JK Rowling Backlash

[JoeThree]

Nah, the cause is the exact same in both instances: self-important conservatives refuse to accept science and blame the Other for their problems in order to enrich themselves, rather than accepting that society has to take steps to help everyone lest everyone suffer.

We have a system of co-operations. It's called Capitalism, it works great. Best system to raise people out of poverty in the history of the world.

[Captain Crimson]

Nah, the cause is the exact same in both instances: self-important conservatives refuse to accept science and blame the Other for their problems in order to enrich themselves, rather than accepting that society has to take steps to help everyone lest everyone suffer.

We have a system of co-operations. It's called Capitalism, it works great. Best system to raise people out of poverty in the history of the world.

I'm curious, has capitalism ever historically worked worldwide? Because as I understand it, from the libertarians I hang around with, they say it's meant to encourage competition, and that corporatism is the system meant to crush competition, which is the only way you can achieve any growth. And yet a sad reality is that the flaws of a tribal human mindset is a corporation has limits in place, and when it becomes all about money, they will wanna do all they can to ensure they keep making more. So that encouraging competition is antithetical to that goal.

[Darth Wedgius]

Nah, the cause is the exact same in both instances: self-important conservatives refuse to accept science and blame the Other for their problems in order to enrich themselves, rather than accepting that society has to take steps to help everyone lest everyone suffer.

We have a system of co-operations. It's called Capitalism, it works great. Best system to raise people out of poverty in the history of the world.

I'm curious, has capitalism ever historically worked worldwide? Because as I understand it, from the libertarians I hang around with, they say it's meant to encourage competition, and that corporatism is the system meant to crush competition, which is the only way you can achieve any growth. And yet a sad reality is that the flaws of a tribal human mindset is a corporation has limits in place, and when it becomes all about money, they will wanna do all they can to ensure they keep making more. So that encouraging competition is antithetical to that goal.

Are you asking "is there any place in the world where capitalism has worked?" or "Is there any time where capitalism has resulted in world-wide cooperation?"

If you're asking the former, the answer is yes. Capitalism has produced a great deal of wealth and raised the standard of living for a great many people.

If you're asking the latter, the answer is no, because there are some uncontacted people who are part of the world by not part of the flow of goods. It's involved over 90% of the globe in cooperation, though.

However, I think the best way to judge capitalism would be to compare it to the alternatives which have been tried. In that light, capitalism has worked very well. There's a reason that socialist strongholds such as the People's Republic of China and Cuba have re-introduced capitalism.

[Captain Crimson]

Nah, the cause is the exact same in both instances: self-important conservatives refuse to accept science and blame the Other for their problems in order to enrich themselves, rather than accepting that society has to take steps to help everyone lest everyone suffer.

We have a system of co-operations. It's called Capitalism, it works great. Best system to raise people out of poverty in the history of the world.

I'm curious, has capitalism ever historically worked worldwide? Because as I understand it, from the libertarians I hang around with, they say it's meant to encourage competition, and that corporatism is the system meant to crush competition, which is the only way you can achieve any growth. And yet a sad reality is that the flaws of a tribal human mindset is a corporation has limits in place, and when it becomes all about money, they will wanna do all they can to ensure they keep making more. So that encouraging competition is antithetical to that goal.

Are you asking "is there any place in the world where capitalism has worked?" or "Is there any time where capitalism has resulted in world-wide cooperation?"

If you're asking the former, the answer is yes. Capitalism has produced a great deal of wealth and raised the standard of living for a great many people.

If you're asking the latter, the answer is no, because there are some uncontacted people who are part of the world by not part of the flow of goods. It's involved over 90% of the globe in cooperation, though.

However, I think the best way to judge capitalism would be to compare it to the alternatives which have been tried. In that light, capitalism has worked very well. There's a reason that socialist strongholds such as the People's Republic of China and Cuba have re-introduced capitalism.

Those do no apply to the question I raised, but I will answer yours before I repose the question.

1) Greater standards of wealth are also resulting in huge economic disparities. The pay gap, where the big CEOs make thousands of times more than the average worker. It wasn't like that a few decades ago. I'm not suggesting how to fix it, I'm just noting this.
2) As I understand it, the cooperation is limited. Yes, a company has to function as a cohesive team, and you have to negotiate with another business to sign contracts, but they're also in it for the company first, above others, which leads me to repose the question, rephrased.

