dynamics will control markets, themselves, under certain conditions. But when those conditions do not apply, as they do not apply to a significant number of modern markets, they then become "captive markets" (as opposed to free markets). And in those cases some control must be maintained or they will become exploitive markets. And that control should have as it's goal the well-being of all of society, or else it would be irrational for society to engage in it.

The energy market, for example, is not a free market when everyone needs energy to survive, and thy cannot acquire it on their own. It's become a 'captive market'. And a captive market will be abused and exploited if it's being treated as if it were a free market. Captive markets have to be regulated to protect the people who need to buy from the abuse and exploitation of the people who want profit as much as possible from their need. And someone has to determine and implement that regulation for the well-being of the society as a whole.

As I understand it, in the Netherlands, this regulation is being achieved through ongoing compromise and shared authority between political parties that represent labor, investment, and social services; respectively. No one party or ideology gets to control the means of production; wages, prices, types and quality of products and services sold, etc.,. Thus ensuring that the well-being of their society as a whole is being represented, and therefor becomes the goal of their poetical and commercial activity.

And their results have been quite spectacular compared to the consequences we are suffering here in the U.S. as we continue to engage in free market capitalism. We create a few billionaires while everyone else's quality of life continues to decline. While they take care of every citizen, with food, shelter, jobs, education, livable wages, and health care while maintaining some of the highest standards of living in the world.

Moderation in steeling is still theft and it is still immoral and an economic system built on theft will always - always - fail because it works against itself. You will always eventually run out of other people's money.

You are living in a large, complex, COOPERATIVE society. Nothing you have, or that you can acquire, came to you by your own efforts. Everything that you have, or ever will have, will come to you through the cooperation and effort of the society in which you live. So the assertion that society is "stealing" anything from you is childish, and is pathetically selfish. You are not a lone ranger out on the savannah, living or dying by the will and efforts of your own hands. You never were, and you never will be. You are a member of a complex, cooperative society, and anything you own, or have achieved, you own and achieved WITH THEIR HELP. Which is why that society has the right to determine the value of your contribution to the cooperative effort that we call modern civilization.

It's time to grow up and face reality.

Who get's to decide how much income is "too much" or "enough for anyone" or whatever other phrase is used to say that one person is rich and so he can afford to pay for someone else's way.

We all do, ideally. Because we all participate in this society and economy, collectively.

Time to grow up and be a man among other men. And stop pretending you are the lone ranger of the savannah.

 

[Clete]

Before we could debate this, we would have to understand what "capitalism" is. Capitalism is an economic system wherein the capital investors control the means of production, for the pursuit of a maximum return on the capital they've invested. And such a system has failure built into it because it's goal is antithetical to the well-being of the society that participates in it. In a nutshell, it is an economic value system that places profit above people. It is a system controlled by an investor class, intended to benefit that investor class, at the expense of everyone else. And to the degree to which it succeeds, it destroys the society in which it operates.

This is leftist clap trap stupidity!

The society is not controlled by an investor class! What does that even mean? And how would it make any sense for a company to make money by predating their customers? It's just flat out bent mind leftist stupidity!

Capitalism is a system where what is produced belongs to those who produced it by right. It is a system where people freely associate and freely trade by mutual consent and to mutual benefit. It is a system where neither you can be made to buy from me nor I to produce for you. Just as human beings have a right to free speech and to the free practice of religion, they also have the right to private property and to free trade, all of which are ancillary rights to the right to life.

Any system that works, does so on the basis of capitalism. The degree to which it is self destructive is the degree to which it deviates from capitalism. The further it deviates, the faster it implodes.

However, this does not mean that investment in commercial enterprise is a bad thing, in itself. It just means that the control of the means of production must be managed and shared in such a way as to benefit everyone involved in the commercial enterprise; and not just the investors.

Benefit how? Who decides what is and is not "beneficial"?

Why should anyone other than the investors, the people who take the risk, benefit from a commercial enterprise? By what right does my neighbor get to benefit from my financial investments?

This is the basic realization and ideal of what we generally refer to as "socialism".
No one is suggesting that anyone take TOTAL CONTROL of anything. Free market dynamics will control markets, themselves, under certain conditions. But when those conditions do not apply, as they do not apply to a significant number of modern markets, they then become "captive markets" (as opposed to free markets). And in those cases some control must be maintained or they will become exploitive markets. And that control should have as it's goal the well-being of all of society, or else it would be irrational for society to engage in it.

