Support NeoGAF

[Makki]

The government oppressed blacks, not capitalism. Who wrote the Jim Crow laws? Who enforced anti-miscegenation law? Capitalism has liberated more brown people with funny names than anything else in human history, ever. Until very recently more than half the worlds population were peasants.

LOL wealth inequality is a huge issue right now. Do you gauge Capitalism success based on it allowing a few blacks to be famous artists or players?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm simply stating that if BLM doesn't concern itself with economics, it should (if its goals are as broad as they seem). Or at least people in this thread who criticized Sanders platform for talking about economic inequality instead of race shouldn't be seeing those things as seperate.

Yeah, I don't think we disagree, then. I'm saying more or less the same thing (although, apparently not very clearly. )

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

LOL wealth inequality is a huge issue right now. Do you gauge Capitalism success based on it allowing a few blacks to be famous artists or players?

Income inequality is a domestic problem, internationally the poor are better off by orders of magnitude than they were even a few decades ago. India and China alone represent billions of people being lifted out of poverty by capitalism (or in China, some a strange hybrid between central planning and capitalism)

 

[JustenP88]

And we will advocate for a decrease in law-enforcement spending at the local, state and federal levels and a reinvestment of that budgeted money into the black communities most devastated by poverty in order to create jobs, housing and schools. This money should be redirected to those federal departments charged with providing employment, housing and educational services.

I'd say that they have a little bit to say about economics.

Also, lol at capitalism being the great liberator of minorities. Ha.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Income inequality is a domestic problem, internationally the poor are better off by orders of magnitude than they were even a few decades ago. India and China alone represent billions of people being lifted out of poverty by capitalism (or in China, some a strange hybrid between central planning and capitalism)

Income inequality is not a domestic problem, it is an international problem with nations screwing over the economic development of other nations through lopsided trade deals, exploitation, and gluttony.

Want to cite a reason why you credit capitalism with this? There are still about a billion people that are undernourished while there is still plenty of food to keep everyone properly nourished. Do you think that problem is the result of anything but capitalistic economics?

 

[alstein]

The government oppressed blacks, not capitalism. Who wrote the Jim Crow laws? Who enforced anti-miscegenation law? Capitalism has liberated more brown people with funny names than anything else in human history, ever. Until very recently more than half the worlds population were peasants.

The big capitalists have historically used racial tension to get poor white to vote against their class interests.

That's Neo-Confederate politics 101. You see it today with the Dog Whistles as well.

This is why I think inequality comes first, it takes away that dog whistle.

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

Income inequality is not a domestic problem, it is an international problem with entire nations screwing over the economic development of other countries through lopsided trade deals, exploitation, and gluttony.

Want to cite a reason why you credit capitalism with this? There are still about a billion people that are undernourished while there is still plenty of food to keep everyone properly nourished. Do you think that problem is the result of anything but capitalistic economics?

The alternative economic systems, primarily communism and feudalism left even more people to starve. In those systems everyone was desperate practically by design. Peasants in India don't care about billionaires in the US, they care about their own economic survival. And their chances of economic survival are better than they have ever been.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'd say that they have a little bit to say about economics.

I responded to that last page. Suffice to say, the "little" in your post can be heavily stressed.

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

The big capitalists have historically used racial tension to get poor white to vote against their class interests.

That's Neo-Confederate politics 101. You see it today with the Dog Whistles as well.

This is why I think inequality comes first, it takes away that dog whistle.

Racial tension was used by everybody everywhere - most of all by Governments. The point is capitalisms sin is its greatest strength - its all about making a profit, and skin colour becomes less important in enterprise, not more. The slave state in the south was overthrown by an industrial, capitalist economy. Your argument is completely ahistorical.

As I pointed out earlier, racists only became right wing in the last 40 years or so. Racists were perfectly comfortable with welfare and labour unions so long as they discriminated - which they could only get with government backing. When governments refused to implement their racist policies, they became anti-government.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I'd say that they have a little bit to say about economics.

Also, lol at capitalism being the great liberator of minorities. Ha.

But law enforcement makes money, it's not a net cost. (One of) the reasons low-income areas (primarily black people) are targeted so excessively by law enforcement is because local government won't raise taxes, so instead they get revenue from fines, and put police departments on quotas to make up the budget shortfalls.

