Capitalism

This is a discussion on Capitalism within the The Foyer forums, part of the Off the Grid category; Originally Posted by Pat494 Still on the planet Vulcan probably. Haha too right. Managing a hospital requires man and departmental ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 14, 2016, 4:32pm   #496
 
Atilla's Avatar
Joined Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat494 View Post
Still on the planet Vulcan probably.
Haha too right.

Managing a hospital requires man and departmental management skills. Don't need to be a brain surgeon.

For a politician one has to be a good communicator as well as being an electable candidate yes absolutely. However, one doesn't become those roles without many hours of experience in some relevant field or another.

However, our man Flint goes on to add that makes a very good point as if it's the same to become CEO of an investment bank with all it's different market divisions.

Incredible!!!


Give someone enough rope and they'll hang them selves.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-rb...nt-bank-2015-3

The RBS collapse did not come suddenly.

It was decades in the making, and was the result of an internal culture that put the sale of questionable financial products ahead of concerns about the risk those products would create. The bank grew recklessly, overpaying for other banks that it acquired, as its balance sheet ballooned to £2.2 trillion ($3.3 trillion), larger than the entire GDP of the United Kingdom.

That growth was overseen by two CEOs who had no direct, hands-on experience of banking.
Atilla is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2016, 4:54pm   #497
Joined Feb 2002
Lots of stuff that emanates from our capitalist system could be improved. But as an economic system, moderated by our parliamentary form of democracy and universal suffrage, it has immeasurably improved the lives and expectations of most people in the UK since the start of the industrial revolution. Note that economic systems incompatible with capitalism do not usually permit the political benefits we casually enjoy.

Taking the long view, capitalism is a rather new and not fully explored system, that continues to become understood only in real time as we live through it and we make it evolve.

The beneficial trend within capitalism has actually accelerated, despite the 2008 financial crisis that everyone seems to think was so historically important. Haven't you heard this week that male life expectancy in England is at its historically highest ever, at 84?
tomorton is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2016, 5:06pm   #498
 
hhiusa's Avatar
Joined May 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla View Post
What's happened to your logical brain and fallacies dude?

Tomorton has come up with a number of points which have no validity to the argument and you are as quiet as a pussy cat with his tongue dipped deep in cream or some brown stuff who knows?
What a shocker! More mudslinging from @Atilla

What fallacies @Atilla? You claim to understand logic, so point them out. What points of @tomorton's do you believe to have no validity?

England dervied great financial success from the Enclosure Acts, which enclosed open fields of land in the countryside, creating private property rights. This was a boon to English capitalism.

Jean Baptiste Colbert coined the term "laissez-faire". He was French. Wealthy 21th century Americans are not the only people vying for laissez-faire capitalism. Colbert and other physiocrats started it in the 17th century and was later popularized by Adam Smith. Bernard Mandeville was a Dutch physiocrat famous for his "The Fable of the Bees", from which Adam Smith drew his economic metaphor "the invisible hand". The Economist, an English newspaper, was founded in 1843 and quickly became a prominent voice for laissez-faire capitalism. See, even the English are involved in the laissez-faire movement.
__________________
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money
- Margaret Thatcher

Last edited by hhiusa; Feb 14, 2016 at 5:18pm.
hhiusa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2016, 5:17pm   #499
 
Atilla's Avatar
Joined Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomorton View Post
Lots of stuff that emanates from our capitalist system could be improved. But as an economic system, moderated by our parliamentary form of democracy and universal suffrage, it has immeasurably improved the lives and expectations of most people in the UK since the start of the industrial revolution. Note that economic systems incompatible with capitalism do not usually permit the political benefits we casually enjoy.

Taking the long view, capitalism is a rather new and not fully explored system, that continues to become understood only in real time as we live through it and we make it evolve.

The beneficial trend within capitalism has actually accelerated, despite the 2008 financial crisis that everyone seems to think was so historically important. Haven't you heard this week that male life expectancy in England is at its historically highest ever, at 84?

By inference, correct me if I'm wrong, you are attributing credit to capitalism.

However, it is the NHS the medical profession which is a social government run service that surely deserves recognition. Which in turn is supported by the greater tax paying populace.

One could also argue that life expectancy is correlated to more even distribution of income and diet rather than capitalism as in some developing countries where there is uneven distribution of income people don't live that long either.


