Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Been thinking of starting this thread for a while and in the current Communism thread saw that sebster had wrote this:

sebster wrote:This thread again? It's been, like, three weeks since someone started one. I mean, that was on socialism, but still. If we have to keep having threads where someone challenges us to debate some random economic system, can't we at least do one of the whacky ones? Anarcho-syndicalism or something?

So, to answer his request for something different, I ask the following questions.


Does the US currently operate from a Capitalist based economy or is it a Corporatist system?

If the US is, in reality, now a corporatist society, could an outdated capitalist regulatory system be the fundamental reason for our current problems?

Also, if the US is moving towards corporatism "Should the US continue on this path or move to return to a more traditional Capitalist system?"


What does Dakka think?


edit for spacing

Actually the 'Corporatism' stems from lobbyism these greedy barons did some 60 years ago.

 Lone Cat wrote:
Actually the 'Corporatism' stems from lobbyism these greedy barons did some 60 years ago.

You say that as if it has stopped.

 Captain Avatar wrote:
Been thinking of starting this thread for a while and in the current Communism thread saw that sebster had wrote this:

sebster wrote:This thread again? It's been, like, three weeks since someone started one. I mean, that was on socialism, but still. If we have to keep having threads where someone challenges us to debate some random economic system, can't we at least do one of the whacky ones? Anarcho-syndicalism or something?

So, to answer his request for something different, I ask the following questions.


Does the US currently operate from a Capitalist based economy or is it a Corporatist system?

If the US is, in reality, now a corporatist society, could an outdated capitalist regulatory system be the fundamental reason for our current problems?

Also, if the US is moving towards corporatism "Should the US continue on this path or move to return to a more traditional Capitalist system?"


What does Dakka think?


edit for spacing

Corporatist leaning, but with heavy crony capitalism at all levels.

Is there really that much crony capitalism in the US?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is there really that much crony capitalism in the US?

It depends on how broadly you define it. If you require a personal connection between the players, then no. But if you count complicated lobbying/campaign finance relationships, then yes, a lot.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is there really that much crony capitalism in the US?

Yes for anything related to the federal, state, and local government. Its pretty sickening actually.

Well, our system is certainly not 'capitalist' as Adam Smith defined it, nor is it really a traditional 'corporatist' state, but it is leaning that way and I wouldn't surprise if we went full-on corporatist in the future... Remember kids, corporatism is a key component of fascism.

 Surtur wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:
Actually the 'Corporatism' stems from lobbyism these greedy barons did some 60 years ago.

You say that as if it has stopped.

It continues. Both in USA and outside.

Is corporatism not a natural evolution of capitalism?

The land grab should happen soon enough.

 Captain Avatar wrote:
Been thinking of starting this thread for a while and in the current Communism thread saw that sebster had wrote this:

Thanks! A different debate should be fun.

Does the US currently operate from a Capitalist based economy or is it a Corporatist system?

It's kind of a hard question to answer. Corporatism itself varies widely, top down corporatism (fascist corporatism that has government setting in place all kinds of corporate bodies to compete against one another) is quite distinct from bottom up corporatism (social corporatism, where various interest groups incorporate and negotiate to cover everyone's interests). I don't think any of them really describe the US economic system, though.

I think, though, that in this thread we're not really talking about corporatism but about, as Fraz put it, crony capitalism. The idea that companies of sufficient size gain greater access to government, and so can set the rules up to favour their own interests. That's definitely happening. From the massive subsidies given to farmers, to the bizarre special rules given to specific businesses (the near legal immunity granted to some frakking projects).

The underlying basic framework of the system is capitalist, though.

In America it is all big businessess bullying the small one, and even the small ones that do well and become big, then start bullying another small one, when in actuall fact it would make for a better place if the businesses helped eachother out, rather that made the market super competative, i do realise that there needs to be competition for an econonmy to grow, but America takes "corporatism" to an all new high.

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:
In America it is all big businessess bullying the small one, and even the small ones that do well and become big, then start bullying another small one, when in actuall fact it would make for a better place if the businesses helped eachother out, rather that made the market super competative, i do realise that there needs to be competition for an econonmy to grow, but America takes "corporatism" to an all new high.