 

[Infinite]

As it stands, black lives matter is a fairly young movement, just barely a year old. It's a movement that started in reaction to black people being gunned down in the streets by the police and their not being any consequences. So like I said before this isn't a bad thing that a young grassroots movement focusing on a particularly issue that is affecting their communities. This is actually a good especially considering how huge of an injustice this is. Framing it is a negative is shitty, disingenuous and wrecks of goal post moving. Last I checked police violence is a relevant issue. Also since we are talking about a young movement it is allowed to grow into something more than what it represents now, writing it off this early in the game is bullshit.

 

[LaserBuddha]

The alternative economic systems, primarily communism and feudalism left even more people to starve. In those systems everyone was desperate practically by design. Peasants in India don't care about billionaires in the US, they care about their own economic survival. And their chances of economic survival are better than they have ever been.

I suggest getting a closer-than-bird's-eye understanding of the situation.

The peasant in India doesn't care about the billionaire in the US because he doesn't understand economics. Wealth is pretty much a zero-sum game and many of these billionaires utilize and perpetuate the economic despair of people like the Indian peasant to get where they are. The Indian peasant is likely being exploited by many parties, and while ignorance is an excuse for him, it isnt an excuse here.

There is a LOT more to economics, both historically and academically, than "there's feudalism, communism, and capitalism, and people are hungry under the first two."

 

[LaserBuddha]

But law enforcement makes money, it's not a net cost. (One of) the reasons low-income areas (primarily black people) are targeted so excessively by law enforcement is because local government won't raise taxes, so instead they get revenue from fines, and put police departments on quotas to make up the budget shortfalls.

Technically quotas are illegal, but it's easy to have unofficial quota-like pressure on officers. Comparative performance and all that.

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

I suggest getting a closer-than-bird's-eye understanding of the situation.

The peasant in India doesn't care about the billionaire in the US because he doesn't understand economics. Wealth is pretty much a zero-sum game and many of these billionaires utilize and perpetuate the economic despair of people like the Indian peasant to get where they are. The Indian peasant is likely being exploited by many parties, and while ignorance is an excuse for him, it isnt an excuse here.

There is a LOT more to economics, both historically and academically, than "there's feudalism, communism, and capitalism, and people are hungry under the first two."

Wealth is not a zero sum game, you don't understand economics. Here is global GDP over the last 50 years. If wealth were zero sum we'd all be living like peasants 10,000 years ago.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Wealth is not a zero sum game, you don't understand economics. Here is global GDP over the last 50 years. If wealth were zero sum we'd all be living like peasants 10,000 years ago.

Wealth is a zero-sum game at any given point in time, where a finite amount of wealth exists. But to create wealth, you need control over the means of production, and the results of wealth-creating work are mostly ceded to said controllers.

This is how we have a growing income gap problem in the U.S....by the rich getting richer....by withholding a greater portion of limited wealth from the majority...

Capitalism intrinsically does not trend toward equilibrium and will always be filled with this imbalance and exploitation.

You say this is domestic problem, and yes it very much is, especially to blacks who are an entire ethnic group exploited and kept impoverished for the economic benefit of whites. You can see this whole situation on a micro scale when you look at Walmart or a check cashing service. But to suggest this is JUST a domestic problem, with the global economy we have, huge international corporations, and a history of both economic and literal imperialism? Silly.

 

[lednerg]

Nobody's proposing we get rid of capitalism. The reality we face is the struggle between capital and labor in this country, and how capital has been running the game since all the union busting of the 80's. Practically all of the manufacturing jobs in the cities have since gone overseas, and now the working and middle classes have little buying power (but the elites are doing better than ever). Then there's the travesty of trickle-down economics, which the GOP continues to promise is some kind of panacea.

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

Wealth is a zero-sum game at any given point in time, where a finite amount of wealth exists. But to create wealth, you need control over the means of production, and the results of wealth-creating work are mostly ceded to said controllers.

This is how we have a growing income gap problem in the U.S....by the rich getting richer....by withholding a greater portion of limited wealth from the majority...

Capitalism intrinsically does not trend toward equilibrium and will always be filled with this imbalance and exploitation.