Not suggesting we do away with capitalism by the way. Just looking at improving it with respect to more transparent numeration and rewards and avoiding catastrophe of the last 5 years and trillions which you seem to have dismissed and batted away as if it was of no consequence.
Atilla is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2016, 5:20pm   #500
 
hhiusa's Avatar
Joined May 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla View Post
By inference, correct me if I'm wrong, you are attributing credit to capitalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla View Post
However, it is the NHS the medical profession which is a social government run service that surely deserves recognition. Which in turn is supported by the greater tax paying populace.

One could also argue that life expectancy is correlated to more even distribution of income and diet rather than capitalism as in some developing countries where there is uneven distribution of income people don't live that long either.


Not suggesting we do away with capitalism by the way. Just looking at improving it with respect to more transparent numeration and rewards and avoiding catastrophe of the last 5 years and trillions which you seem to have dismissed and batted away as if it was of no consequence.

Where are the fallacies that you claim @tomorton committed?
__________________
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money
- Margaret Thatcher
hhiusa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2016, 5:21pm   #501
 
Atilla's Avatar
Joined Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhiusa View Post
What a shocker! More mudslinging from @Atilla

What fallacies @Atilla? You claim to understand logic, so point them out. What points of @tomorton's do you believe to have no validity?

England dervied great financial success from the Enclosure Acts, which enclosed open fields of land in the countryside, creating private property rights. This was a boon to English capitalism.

Jean Baptiste Colbert coined the term "laissez-faire". He was French. Wealthy 21th century Americans are not the only people vying for laissez-faire capitalism. Colbert and other physiocrats started it in the 17th century and was later popularized by Adam Smith. Bernard Mandeville was a Dutch physiocrat famous for his "The Fable of the Bees", from which Adam Smith drew his economic metaphor "the invisible hand". The Economist, an English newspaper, was founded in 1843 and quickly became a prominent voice for laissez-faire capitalism. See, even the English are involved in the laissez-faire movement.

You are either being obtuse or just plain stupid for not seeing the argument.

Have you read this yet article yet?

http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-rb...nt-bank-2015-3

The RBS collapse did not come suddenly.

It was decades in the making, and was the result of an internal culture that put the sale of questionable financial products ahead of concerns about the risk those products would create. The bank grew recklessly, overpaying for other banks that it acquired, as its balance sheet ballooned to £2.2 trillion ($3.3 trillion), larger than the entire GDP of the United Kingdom.

That growth was overseen by two CEOs who had no direct, hands-on experience of banking.


Also refers to Mrs T and the Big Bang and Self Regulation???

Go to town on applying your logic and fallacies argument to that.


Thanks
Atilla is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2016, 5:41pm   #502
Joined Feb 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla View Post
By inference, correct me if I'm wrong, you are attributing credit to capitalism.

However, it is the NHS the medical profession which is a social government run service that surely deserves recognition. Which in turn is supported by the greater tax paying populace.

One could also argue that life expectancy is correlated to more even distribution of income and diet rather than capitalism as in some developing countries where there is uneven distribution of income people don't live that long either.


Not suggesting we do away with capitalism by the way. Just looking at improving it with respect to more transparent numeration and rewards and avoiding catastrophe of the last 5 years and trillions which you seem to have dismissed and batted away as if it was of no consequence.

Yes, doctors keep people alive. But the ones responsible for extending life expectancy so well are paid by the NHS. And how do UK taxpayers earn enough to pay the tax to the government to pass it on to the NHS? Without the earnings from capitalism, there wouldn't be an NHS.
tomorton is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2016, 5:51pm   #503
 
hhiusa's Avatar
Joined May 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomorton View Post
Yes, doctors keep people alive. But the ones responsible for extending life expectancy so well are paid by the NHS. And how do UK taxpayers earn enough to pay the tax to the government to pass it on to the NHS? Without the earnings from capitalism, there wouldn't be an NHS.
And that is the crux of it right there. Socialist things like the NHS exist off of the back of capitalism.

What is there to go to town with @Atilla? You posted some random article about RBS. You posted some random article anout RBS. Once again you commit and a relevant conclusion fallacy.

If you're going to post an article as your argument state how you believe it is relevant.

All that you have done is provide an anecdotal evidence on one company. You are also making a fallacy of composition by stating that since one company does one thing all of them do that.
__________________
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money
- Margaret Thatcher
hhiusa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2016, 5:52pm   #504
Joined Feb 2002
Re the global financial crisis of 2008, this is not the only place to hear that it signals the fatal weakness of capitalism and signposts its imminent inevitable death.