No such "captive market" is possible without government intervention. You never find a single example in history where any such captive market or monopoly ever existed at all without having the government to blame for it. Whether its the railroads in the 1800's or the telephone monopolies of the early 1900s or the great depression or whatever other example you care to name, all of them, every single one, has the intervention of government controls to blame for its existence.

The energy market, for example, is not a free market when everyone needs energy to survive, and thy cannot acquire it on their own. It's become a 'captive market'.

WHAT?

How many energy companies exist?

How many different places can I choose to go to in order to buy gasoline?

There's half a dozen electric companies where I live, for crying out loud!

Not only that but I could, if I chose to do so, go and set up power generation of my own, with solar panels or wind turbines or whatever and live entire off the grid.

And before you tought the availability of those things as being because of government, don't! There would be vastly more options available at far cheaper prices if the government had never gotten involved in the first place. The whole world drives cars because of government intervention. Almost no one rides trains anymore because of government intervention. Airplane tickets cost 5 times what they would if not for government regulations. Every fix you think government is needed for was caused by the very government that you propose aught to fix it!

And a captive market will be abused and exploited if it's being treated as if it were a free market. Captive markets have to be regulated to protect the people who need to buy from the abuse and exploitation of the people who want profit as much as possible from their need. And someone has to determine and implement that regulation for the well-being of the society as a whole.

Well-being?

Who's well being?

Who gets to decide what "well-being" means?

Who gets to pay for everyone else's well being?

As I understand it, in the Netherlands, this regulation is being achieved through ongoing compromise and shared authority between political parties that represent labor, investment, and social services; respectively.

The Netherlands will be broke before our next president leaves office.

No one party or ideology gets to control the means of production; wages, prices, types and quality of products and services sold, etc.,. Thus ensuring that the well-being of their society as a whole is being represented, and therefor becomes the goal of their poetical and commercial activity.

No one should get to control the means of production other than those who thought up and then paid for the means of production.

And their results have been quite spectacular compared to the consequences we are suffering here in the U.S. as we continue to engage in free market capitalism.

America does not engage in free market capitalism. At best we engage in crony-capitalism which is little different than outright fascism.

We create a few billionaires while everyone else's quality of life continues to decline.

This is stupidity on parade!

This country produces more millionares and billionares than all of the other contries in the world combined. The poor in this country live better than the middle class lives in any European country your care to name.

While they take care of every citizen, with food, shelter, jobs, education, livable wages, and health care while maintaining some of the highest standards of living in the world.

On the backs of who?

I'll tell you who!

On the backs of the producers that are left in Europe, on the backs of the United States and on the backs of their future producers in the form of national debt that they have no intention of ever paying back.

[You are living in a large, complex, COOPERATIVE society. Nothing you have, or that you can acquire, came to you by your own efforts.

This is not only false, you knew it was false when you said it. You're a liar.

I have nothing that wasn't earned - nothing.

Everything that you have, or ever will have, will come to you through the cooperation and effort of the society in which you live.

Where is the slave that worked without compensation to my benefit? Where is the slave that was forced without compensation to design and build the infrastructure of this country? Where is he?

So the assertion that society is "stealing" anything from you is childish, and is pathetically selfish. You are not a lone ranger out on the savannah, living or dying by the will and efforts of your own hands. You never were, and you never will be. You are a member of a complex, cooperative society, and anything you own, or have achieved, you own and achieved WITH THEIR HELP. Which is why that society has the right to determine the value of your contribution to the cooperative effort that we call modern civilization.

It's time to grow up and face reality.
We all do, ideally. Because we all participate in this society and economy, collectively.

Time to grow up and be a man among other men. And stop pretending you are the lone ranger of the savannah.

The rest of this was all just a repeat of what came before and I'm out of time anyway.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[PureX]

This is leftist clap trap stupidity!

The society is not controlled by an investor class! What does that even mean?

No one said that society is controlled by an investor class. What I wrote was that in a capitalist economic system, the capitalists control the means of production. Which is WHY it's called a "capitalist economic system". It means that the people who invested money in a business enterprise get to make ALL the decisions about how that enterprise is carried out, even though the business enterprise effects the well-being of lots of other people, like the employees and the suppliers, and the customers. Also the environment, and general public health and safety. If you insist on being a moron I will treat you like one. If you want to have a profitable discussion, that pay attention to what you read, and use your brain a little in an effort to understand it. If all you're here to do is look for any excuse to name-call and generally behave like toddler, then you're on your own.

Capitalism is a system where what is produced belongs to those who produced it by right.