You say this is domestic problem, and yes it very much is, especially to blacks who are a an entire ethnic group exploited and kept impoverished for the economic benefit of whites. You can see this whole situation on a micro scale when you look at Walmart or a check cashing service. But to suggest this is JUST a domestic problem, with the global economy we have, huge international corporations, and a history of both economic and literal imperialism? Silly.

There is no economic system in history in which wealth hasn't accumulated to the few. 15 billionaires in Sweden control 20% of the countries wealth - go look it up. Your measure of success is a narrow gap between rich and poor, which is nonsensical. Poor people in Sweden are better off than most of the rest of the world.

The accumulation of wealth to the top 0.1% of earners in the US is not well understood by economists. A lot of research has been done and it is inconclusive. The phenomenon is over-determined - which in technical terms means there are too many plausible causes to reliably separate them out. Everything from CEO remuneration schemes to cultural changes to the superstar effect to political corruption are possible explanations - in any configuration.

But that doesn't matter. Globally the poor are becoming less poor every day, and we have capitalism to thank for that.

 

[Kinyou]

As it stands, black lives matter is a fairly young movement, just barely a year old. It's a movement that started in reaction to black people being gunned down in the streets by the police and their not being any consequences. So like I said before this isn't a bad thing that a young grassroots movement focusing on a particularly issue that is affecting their communities. This is actually a good especially considering how huge of an injustice this is. Framing it is a negative is shitty, disingenuous and wrecks of goal post moving. Last I checked police violence is a relevant issue. Also since we are talking about a young movement it is allowed to grow into something more than what it represents now, writing it off this early in the game is bullshit.

I don't think anyone was writing off the movement because it focuses too little on economics. But just like you can criticize Sanders for focusing too much on economics you can criticize BLM for focusing too little on it.

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

Nobody's proposing we get rid of capitalism. The reality we face is the struggle between capital and labor in this country, and how capital has been running the game since all the union busting of the 80's. Practically all of the manufacturing jobs in the cities have since gone overseas, and now the working and middle classes have little buying power (but the elites are doing better than ever). Then there's the travesty of trickle-down economics, which the GOP continues to promise is some kind of panacea.

You've already conceded your argument is domestic. Manufacturing jobs going overseas isn't a problem for people overseas, now is it? People in this thread are arguing capitalism is a destructive force and that's just wrong.

 

[lednerg]

You've already conceded your argument is domestic. Manufacturing jobs going overseas isn't a problem for people overseas, now is it? People in this thread are arguing capitalism is a destructive force and that's just wrong.

The more that capital stifles labor in this country, the less Americans are worth. Our productivity is through the roof, yet we're not getting paid more. The ones at the bottom have felt it immediately, first in their wallets and then eventually in the state of their neighborhoods. The drug trade has become the biggest, most reliable employer for them. In terms of overseas, things like NAFTA have done nothing to stop workers being intimidated or even murdered for trying to start unions - that loophole remains.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You've already conceded your argument is domestic. Manufacturing jobs going overseas isn't a problem for people overseas, now is it? People in this thread are arguing capitalism is a destructive force and that's just wrong.

Pro-tip: capitalism doesn't mean "free markets". Capitalism doesn't even mean "markets". You can have market-systems and an incentive-systems and even corporations which are non-capitalist in nature - if you're British, you've bought produce from one if you've ever been to Waitrose. Capitalism just means (in the technical sense of the word used in academic discussion) that the starting assumption of your economic system is that capital should be privately owned. It's quite difficult to prove that capitalism has been responsible for economic growth abroad, because most of the fastest growing countries in terms of GDP per capita are ones that restrict private ownership of capital.

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

The more that capital stifles labor in this country, the less Americans are worth. The ones at the bottom feel it immediately, first in the wallet and then eventually in the state of their neighborhoods. In terms of overseas, things like NAFTA have done nothing to stop workers being intimidated or even murdered for trying to start unions - that loophole remains.

The argument that capital stifles labour is a marxist argument. That doesn't make it wrong, but that's where it comes from. So long as capital is reinvested in the economy it contributes to economic growth. Yes the US has major problems, mostly a result of the erosion of the quality of its institutions and Government. Those aren't all the republicans fault either.