How does a foreigner know anything about small business in the US?

Research?

jasperthecat wrote:
Research?

How does one research that "big business is smashing small business" again?

Frazzled wrote:
Corporatist leaning, but with heavy crony capitalism at all levels.

I keep hearing people say this like some kind of buzz word or catch phrase. After a lot of reading on the subject, I've come feel that the term crony capitalism is a way to deny that our economy is no longer capitalist based.

chaos0xomega wrote:Well, our system is certainly not 'capitalist' as Adam Smith defined it, nor is it really a traditional 'corporatist' state, but it is leaning that way and I wouldn't surprise if we went full-on corporatist in the future... Remember kids, corporatism is a key component of fascism.

The key here is to ask, are all versions of corporatism the same?
Why was corporatism the system used in the fascist countries?
Is the use of this system by these countries enough to damn the system without further examination?(People still drive on the Autobahn)

I ask the last because a form of neo-corporatism was used to help rebuild parts of Europe after WWII.

jasperthecat wrote:Is corporatism not a natural evolution of capitalism?

It can evolve from many different ideologies, governmental and economic systems. The list of which can include: absolutism, capitalism, conservatism, fascism, liberalism, progressivism, reactionism, socialism, and syndicalism.

Also depends on which form of corporatism you are referring to. Progressive Corporatism? Fascist Corporatism? Neo-Corporatism?

sebster wrote:

Captain Avatar wrote:Been thinking of starting this thread for a while and in the current Communism thread saw that sebster had wrote this:

Thanks! A different debate should be fun.

No problem, hope you have fun. As my business keeps me busy, I will mostly pop in occasionally, hope you don't mind.

sebster wrote:

Captain Avatar wrote:Does the US currently operate from a Capitalist based economy or is it a Corporatist system?

It's kind of a hard question to answer. Corporatism itself varies widely, top down corporatism (fascist corporatism that has government setting in place all kinds of corporate bodies to compete against one another) is quite distinct from bottom up corporatism (social corporatism, where various interest groups incorporate and negotiate to cover everyone's interests). I don't think any of them really describe the US economic system, though.

I think, though, that in this thread we're not really talking about corporatism but about, as Fraz put it, crony capitalism. The idea that companies of sufficient size gain greater access to government, and so can set the rules up to favour their own interests. That's definitely happening. From the massive subsidies given to farmers, to the bizarre special rules given to specific businesses (the near legal immunity granted to some frakking projects).

The underlying basic framework of the system is capitalist, though.

Hmm, I would like to challenge some of the things that many of us(including myself) take for granted
Then will postulate what could be viewed as some outlandish concepts in order to help open up the discussion.

In the interest of better communication, you should know that I tend to prefer classical definitions the followed by use of descriptors to distinguish variations upon the base. I know that language steadily evolves, but .... there comes a time for a new word rather than continuing to modify the old one.
Think of my logic here as to the concept of human evolution, We constantly evolve while remaining the same species, but at some point Homo Neanderthals evolve into Homo Sapiens. Base line definitions help us to understand the difference.


With that said,

I challenge whether the US is still fundamentally Capitalist. I mean, yes we are a nation with an economic system that started off with capitalism at its base, but its not that type of fundamental that I'm arguing. I am questioning if our economy is currently a capitalist system.

By classical definition, Capitalism is "private businesses" operating in a free market system. Because of the term "private businesses" or privately owned" I question whether any publically traded corporation can truly be capitalist. The very nature of a publically traded company owned by many stockholders, each with rights proportional to their investment.... demands a level of regulation and state involvement that definitely does not fit with the classical definition of capitalism.

So if modern publically traded corporations don't meet the criteria to be called capitalist and if our economy is based upon said corporations, "Then how far do we bend the definition or how many descriptors do we add before moving to a new word that is better fitting?"