Has capitalism ever encouraged competition? See, the libertarians I hang with seem to think the government is the real big bad here, because it won't stop regulating the corporations and regulation kills competition. Is that sincerely the case, though? If they stop regulating them, given the sheer size and scope of some of these companies, the possibilities terrify me. Disney, for example, would be an empire that is accountable to no one. I also suspect they'd invest in machines where it is needed, and not the workers. See, since capitalism is defined as "private ownership," that just means that they're going to have the flaws of all humans, and will not encourage competition. It's good for the product, but bad for the owners who could lose money. And they don't want to lose it.

[Darth Wedgius]

Nah, the cause is the exact same in both instances: self-important conservatives refuse to accept science and blame the Other for their problems in order to enrich themselves, rather than accepting that society has to take steps to help everyone lest everyone suffer.

We have a system of co-operations. It's called Capitalism, it works great. Best system to raise people out of poverty in the history of the world.

I'm curious, has capitalism ever historically worked worldwide? Because as I understand it, from the libertarians I hang around with, they say it's meant to encourage competition, and that corporatism is the system meant to crush competition, which is the only way you can achieve any growth. And yet a sad reality is that the flaws of a tribal human mindset is a corporation has limits in place, and when it becomes all about money, they will wanna do all they can to ensure they keep making more. So that encouraging competition is antithetical to that goal.

Are you asking "is there any place in the world where capitalism has worked?" or "Is there any time where capitalism has resulted in world-wide cooperation?"

If you're asking the former, the answer is yes. Capitalism has produced a great deal of wealth and raised the standard of living for a great many people.

If you're asking the latter, the answer is no, because there are some uncontacted people who are part of the world by not part of the flow of goods. It's involved over 90% of the globe in cooperation, though.

However, I think the best way to judge capitalism would be to compare it to the alternatives which have been tried. In that light, capitalism has worked very well. There's a reason that socialist strongholds such as the People's Republic of China and Cuba have re-introduced capitalism.

Those do no apply to the question I raised, but I will answer yours before I repose the question.

1) Greater standards of wealth are also resulting in huge economic disparities. The pay gap, where the big CEOs make thousands of times more than the average worker. It wasn't like that a few decades ago. I'm not suggesting how to fix it, I'm just noting this.
2) As I understand it, the cooperation is limited. Yes, a company has to function as a cohesive team, and you have to negotiate with another business to sign contracts, but they're also in it for the company first, above others, which leads me to repose the question, rephrased.

Has capitalism ever encouraged competition? See, the libertarians I hang with seem to think the government is the real big bad here, because it won't stop regulating the corporations and regulation kills competition. Is that sincerely the case, though? If they stop regulating them, given the sheer size and scope of some of these companies, the possibilities terrify me. Disney, for example, would be an empire that is accountable to no one. I also suspect they'd invest in machines where it is needed, and not the workers. See, since capitalism is defined as "private ownership," that just means that they're going to have the flaws of all humans, and will not encourage competition. It's good for the product, but bad for the owners who could lose money. And they don't want to lose it.

For (1) yes, capitalism has not worked equally well for everyone. But that doesn't mean it hasn't worked, unless nothing else in history has worked, either. Even hammers aren't equally good for everyone. Capitalism has helped by far the majority of people.

For (2), yes, cooperation is limited. But I think for cooperation to be unlimited, you'd have to be Borg.

For the last, yes, capitalism has encouraged competition. There are several competing brands of smart phones, and the smart phones keep improving overall as the manufacturers compete against each other. The same thing happened with microcomputers before Windows and Apple came out on top, and happens to this day with automobiles, airplanes, appliances, and many other things that don't even start with "A".

But to answer what I think is the spirit of your question, capitalism without safeguards against monopolies can quickly get into a situation where there is reduced competitive pressure. If Apple bought up all the smart phone companies; for example, economies of scale, contracts with cellular service providers, contracts with advertisers, etc., could make it highly impractical for anyone to start a new smart phone to sell. IMO, regulation does not always kill competition. It can act as a drag on competition by increasing the barriers to new start-ups, but not everything in life is always helpful or always harmful. A basic principle of toxicology is "the dose makes the poison."

[Captain Crimson]

Nah, the cause is the exact same in both instances: self-important conservatives refuse to accept science and blame the Other for their problems in order to enrich themselves, rather than accepting that society has to take steps to help everyone lest everyone suffer.

We have a system of co-operations. It's called Capitalism, it works great. Best system to raise people out of poverty in the history of the world.