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

Pro-tip: capitalism doesn't mean "free markets". Capitalism doesn't even mean "markets". You can have market-systems and an incentive-systems and even corporations which are non-capitalist in nature - if you're British, you've bought produce from one if you've ever been to Waitrose. Capitalism just means (in the technical sense of the word used in academic discussion) that the starting assumption of your economic system is that capital should be privately owned. It's quite difficult to prove that capitalism has been responsible for economic growth abroad, because most of the fastest growing countries in terms of GDP per capita are ones that restrict private ownership of capital.

Yes, as somebody formally trained in economics i'm aware of the definition of capitalism. Most of what you said is irrelevant because in practice capitalism and markets tend to go hand in hand, but there are exceptions. The Chinese economy may restrict capital but it is relatively unrestricted compared to 30 years ago. There are no absolutes, capital is not absolutely free anywhere, its a spectrum. China and India moved along that spectrum and reaped the economic rewards. I'm not even sure where you got that line from, citation needed?

 

[lednerg]

The argument that capital stifles labour is a marxist argument. That doesn't make it wrong, but that's where it comes from. So long as capital is reinvested in the economy it contributes to economic growth. Yes the US has major problems, mostly a result of the erosion of the quality of its institutions and Government. Those aren't all the republicans fault either.

If capital doesn't stifle labor, then what does? Is it just people being lazy? Because, read my edit, our productivity is higher than ever. We're working longer and longer hours for the same pay as a result of capital having far too much power. Right to Work states are especially fucked. And the money from the top tier tax cuts has yet to trickle down to us normal folk like what was supposed to happen.

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

If capital doesn't stifle labor, then what does? Is it just people being lazy? Because, read my edit, our productivity is higher than ever. We're working longer and longer hours for the same pay as a result of capital having far too much power. Right to Work states are especially fucked. And the money from the top tier tax cuts has yet to trickle down to us normal folk like what was supposed to happen.

Yes, at a certain point productivity growth became dis-aggregated from median income levels and that's a major problem. The question is whether its a problem with capital or whether its a bunch of other causes. Note that the american worker has made economic progress - but that progress was gobbled up by healthcare inflation.

Of course its not people being lazy, we can measure that too. Average hours worked have been trending down, not up. Thats true of affluent countries in general:

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Yes, as somebody formally trained in economics i'm aware of the definition of capitalism. Most of what you said is irrelevant because in practice capitalism and markets tend to go hand in hand, but there are exceptions. The Chinese economy may restrict capital but it is relatively unrestricted compared to 30 years ago. There are no absolutes, capital is not absolutely free anywhere, its a spectrum. China and India moved along that spectrum and reaped the economic rewards. I'm not even sure where you got that line from, citation needed?

It's not irrelevant at all. The fact that capitalism and markets tend to be found in the presence of one another, and that markets, under certain conditions, produce good outcomes, doesn't mean that capitalism is therefore good. If we're discussing ways of improving the human condition, it's actually an absolutely critical distinction. I don't even dispute the conclusion that private ownership of capital is actually a powerful means to economic development, but the key point is that this is conditional and not a starting premise - when those conditions are breached, then private ownership must be curtailed. This is not a controversial statement: as an example, we accept that private ownership doesn't successfully provide for the optimal amount of education.

As for private capital and economic growth not going hand in hand, the World Bank is a good place to start. Some of these are a bit misleading (Liberia and South Sudan are both growing so fast now because they have plenty of slack after decades of civil war), but the correlation between the degree of private ownership of capital and economic development is pretty poor regardless. The historical example also militates against it: most of the Asian countries that saw the fastest development in the post-imperialist era were ones which saw strong state control of key industries (this doesn't mean that state control IS always good, it's saying that private control IS NOT always good).

This is also getting away from the key discussion point here. The American political system is set up so that money wins. Capitalists control the means of production, and can appropriate some of the marginal gains of labourers. They therefore have more money, so capitalists win the American political system. That means any laws which threaten their interests are unlikely to pass. Laws which threaten their interests are ones which improve the bargaining position of labourers, so those laws are unlikely to pass. That means labourers see their wages increasingly falling behind their productivity. This disproportionately affects black Americans, who, for historical reasons, control far less capital than any other class.

 

[Christopher]

Being poor is not an excuse or reason to push your fucking agenda that's why the reason crime rate is the way it is. I grew up without two pennies to rub together, and I never committed a crime or needed to rob, hurt or steal from someone, It's just so fucking frustrating to sit here and read that you people have it all solved but but but their poor. No it's not a excuse or crutch.