If we move to a new word then, "Which should we use?".
Liberal Corporatism?
Fascist corporatism?
Solidarism?
"Corporate Socialism" as Ralph Nader describes it here? http://www.essentialinformation.org/features/corporatesocialism.html
or
"Corporate Socialism" as in: Noun 1. corporatism - control of a state or organization by large interest groups; "
(I will say that imo, 2 of the above better fit our current system than trying to call it capitalist.)

I want to pause and here for a second and ask, "What definition for the base concept of Corporatism do you prefer?" We can go from the one that you choose and add descriptors from there to help better define our meaning.


To end for now, I ask,

"Are we holding on to the "we are a capitalist nation" identity because it is correct or it is tradition?"
"Is it because once we admit to having moved to another system, we can no longer pass the buck and shift blame?
Is it because we know deep down that we will be forced to get off our lazy butts and confront the daunting task of bringing our regulations and regulatory agencies up to the proper standards? "
.
Thanks for your attention to my ramblings

 Frazzled wrote:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:
In America it is all big businessess bullying the small one, and even the small ones that do well and become big, then start bullying another small one, when in actuall fact it would make for a better place if the businesses helped eachother out, rather that made the market super competative, i do realise that there needs to be competition for an econonmy to grow, but America takes "corporatism" to an all new high.

How does a foreigner know anything about small business in the US?

Not this argument again? Aren't you suppose to save this tribalism for Sebster? I would trust a European to know more about business in the United States than someone from the Indpendent State of Texas.

Plus, your question is more about the nature of knowledge and reality and hence subject to a new topic. This one is about Capitalism v. Corporatism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Avatar wrote:
Homo Neanderthals evolve into Homo Sapiens.

Nitpick to add nothing of value!

I don't think Neanderthal "evolved" into Homo Sapien. I beleive Neanderthal is considered an evolutionary dead-end. Homo Sapiens eveolved from Homo Erectus which had evolved from Homo Habilis. IIRC.

In short, I have nothing useful to add to the discussion and should now start a new thread on the evolution of Homo Sapiens and Anthropology.

People need to stop equating "legislation heavily influenced by lobbying groups" with corporate fascism. The economy of Nazi Germany was nothing like the economy of the modern United States. If nothing else, fascist corporatism was inter-twined with war production - the nazis were after total war from day 1. All those committees, quotas and by-laws were designed, first and foremost, to increase the production of materials for the war effort. If that meant stuffing capitalists' mouths with money in the process, so be it. No peace time economy, of any flavour, could compare to that.

Of course you could compare it to other fascistic economies...Italy, Spain, Hungary. All of which were undeveloped basketcases

tldr; capitalism is a spectrum, don't exagerate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

I don't think Neanderthal "evolved" into Homo Sapien. I beleive Neanderthal is considered an evolutionary dead-end. Homo Sapiens eveolved from Homo Erectus which had evolved from Homo Habilis. IIRC.

In short, I have nothing useful to add to the discussion and should now start a new thread on the evolution of Homo Sapiens and Anthropology.

Neaderthals inter-bred with modern humans. That's been known for a while now.

 Captain Avatar wrote:

By classical definition, Capitalism is "private businesses" operating in a free market system.

No, that's wrong. The classical definition of capitalism regards the private ownership of the means of production, not simply the existence of "private businesses".

 Captain Avatar wrote:

Because of the term "private businesses" or privately owned" I question whether any publically traded corporation can truly be capitalist. The very nature of a publically traded company owned by many stockholders, each with rights proportional to their investment.... demands a level of regulation and state involvement that definitely does not fit with the classical definition of capitalism.

Also wrong, a public trade does not demand regulation of any sort. Any party to the trade could easily sort the situation out absent any stricture. Of course, people that aren't party to the trade might not like it, but them's the breaks.

Of course it all functions more smoothly if good regulation exists, because good regulation is necessary for a free market.

dogma wrote:

Captain Avatar wrote:
By classical definition, Capitalism is "private businesses" operating in a free market system.

No, that's wrong. The classical definition of capitalism regards the private ownership of the means of production, not simply the existence of "private businesses".