But what are its lasting negative effects? Which of these will persist for the long-term?
tomorton is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2016, 6:45pm   #505
 
Atilla's Avatar
Joined Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomorton View Post
Yes, doctors keep people alive. But the ones responsible for extending life expectancy so well are paid by the NHS. And how do UK taxpayers earn enough to pay the tax to the government to pass it on to the NHS? Without the earnings from capitalism, there wouldn't be an NHS.

Aren't we talking about capitalism claiming all externals and economic rent as due to it self whilst totally disregarding all the social costs of capitalism as belonging to someone else?

I'm afraid you can't have your argument both ways?

Pollution and carbon neutrality is one example.
Atilla is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2016, 6:51pm   #506
 
Atilla's Avatar
Joined Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhiusa View Post
And that is the crux of it right there. Socialist things like the NHS exist off of the back of capitalism.

What is there to go to town with @Atilla? You posted some random article about RBS. You posted some random article anout RBS. Once again you commit and a relevant conclusion fallacy.

If you're going to post an article as your argument state how you believe it is relevant.

All that you have done is provide an anecdotal evidence on one company. You are also making a fallacy of composition by stating that since one company does one thing all of them do that.

Are you seriously saying you can not see the relevancy of the points that article makes?

I find it very difficult to debate anything with I'm sad to say.

You say "Experience of RBS was just one". With you fantastic grasp of statistics and well read opinions I leave it to you look up or google just how many banks were bailed out during the 2007/8 crises.

"If you say anecdotal evidence of one company" this tells me you are not very well read, have no awareness of what's been happening in the market and are quite out of any serious debate.


The article says what I'm saying well enough. Why would I want to repeat the article. For your benefit I've even highlighted in red the material which highlights my point. Do you not see this?


As hard as one tries to be polite and civil with you - you take the biscuit.

Last edited by Atilla; Feb 14, 2016 at 7:04pm.
Atilla is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2016, 7:01pm   #507
 
Atilla's Avatar
Joined Nov 2006
fwiw - said this before but worth repeating.

imo during the Victorian era, we were closer to pure capitalism with very little or no social services or government influence. Government only supported industry like in the case of the West India Company going to fight wars in it's interest.

Many families and even children from ages of 4 and upwards were made to work. 4 year olds were sent down small mine shafts as their tiny bodies could fit through narrow passages.

People would work 14-18 hours, underpaid and underfed and unable to have enough strengh to work longer would be beaten and called lazy toe rags. Whilst the capitalist would be fat and do very little but bugger around 20 servants.

Towards the end, the well to do who had their future guaranteed could not stomach the suffering and destitution. The country, army and industry also needed a better, smarter and stronger labour force to deliver and so people started to feel a bit of empathy to their fellow man and gradually life improved.

That improvement is also based on social policy of looking after the populace.

For capitalism to claim all advances and everything under the sun and the kitchen sink is just pure delusion.


Capitalism is like a black hole. In the end it will consume everything and disintegrate up its own little black hole.
Atilla is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2016, 7:24pm   #508
 
hhiusa's Avatar
Joined May 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla View Post
Are you seriously saying you can not see the relevancy of the points that article makes?

I find it very difficult to debate anything with I'm sad to say.

You say "Experience of RBS was just one". With you fantastic grasp of statistics and well read opinions I leave it to you look up or google just how many banks were bailed out during the 2007/8 crises.


Once again you fail to quote me correctly. I said that you only posted anecdotal evidence of one company, which was RBS. Whatever you posted after that is irrelevant to my former statement. I never said that RBS was the only case. Instead of saying that someone should google something, why not provide the evidence yourself and do some leg work?

You posted one article. It was indeed anecdotal. It was a fallacy of composition. It was also a hasty generalization fallacy. Pointing to one bank or even several is not evidence enough. You are saying that because some big banks have misbehaved, that they all misbehave. Therein lies the hasty generalization.

It is an irrelevant conclusion fallacy because even if you can prove that the banks are "all" misbehaving and misappropriating funds, you have not shown that this is the fault of capitalism. Thus, it is irrelevant. The poor behavior of banks is irrelevant to as yet "unproven" faults of capitalism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla View Post
"If you say anecdotal evidence of one company" this tells me you are not very well read, have no awareness of what's been happening in the market and are quite out of any serious debate.