 

[dramatis]

So there's a pretty good summary of this whole event over at Vox.

The activists don't feel that Sanders — and, just as importantly, his supporters — are keeping racial justice front and center. Sanders has become a progressive hero for his economic populism, but at the beginning of his campaign he talked about racial inequality, if at all, as a symptom of economic inequality.

To Black Lives Matter activists and sympathizers, who've spent the last year or more calling attention to the deaths of young black men and women (many at the hands of police), Sanders's attitude toward race was all too familiar: Generations of white progressives have kept economic issues at the center of progressivism and issues that affect mostly nonwhites at the margins. They've challenged Sanders to make racism and mass incarceration as important to his campaign as Social Security.

Sanders supporters see it as obvious that their candidate's platform would be better for people of color than any other candidate's, and they don't understand what else supporters would want. But for the activists challenging Bernie Sanders and his supporters, it's not enough for progressives or Democrats to call for policies that they think would help people of color — they need to be listening to and incorporating the agendas of people of color themselves.

On how activists are also targeting Bernie supporters:

Morrow and others see this as a continuation of a longstanding dynamic within the self-identified "progressive movement." White progressives can often ignore issues that disproportionately affect people of color (like mass incarceration), or treat them as secondary to "real" issues like economic inequality. But as progressives, they think of themselves as defenders of people of color and other marginalized groups — so when they're challenged on their anti-racist bona fides by activists of color, they tend to react with disbelief, defensiveness, or outright hostility.

That's exactly how the drama played out in Seattle. When Sanders took the mic, he thanked Seattle for being "one of the most progressive cities in the United States." When protester Marissa Johnson took it, she responded to the crowd's boos by saying, "I was going to tell Bernie how racist this city is, even with all of these progressives, but you’ve already done that for me."

On disruptive tactics:

Activists get hit with this criticism whenever they engage in tactics that disrupt other people, from blocking traffic on public roads to holding "die-ins" at New York City restaurants during weekend brunch. But as they often point out, when they try to get their message out using less disruptive tactics, they're often ignored by the same people who criticize disruption.

I'm copy-quoting a lot here, but there are also long sections on "What about Hillary?", the divide between identity-based progressivism and economics-oriented progressivism, what the protestors want, how Bernie has changed over the past few months, etc. I think it's pretty helpful for those who want to understand what happened and what it means.

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

It's not irrelevant at all. The fact that capitalism and markets tend to be found in the presence of one another, and that markets, under certain conditions, produce good outcomes, doesn't mean that capitalism is therefore good. If we're discussing ways of improving the human condition, it's actually an absolutely critical distinction. I don't even dispute the conclusion that private ownership of capital is actually a powerful means to economic development, but the key point is that this is conditional and not a starting premise - when those conditions are breached, then private ownership must be curtailed. This is not a controversial statement: as an example, we accept that private ownership doesn't successfully provide for the optimal amount of education.

As for private capital and economic growth not going hand in hand, the World Bank is a good place to start. Some of these are a bit misleading (Liberia and South Sudan are both growing now because they have plenty of slack after decades of civil war), but the correlation between the degree of private ownership of capital and economic development is pretty poor regardless. The historical example also militates against it: most of the Asian countries that saw the fastest development in the post-imperialist era were ones which saw strong state control of key industries.

First of all they aren't "found in the presence" of one another, they are part of the same economic doctrine. I didn't suggest anything was a starting premise, you are setting up arguments to then knock down. The USSR sustained high economic growth throughout the 50's and 60's, capitalism is not the only path to economic growth. The soviets big problem was productivity, which was about a quarter of US productivity per worker. Over the long term productivity is what counts, and capitalism does it incredibly well.

https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/14498895/gd29.pdf

To be honest I don't even know what you are arguing. Can you suggest a cause for the economic surge in the third world other than liberalisation? Because liberalisation is the consensus answer.

This is also getting away from the key discussion point here. The American political system is set up so that money wins. Capitalists control the means of production, and can appropriate some of the marginal gains of labourers. They therefore have more money, so capitalists win the American political system. That means any laws which threaten their interests are unlikely to pass. Laws which threaten their interests are ones which improve the bargaining position of labourers, so those laws are unlikely to pass. That means labourers see their wages increasingly falling behind their productivity. This disproportionately affects black Americans, who, for historical reasons, control far less capital than any other class.