Your answer here does not contradict my point. The only error I made in my original definition was that I left out the last two very important words of"for profit".

dogma wrote:

Captain Avatar wrote:
Because of the term "private businesses" or privately owned" I question whether any publically traded corporation can truly be capitalist. The very nature of a publically traded company owned by many stockholders, each with rights proportional to their investment.... demands a level of regulation and state involvement that definitely does not fit with the classical definition of capitalism.

Also wrong, a public trade does not demand regulation of any sort. Any party to the trade could easily sort the situation out absent any stricture. Of course, people that aren't party to the trade might not like it, but them's the breaks.

Of course it all functions more smoothly if good regulation exists, because good regulation is necessary for a free market.

Again, I disagree. Unless you try to restrict trade to just the barter system, any economic system that uses "money" will require regulation just to insure the value of said monies.

As to any party to the trade being able to sort such issues out is incorrect. This is because a publically traded company will have investors(partial owners) that disagree with any decision or trade made.

Such disagreements would paralyze a corporation without some form of a control mechanism(typically a somewhat democratic process of voting with their shares). Problem is that there has to be some form of regulatory control to keep those with the most shares from just stripping lesser share holders of their stocks/votes in the company whenever convenient. There also has to be some manner of regulation that specifies whom is to be held responsible for an criminally illegal moves made by the company.(Kinda hard to prosecute a 100,000 stockholders for negligent homicide).

It is this separation of responsibility for the companies actions from the shareholders that forms the basis of a strong argument that publically traded corporations are not capitalist institutions. By their very nature publically traded corporations, require regulations and controls both inside and out that eventual lead to market regulations. These market regulations mean that the system is no longer a free market, hence no longer capitalist.

 Captain Avatar wrote:
The only error I made in my original definition was that I left out the last two very important words of"for profit".

The phrase "private businesses for profit" isn't sensible, or classical. Perhaps you might insert the word "operating" between "business" and "profit"?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
The land grab should happen soon enough.

It's already happening.

Skip to about 2:40.




This isn't terribly abnormal.

As per the discussion, crony capitalism is, according to some, pervasive throughout the various US legislative bodies. In addition, there really should be a way to punish or police large businesses, and possibly have lobbying done away with when it comes to for profit businesses. A restriction on businesses donating to political campaigns may also be useful, or at least a much greater focus put upon corporate or business sponsorship of politicians.

Just look at the Treasury department of the last decade or so. It was kind of run by Goldmansachs at the behest of the government.

With each passing presidency, it is becoming blatantly obvious that America has been hijacked by a "corporatocracy." You dont have to venture far from the oval office (infact you dont have to venture at all) to see who runs things in this country. Obama has appointed 17 former Wall st. theives into positions of power. There are also secretive councils/groups that have been established in which the citizens have now voted/appointed and these groups have taken the initiative to mingle within our government and guide/direct the agenda. These are groups such as the tri-lateral commission and the council on foreign relations. Its disparaging that citizens of the US even began to beleive they have any power by voting...suddenly rich/powerful candidates emerge for presidency and we think we are choosing them>??? The last presidential election featured Obama and Romney, both of which were backed/supported practically by the same corporations (citibank, BOA, Chase, etc etc). There is a banking takeover being commited in this country, coupled with a concerted effort to dilute the sovereignty of our nation and perpetually expand the military industrial complex. Ive already made the decision to leave a live somewhere else the second the US starts to move towards a national ID card, the formation of the NAU, a world currency or a world govt. I urge and strongly recommend, despite any allegiance you have to a particular party (dem or rep--this is much bigger than choosing blue or red) to investigate, do your own research online to find out whats happening....what fox news, cnn, newsweek, etc, isnt telling you. Those who control the media control public opinion and they are doing a brilliant job of keeping the american people in the dark.

I would suggest these movies that are free in their entirety on youtube. Not everything is a conspiracy...some events are simply fact...and a corporate/banking takeover is factual. If nothing else, these movies will stimulate critical thinking and questions. Enjoy

The invisible Empire
The fall of the Republic
9/11 loose change: an american coup
the obama deception
Endgame
police state 4
zeitgeist addendum
terrorstorm

 Captain Avatar wrote:
I keep hearing people say this like some kind of buzz word or catch phrase. After a lot of reading on the subject, I've come feel that the term crony capitalism is a way to deny that our economy is no longer capitalist based.