I'm curious, has capitalism ever historically worked worldwide? Because as I understand it, from the libertarians I hang around with, they say it's meant to encourage competition, and that corporatism is the system meant to crush competition, which is the only way you can achieve any growth. And yet a sad reality is that the flaws of a tribal human mindset is a corporation has limits in place, and when it becomes all about money, they will wanna do all they can to ensure they keep making more. So that encouraging competition is antithetical to that goal.

Are you asking "is there any place in the world where capitalism has worked?" or "Is there any time where capitalism has resulted in world-wide cooperation?"

If you're asking the former, the answer is yes. Capitalism has produced a great deal of wealth and raised the standard of living for a great many people.

If you're asking the latter, the answer is no, because there are some uncontacted people who are part of the world by not part of the flow of goods. It's involved over 90% of the globe in cooperation, though.

However, I think the best way to judge capitalism would be to compare it to the alternatives which have been tried. In that light, capitalism has worked very well. There's a reason that socialist strongholds such as the People's Republic of China and Cuba have re-introduced capitalism.

Those do no apply to the question I raised, but I will answer yours before I repose the question.

1) Greater standards of wealth are also resulting in huge economic disparities. The pay gap, where the big CEOs make thousands of times more than the average worker. It wasn't like that a few decades ago. I'm not suggesting how to fix it, I'm just noting this.
2) As I understand it, the cooperation is limited. Yes, a company has to function as a cohesive team, and you have to negotiate with another business to sign contracts, but they're also in it for the company first, above others, which leads me to repose the question, rephrased.

Has capitalism ever encouraged competition? See, the libertarians I hang with seem to think the government is the real big bad here, because it won't stop regulating the corporations and regulation kills competition. Is that sincerely the case, though? If they stop regulating them, given the sheer size and scope of some of these companies, the possibilities terrify me. Disney, for example, would be an empire that is accountable to no one. I also suspect they'd invest in machines where it is needed, and not the workers. See, since capitalism is defined as "private ownership," that just means that they're going to have the flaws of all humans, and will not encourage competition. It's good for the product, but bad for the owners who could lose money. And they don't want to lose it.

For (1) yes, capitalism has not worked equally well for everyone. But that doesn't mean it hasn't worked, unless nothing else in history has worked, either. Even hammers aren't equally good for everyone. Capitalism has helped by far the majority of people.

For (2), yes, cooperation is limited. But I think for cooperation to be unlimited, you'd have to be Borg.

For the last, yes, capitalism has encouraged competition. There are several competing brands of smart phones, and the smart phones keep improving overall as the manufacturers compete against each other. The same thing happened with microcomputers before Windows and Apple came out on top, and happens to this day with automobiles, airplanes, appliances, and many other things that don't even start with "A".

But to answer what I think is the spirit of your question, capitalism without safeguards against monopolies can quickly get into a situation where there is reduced competitive pressure. If Apple bought up all the smart phone companies; for example, economies of scale, contracts with cellular service providers, contracts with advertisers, etc., could make it highly impractical for anyone to start a new smart phone to sell. IMO, regulation does not always kill competition. It can act as a drag on competition by increasing the barriers to new start-ups, but not everything in life is always helpful or always harmful. A basic principle of toxicology is "the dose makes the poison."

I see. Thanks for your well thought out and meticulous reply. Whether for those I agree or disagree with, I still respect it when they make a detailed argument.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

For where shall we have ended up without articulation, one ponders thee.

[Captain Crimson]

For where shall we have ended up without articulation, one ponders thee.

Articulation reconciles homo sapiens disparities! Without it, we are gone fight in death.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Nah, the cause is the exact same in both instances: self-important conservatives refuse to accept science and blame the Other for their problems in order to enrich themselves, rather than accepting that society has to take steps to help everyone lest everyone suffer.

We have a system of co-operations. It's called Capitalism, it works great. Best system to raise people out of poverty in the history of the world.

You trying to get a standup show on netflix?

[JoeThree]

Nah, the cause is the exact same in both instances: self-important conservatives refuse to accept science and blame the Other for their problems in order to enrich themselves, rather than accepting that society has to take steps to help everyone lest everyone suffer.

We have a system of co-operations. It's called Capitalism, it works great. Best system to raise people out of poverty in the history of the world.

You trying to get a standup show on netflix?

You trying to get 100+ million people killed by supporting Socialism?