The American political system is setup by the constitution. The reason money floods into politics is because of decisions made in the legal system. Did Adam Smith argue rich people should be allowed to give unlimited amounts of money to politicians?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

First of all they aren't "found in the presence" of one another, they are part of the same economic doctrine.

No, they're really not. As I've already pointed out, you can have markets without capitalism.

I didn't suggest anything was a starting premise, you are setting up arguments to then knock down. The USSR sustained high economic growth throughout the 50's and 60's, capitalism is not the only path to economic growth. The soviets big problem was productivity, which was about a quarter of US productivity per worker. Over the long term productivity is what counts, and capitalism does it incredibly well.

https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/14498895/gd29.pdf

To be honest I don't even know what you are arguing. Can you suggest a cause for the economic surge in the third world other than liberalisation? Because liberalisation is the consensus answer.

Liberalisation is most definitely not the same as capitalism. Capitalism does not necessitate liberalism, and often tries to prevent liberalism when liberalism would open up sheltered and non-competitive markets, threatening capitalist interest. If you're saying "free markets are great", that's probably true under the conditions that those markets *are* actually free - full information, no unpredictability, no barriers to entry or exit, no product differentiation, full substitutability, and all of the other assumptions that are needed.

The trouble is, capitalism has a massive incentive to stop liberalisation actually happening. If you are an economist or have economic training, you'll know that all profits beyond the sum of the rental price of capital any involved are supernormal profits that exist only as a result of imperfect markets - i.e., because labour's wage isn't equal to their marginal productivity. But once someone has supernormal profits, they want to keep those. So they make sure that there are barriers to entry and exit, they try and conceal key information from consumers, they focus on differentiating their product's branding even when the key product is highly substitutable, and so on. Capitalism is actually inimical to free markets.

As for your final line you've edited in, restricting rich people from disposing of their capital as they wish is admitting that complete freedom of capital between duly consenting individuals is not actually always a good thing.

 

[alstein]

Racial tension was used by everybody everywhere - most of all by Governments. The point is capitalisms sin is its greatest strength - its all about making a profit, and skin colour becomes less important in enterprise, not more. The slave state in the south was overthrown by an industrial, capitalist economy. Your argument is completely ahistorical.

As I pointed out earlier, racists only became right wing in the last 40 years or so. Racists were perfectly comfortable with welfare and labour unions so long as they discriminated - which they could only get with government backing. When governments refused to implement their racist policies, they became anti-government.

Racism is not something that is either left or right-wing. It happens all over the spectrum.

Capitalism is not inherently racist, but corporatism is what capitalism becomes when free markets get destroyed. What is called free-market capitalism these days is often just corporatism and crony capitalism.

A big part of Southern policies was convincing Southern poor whites that their lot wasn't so bad because of the poor blacks. That still goes on today to a degree, but with code words.

 

[Infinite]

I don't think anyone was writing off the movement because it focuses too little on economics. But just like you can critize Sanders for focusing too much on economics you can critize BLM for focusing too little on it.

That's sounds reasonable when you type it out on a Internet forum but in reality I don't think such a criticism is fair. In reality, Bernie Sanders is running for president, he definitely wants the support and needs the support of minorities and grassroots organizations like black lives since A) grassroots is important to his campaigns identity and B) he needs the support to stand a chance in the primary. So it's completely fair to be like "what can you do for me?" If he's asking for your vote. In reality, BLM is a grassroots organization whose goals were inspired in response to a specific issues that's devasting the community it developed in. In time once progress is made on the issues they are currently fighting for we may see the movement evolve to fight for other intersecting issues but right now such criticisms reads as dismissal. It would be like criticizing a breast cancer foundation for not fighting aids.

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

No, they're really not. As I've already pointed out, you can have markets without capitalism.

Liberalisation is most definitely not the same as capitalism. Capitalism does not necessitate liberalism, and often tries to prevent liberalism when liberalism would open up sheltered and non-competitive markets, threatening capitalist interest. If you're saying "free markets are great", that's probably true under the conditions that those markets *are* actually free - full information, no unpredictability, no barriers to entry or exit, no product differentiation, full substitutability, and all of the other assumptions that are needed.