If that were the case, then the employees at McDonalds would own all the hamburgers they produce.

It is a system where people freely associate and freely trade by mutual consent and to mutual benefit.

No, that's called free market commerce, not capitalism. There is a difference. And I have explained the difference twice, now. I'm not going to bother doing it a third time.

It is a system where neither you can be made to buy from me nor I to produce for you.

Unfortunately, that is not the case with most modern markets these days. As we are not able to refuse to buy a great many of the market products that are sold. Which means those markets are no longer free markets. They are captive markets. As with food, housing, transportation, communication, energy, health care, insurance, and many other commodities in a modern society. None of these can we reasonably go without, nor can we produce them for ourselves. So that we must buy them from whomever is selling: i.e., we are a "captive market" for these products and services. As the buyers are not realistically free to refuse to buy them.

Just as human beings have a right to free speech and to the free practice of religion, they also have the right to private property and to free trade, all of which are ancillary rights to the right to life.[/QUTE]All human rights are limited by the rights of other humans, including the right to trade.

Any system that works, does so on the basis of capitalism. The degree to which it is self destructive is the degree to which it deviates from capitalism. The further it deviates, the faster it implodes.

This sort of empty bloviating is meaningless. Back it up with logical reasoning or shut up and try to learn something.

Benefit how? Who decides what is and is not "beneficial"?

The society you live in does.

Why should anyone other than the investors, the people who take the risk, benefit from a commercial enterprise? By what right does my neighbor get to benefit from my financial investments?

Everyone participates in the risk. They just aren't all risking money. And everyone should benefit from the commerce, or there is no reason for society to engage in it.

No such "captive market" is possible without government intervention.

Sure it is. All you have to do is own the only watering hole for miles around and every other living thing around you is now a "captive market".

You never find a single example in history where any such captive market or monopoly ever existed at all without having the government to blame for it.

Oh, baloney!

All it takes is a greedy man with a bigger gun, and he'll soon create a captive market, one way or another. Stop blaming it on government! If the government is corrupt, it's because greedy men corrupted it while stupid men allowed them to.

Whether its the railroads in the 1800's or the telephone monopolies of the early 1900s or the great depression or whatever other example you care to name, all of them, every single one, has the intervention of government controls to blame for its existence.

The purpose of government is to control social interaction, including, and especially, commercial interaction. If we allow the men with the biggest wallets to corrupt our government, and use it to create captive markets that rob the rest of us, it's our own fault.

But eliminating government is not the solution, because all lawlessness gets us is more greedy men with bigger guns taking "ownership" of all the necessary resources, and using their control to drive everyone else into poverty and mystery.

The only solution, is to stop the corruption of government, so that the greedy men can't get control of the resources that society needs to survive and thrive. That requires cooperative social force: i.e., government.

WHAT?

How many energy companies exist?

How many different places can I choose to go to in order to buy gasoline?

And they all charge the same amount. Why? Because they all want the same thing: maximum profit at minimal product cost. They are not competing as you imagine them to be because they have the same goals, and because they all know thAT we HAVE TO BUY WHAT THEY'RE SELLING. All they have to do is stay out of each other's way, and they can all maximize their profits at our expense. Exactly as they are doing.

There's half a dozen electric companies where I live, for crying out loud!

Yup, and they're all price-gouging, equally. Just check their prices, and look at their profit margins.

Not only that but I could, if I chose to do so, go and set up power generation of my own, with solar panels or wind turbines or whatever and live entire off the grid.

Sure you could … and good luck with that. It'll cost you more in the long run because the energy producers have thought all this out before you did. They bought up the patents on any technology that could actually compete with them. And they've made sure that what's left will be at least as expensive as what they're offering. Which will be just barely what you can afford to pay. That's how they determined the price of their products: how high can the price be before you just can't pay it.

The Netherlands will be broke before our next president leaves office.

And yet they've been operating a successful system for almost 75 years! That's quite the idiotic prediction!

 

[Clete]

Capitalism is a system where what is produced belongs to those who produced it by right.

If that were the case, then the employees at McDonalds would own all the hamburgers they produce.

This single sentence is all you need to read to know that PureX is an idiot.

There's nothing left to be said. Anyone who buys into his stupidity deserves what they get.

 

[PureX]

This single sentence is all you need to read to know that PureX is an idiot.

There's nothing left to be said. Anyone you buys into his stupidity deserves what they get.

Trying to pretend that the people who invest in product production are the "producers", is the idiocy. But you run and hide behind your childish insults, now. We all knew you would, eventually.