No, it's just a way to recognise that there is great profit to be found in political connections, in addition to the regular capitalist model of providing the best product at a given price. It is the recognition that a system can be the product of two things, or rather can be largely one thing (capitalism) while having a strong flavouring of another (cronyism).

No problem, hope you have fun. As my business keeps me busy, I will mostly pop in occasionally, hope you don't mind.

Did you ever read my post in that other thread you said you were going to pop in on? Because you were claiming some serious nonsense there and I think it would have been to your benefit to read my response.

sebster wrote:By classical definition, Capitalism is "private businesses" operating in a free market system. Because of the term "private businesses" or privately owned" I question whether any publically traded corporation can truly be capitalist. The very nature of a publically traded company owned by many stockholders, each with rights proportional to their investment.... demands a level of regulation and state involvement that definitely does not fit with the classical definition of capitalism.

No, that isn't what 'private' means in economics, and it isn't what 'private' has ever meant. It means distinct from 'public', ie businesses that are not government owned and operated. Read Wealth of Nations - Smith was operating in a world that had public companies just like we do today.

So if modern publically traded corporations don't meet the criteria to be called capitalist and if our economy is based upon said corporations, "Then how far do we bend the definition or how many descriptors do we add before moving to a new word that is better fitting?"

If we move to a new word then, "Which should we use?".
Liberal Corporatism?
Fascist corporatism?
Solidarism?

Capitalist. We should use capitalist. Because companies trading for their own profit, whether owned by one or many investors, are basic elements of a capitalist system.

I want to pause and here for a second and ask, "What definition for the base concept of Corporatism do you prefer?" We can go from the one that you choose and add descriptors from there to help better define our meaning.

The definition that I think is most useful would be one along the lines of 'a system in which society forms various collective groups, each representing the common interests of its members'.

"Are we holding on to the "we are a capitalist nation" identity because it is correct or it is tradition?"
"Is it because once we admit to having moved to another system, we can no longer pass the buck and shift blame?
Is it because we know deep down that we will be forced to get off our lazy butts and confront the daunting task of bringing our regulations and regulatory agencies up to the proper standards? "

It's because you are a capitalist country. When a person goes to the market and says "I've got a great idea for a new product" and 1,000 people all invest $10,000 each... that's capitalism. If that company grows up to be Microsoft or IBM... well it's still a capitalist country.

But I do agree that there exists a daunting level of regulatory improvement needed in the US, and I think we agree that much of that need has been excused away by 'capitalism!' Banking sector lacks proper oversight? Can't have effective regulation because we're capitalist!

But exactly how you fix that, well that's a doozy of a question.

Only Agenda 21 can save us!

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:
In America it is all big businessess bullying the small one, and even the small ones that do well and become big, then start bullying another small one, when in actuall fact it would make for a better place if the businesses helped eachother out, rather that made the market super competative, i do realise that there needs to be competition for an econonmy to grow, but America takes "corporatism" to an all new high.

Nah. C'mon, now. Corporate competition doesn't just grow economies. Wanting to cut the other guy's throat in the marketplace is the driver of innovation. We only advance through competition.

 Seaward wrote:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:
In America it is all big businessess bullying the small one, and even the small ones that do well and become big, then start bullying another small one, when in actuall fact it would make for a better place if the businesses helped eachother out, rather that made the market super competative, i do realise that there needs to be competition for an econonmy to grow, but America takes "corporatism" to an all new high.