The trouble is, capitalism has a massive incentive to stop liberalisation actually happening. If you are an economist or have economic training, you'll know that all profits beyond the sum of the rental price of the capital are supernormal profits that exist only as a result of imperfect markets. But once someone has supernormal profits, they want to keep those. So they make sure that there are barriers to entry and exit, they try and conceal key information from consumers, they focus on differentiating their product's branding even when the key product is highly substitutable, and so on. Capitalism is actually inimical to free markets.

I didn't say markets only exist in capitalist systems, I said they both lie under the same economic doctrine. Yes, the neoclassical model makes a bunch of assumptions that don't really hold, but economists have to try and make predictions, as terrible as they usually are.

Under the neoclassical model firms profits exists in equilibria with individuals who want to maximise utility. In reality we know that doesn't really work so we have market regulations. Liberalisation is government policy, not a function of capitalism. Capitalism itself is a Government construct, so I don't even know what you are arguing.

As for your final line you've edited in, restricting rich people from disposing of their capital as they wish is admitting that complete freedom of capital between duly consenting individuals is not actually always a good thing.

Yes, except I never argued compete freedom of capital was even possible, let alone desirable. Are you capable of actually having a discussion with a real person, rather than some imaginary one?

 

[zero shift]

Being poor is not an excuse or reason to push your fucking agenda that's why the reason crime rate is the way it is. I grew up without two pennies to rub together, and I never committed a crime or needed to rob, hurt or steal from someone, It's just so fucking frustrating to sit here and read that you people have it all solved but but but their poor. No it's not a excuse or crutch.

What are you talking about? Who are you talking to?

There is no economic system in history in which wealth hasn't accumulated to the few. 15 billionaires in Sweden control 20% of the countries wealth - go look it up.

I just did and couldn't find anything. Could you link me to a source please?

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

I just did and couldn't find anything. Could you link me to a source please?

Sure, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Swedes_by_net_worth lists the billionaires. Divide the total by Swedens gdp - around 500 billion.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I didn't say markets only exist in capitalist systems, I said they both lie under the same economic doctrine. Yes, the neoclassical model makes a bunch of assumptions that don't really hold, but economists have to try and make predictions, as terrible as they usually are.

Under the neoclassical model firms profits exists in equilibria with individuals who want to maximise utility. In reality we know that doesn't really work so we have market regulations. Liberalisation is government policy, not a function of capitalism. Capitalism itself is a Government construct, so I don't even know what you are arguing.

The same thing I was earlier: capitalism is responsible for the current plight of black Americans. You're no longer even contesting that, you're just mixing up the distinction between capitalism and a free market system and sort of bumbling around aimlessly.

Yes, except I never argued compete freedom of capital was even possible, let alone desirable. Are you capable of actually having a discussion with a real person, rather than some imaginary one?

So, to sum: people say that black Americans are screwed over by capitalism. You say "no, capitalism is great!". People respond to that with "capitalism isn't always great, see X, Y, and Z". You say "well, actually I never argued capitalism was great, don't have imaginary conversations".

Ok.

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

The same thing I was earlier: capitalism is responsible for the current plight of black Americans. You're no longer even contesting that, you're just mixing up the distinction between capitalism and a free market system and sort of bumbling around aimlessly.

So, to sum: people say that black Americans are screwed over by capitalism. You say "no, capitalism is great!". The response is " it isn't always, see X, Y, and Z". You say "well, actually I never argued capitalism was great, don't have imaginary conversations".

Ok.

You never even bothered to argue capitalism screwed over black Americans. The slave trade screwed them over, not capitalism. Capitalism is great, it just isn't perfect. Once again, you quoted something I never said. I'll tell you what, go find my post with the text "I never argued capitalism is great" or anything close to it and when you do we'll continue.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Being poor is not an excuse or reason to push your fucking agenda that's why the reason crime rate is the way it is. I grew up without two pennies to rub together, and I never committed a crime or needed to rob, hurt or steal from someone, It's just so fucking frustrating to sit here and read that you people have it all solved but but but their poor. No it's not a excuse or crutch.

now tell us how you really feel

 

[LaserBuddha]

You never even bothered to argue capitalism screwed over black Americans. The slave trade screwed them over, not capitalism. Capitalism is great, it just isn't perfect. Once again, you quoted something I never said. I'll tell you what, go find my post with the text "I never argued capitalism is great" or anything close to it and when you do we'll continue.