The article says what I'm saying well enough. Why would I want to repeat the article. For your benefit I've even highlighted in red the material which highlights my point. Do you not see this?

As hard as one tries to be polite and civil with you - you take the biscuit.


This is an ad hominem fallacy. a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, his/her circumstances, or his/her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Form
  1. Person A makes claim X.
  2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
  3. Therefore A's claim is false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla View Post
Many families and even children from ages of 4 and upwards were made to work. 4 year olds were sent down small mine shafts as their tiny bodies could fit through narrow passages.

People would work 14-18 hours, underpaid and underfed and unable to have enough strengh to work longer would be beaten and called lazy toe rags. Whilst the capitalist would be fat and do very little but bugger around 20 servants.


This is an appeal to emotions fallacy. This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite evidently fallacious. It is fallacious because using various tactics to incite emotions in people does not serve as evidence for a claim. For example, if a person were able to inspire in a person an incredible hatred of the claim that 1+1 = 2 and then inspired the person to love the claim that 1+1 = 3, it would hardly follow that the claim that 1+1 = 3 would be adequately supported.

Form
An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:
  1. Favorable emotions are associated with X.
  2. Therefore, X is true.
__________________
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money
- Margaret Thatcher
hhiusa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2016, 7:28pm   #509
 
Atilla's Avatar
Joined Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhiusa View Post


Once again you fail to quote me correctly. I said that you only posted anecdotal evidence of one company, which was RBS. Whatever you posted after that is irrelevant to my former statement. I never said that RBS was the only case. Instead of saying that someone should google something, why not provide the evidence yourself and do some leg work?

You posted one article. It was indeed anecdotal. It was a fallacy of composition. It was also a hasty generalization fallacy. Pointing to one bank or even several is not evidence enough. You are saying that because some big banks have misbehaved, that they all misbehave. Therein lies the hasty generalization.

It is an irrelevant conclusion fallacy because even if you can prove that the banks are "all" misbehaving and misappropriating funds, you have not shown that this is the fault of capitalism. Thus, it is irrelevant. The poor behavior of banks is irrelevant to as yet "unproven" faults of capitalism.




This is an ad hominem fallacy. a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, his/her circumstances, or his/her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Form
  1. Person A makes claim X.
  2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
  3. Therefore A's claim is false.




This is an appeal to emotions fallacy. This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite evidently fallacious. It is fallacious because using various tactics to incite emotions in people does not serve as evidence for a claim. For example, if a person were able to inspire in a person an incredible hatred of the claim that 1+1 = 2 and then inspired the person to love the claim that 1+1 = 3, it would hardly follow that the claim that 1+1 = 3 would be adequately supported.

Form
An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:
  1. Favorable emotions are associated with X.
  2. Therefore, X is true.
Thanks

What about the argument

That growth was overseen by two CEOs who had no direct, hands-on experience of banking.

Which Tomorton said was of no consequence and you thought it was a good point backed up with some illogical connections about managers in the health service which has no bearing on banking?
Atilla is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2016, 7:35pm   #510
 
hhiusa's Avatar
Joined May 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla View Post
Pollution and carbon neutrality is one example.
I do love your fallacies.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and an irrelevant conclusion fallacy once again.

You have not proven that pollution and carbon neutrality are related to capitalism. You have also not proven that pollution and carbon emissions are less of an issue in socialism. Even if there was a comorbity between pollution and carbon emissions with capitalism, that point would be moot. Correlation does not mean causation.

This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B.

This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together. More formally, this fallacy involves drawing the conclusion that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are in regular conjunction (and there is not a common cause that is actually the cause of A and B). The mistake being made is that the causal conclusion is being drawn without adequate justification.
__________________
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money
- Margaret Thatcher
hhiusa is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Capitalism barjon Trading Journals 21 Mar 22, 2015 10:22pm
Government capitalism (rofl) YouAreNotFree The Foyer 0 Aug 21, 2012 11:25am
The revolution of capitalism - John Gray Black Swan General Trading Chat 17 Sep 13, 2011 5:04pm
Socialism, Capitalism or what ? Pat494 The Foyer 45 Sep 1, 2010 10:55am
Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin Dispassionate Economic & Fundamental Analysis 53 Oct 9, 2007 1:21pm

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)