Nah. C'mon, now. Corporate competition doesn't just grow economies. Wanting to cut the other guy's throat in the marketplace is the driver of innovation. We only advance through competition.

or regress. Competition can be interpreted in numerous ways, and innovation has gone out the window. Companies reward employees who innovate poorly, and are quick to sack any employee that blunders and makes a mistake: very hard to innovate there. As soon as there's some start up that manages to poke its head up out of the mud, if it's worth anything, its bought out by a major company, and any further development is killed right there. If it's a little too close to what's already being manufactured by big business? Law suits. Along with the way companies deal with anything they see as a threat in the market. It begins with a C&D, and ends with a law suit that aims to bury the other company in so many legal fees they simply opt to dissolve. It's still competition, but I would argue that its a competition of accessible law, not free markets. [edit:] oh. and speculators. One hell of a lot of speculators. Wish I knew why my parents paid 750'000 for a house that's made of matchwood and paper. Would love to know why someone would pay 1 million for a house made of matchwood and paper, just because it has granite countertops..... I simply don't understand that, it's just bloody damn speculation, but i digress...

The real problem here, is that corporations are legally treated as individuals.... Everyone needs to have a problem with that. How can you treat something like a human being if you cannot incarcerate it, and if it can't die? The biggest problem in construction are corporations that come into existence, build sub-par apartment buildings that need twice what it cost to build them in maintenance, but you can't hunt down the corporation for fraudulent conduct, because the corporation dissolved. But hey, the bastards running it started a new corporation. Same people, different legal entity, can't touch the fethers.

Corporatism vs capitalism is a hard distinction to make, since corporate entities technically operate under capitalism, though, not necessarily with the spirit of capitalism...

 poda_t wrote:
or regress. Competition can be interpreted in numerous ways, and innovation has gone out the window. Companies reward employees who innovate poorly, and are quick to sack any employee that blunders and makes a mistake: very hard to innovate there. As soon as there's some start up that manages to poke its head up out of the mud, if it's worth anything, its bought out by a major company, and any further development is killed right there. If it's a little too close to what's already being manufactured by big business? Law suits. Along with the way companies deal with anything they see as a threat in the market. It begins with a C&D, and ends with a law suit that aims to bury the other company in so many legal fees they simply opt to dissolve. It's still competition, but I would argue that its a competition of accessible law, not free markets. [edit:] oh. and speculators. One hell of a lot of speculators. Wish I knew why my parents paid 750'000 for a house that's made of matchwood and paper. Would love to know why someone would pay 1 million for a house made of matchwood and paper, just because it has granite countertops..... I simply don't understand that, it's just bloody damn speculation, but i digress...

Speculators are something new? Innovation used to be rewarded?

None of this is new, and none of it is anything like the problem you make it out to be. It's just always there, always a nuisance, but history marches on, and we keep advancing our society.

The real problem here, is that corporations are legally treated as individuals.... Everyone needs to have a problem with that. How can you treat something like a human being if you cannot incarcerate it, and if it can't die? The biggest problem in construction are corporations that come into existence, build sub-par apartment buildings that need twice what it cost to build them in maintenance, but you can't hunt down the corporation for fraudulent conduct, because the corporation dissolved. But hey, the bastards running it started a new corporation. Same people, different legal entity, can't touch the fethers.

First up, corporate personhood is one of the most confused internet ideas you'll ever see. It isn't legally a person. It can't vote, can't run for office, can't adopt children or any of the stuff people can do. All that means is that, as a legal convenience, we treat a company as a legal entity in matters of finance and law. That is, if you want to sue a company, you don't have to sue every single employee and shareholder that is legally tied up the company, you just sue the company.

Second up, you can pierce the corporate veil to sue the people who owned a company, where the company was used purely as a shield against lawful action (well, it's a lot more complex than that and beyond my depth as I am not a lawyer)... but the point being the above story of building a shoddy house and not being sued because company just isn't how it works. In fact, if you want to see where the real legal shenanigans goes on to hide assets from lawful claims look into trust law.

Corporatism vs capitalism is a hard distinction to make, since corporate entities technically operate under capitalism, though, not necessarily with the spirit of capitalism...

Seriously, corporatism doesn't mean 'there are incorporated bodies called companies'. Look it up.

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:
In America it is all big businessess bullying the small one, and even the small ones that do well and become big, then start bullying another small one, when in actuall fact it would make for a better place if the businesses helped eachother out, rather that made the market super competative, i do realise that there needs to be competition for an econonmy to grow, but America takes "corporatism" to an all new high.

Competition does better things to national economics than monopoly (of any form)