The fact that blacks are still economically screwed this long after the slave trade is a testament to our system ignoring or even worsening the inequality of wealth and opportunity among ethnic groups and other classes in this country. And that should not be a surprise to anyone, because it is the natural trend of capitalism for these gaps to grow.

 

[DragonSworne]

Has this organization rallied at Obama events?

You'd think the current President would have more people to enact change than a candidate who has a long shot at winning.

 

[lednerg]

Has this organization rallied at Obama events?

You'd think the current President would have more people to enact change than a candidate who has a long shot at winning.

Found this one at an event in Selma:

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2...ives-matter-protesters-interrupt-obama-selma/

EDIT: Also, this thing in Seattle wasn't #BlackLivesMatter as much as it was Outside Agitators 206. They have a much more radical agenda than BLM's leadership, one that includes "going to war with the Democratic Party". This wasn't like the Netroots demonstration.

 

[DragonSworne]

Found this one at an event in Selma:

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2...ives-matter-protesters-interrupt-obama-selma/

Just wow at Obama's response. No wonder nothing has been done so far by this administration.

 

[Wreav]

Has this organization rallied at Obama events?

You'd think the current President would have more people to enact change than a candidate who has a long shot at winning.

They are picking on an easy target. Obama would shut these goobers down in an instant, as would secret service.

 

[Deified Data]

Is that not the reason though? If I'm remembering correctly. The only reason welfare ever passed in America originally was because they added in caveats that made it near impossible for majority of African Americans to receive it. The original push for single payer healthcare was shot down because the conservative party was worried about the Black Americans using it.

During the Civil Rights movement, many people opposed to integration and interracial marriage compared it with socialism. And were Americans not afraid of Obama because he was going to introduce socialism and give Black Americans stuff as some sort of revenge?

Unfortunately the world is not that simple.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Being poor is not an excuse or reason to push your fucking agenda that's why the reason crime rate is the way it is. I grew up without two pennies to rub together, and I never committed a crime or needed to rob, hurt or steal from someone, It's just so fucking frustrating to sit here and read that you people have it all solved but but but their poor. No it's not a excuse or crutch.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Infinite]

Has this organization rallied at Obama events?

You'd think the current President would have more people to enact change than a candidate who has a long shot at winning.

Black Lives Matter only existed for a year. Obama is at the twilight of his presidency so it's probably more advantageous in the mid to long term to get potential presidential candidates caring about this since they'll be able to do more. Also Obama has been pretty proactive about this. He deployed the attorney general to St. Louis and collected data on the injustices. Also had a proposal for police reform.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The same thing I was earlier: capitalism is responsible for the current plight of black Americans.

Yes, more government-controlled economies will help reduce racism when half of American politicians pander to the racist vote. There's nothing that could go badly there.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The fact that blacks are still economically screwed this long after the slave trade is a testament to our system ignoring or even worsening the inequality of wealth and opportunity among ethnic groups and other classes in this country. And that should not be a surprise to anyone, because it is the natural trend of capitalism for these gaps to grow.

.

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

The fact that blacks are still economically screwed this long after the slave trade is a testament to our system ignoring or even worsening the inequality of wealth and opportunity among ethnic groups and other classes in this country. And that should not be a surprise to anyone, because it is the natural trend of capitalism for these gaps to grow.

Yeah, except you've just done what the previous guy did which is imply causation without actually demonstrating why. Blacks were enslaved, then discriminated against, then given poor schooling, then targeted disproportionately by a criminal justice system. Those things could have happened under any economic system, so explain how capitalism is the problem.

 

[FyreWulff]

Is that not the reason though? If I'm remembering correctly. The only reason welfare ever passed in America originally was because they added in caveats that made it near impossible for majority of African Americans to receive it. The original push for single payer healthcare was shot down because the conservative party was worried about the Black Americans using it.

During the Civil Rights movement, many people opposed to integration and interracial marriage compared it with socialism. And were Americans not afraid of Obama because he was going to introduce socialism and give Black Americans stuff as some sort of revenge?

The GI Bill also passed because the benefits were allowed denied to black veterans (and they were, at a massive scale)