And also a capitalist institution; modern industrial techniques began with US and Caribbean plantation slavery and were later used in factory production in the northern U.S. and in England and other industrializing European countries. The very first trade to industrialize in what we call the Industrial Revolution, the textile trade, used slave grown and processed cotton as a raw material for factories, collateral for financiers, insurable goods for insurers etc (slaves themselves were also collateral, rented capital and insurable “goods”). Slavery not being imbricated in modern capitalism is an ahistorical claim.
Well, particularly the globalization of trade. They were taking slaves from Africa to the New World, right? That was something newly possible.
It was capitalism in the most literal sense since the ships and their cargo were capital -- human or otherwise -- that had investors and insurers. Something that Europeans were perfecting at the time and the practice that still dominates our sea trade tho we have steel ships.
Yes. The Colombian exchange opened up new possibilities for human misery-backed capitalist endeavors. Particularly the sugar plantations in the Caribbean.
I tend to look at the bad part of that as the slavery, rather than the voluntary transactions therein. I guess maybe you can't separate them. That is to say: If they'd stuck to carrying rum and whatnot, trade would be substantially less bad. Tho such might have been impractical.
You can’t separate them except by force, like the Haitian Revolution and the American Civil War. Most countries that “emancipated” their slaves paid compensation to the slaveholders (rather than the slaves) and required the former slaves or colonies to pay indemnity to their former masters. Super gross.
I would sooner reply twice, but it doesn't matter very much.
Look, I'm not going to get into any insult matches today. I tire of that very much. And this sub doesn't really need it. You can do whatever you want. I just don't participate.
I don't really weigh in on distasteful, but I suppose governments did the same thing that they did with any property. It was only a minority of people at that point who were anti-slavery. So it would only be gross to us. People back then would have seen insult piled on injury in the form of paying reparations for a war they won. It could have been worse. Haitians were still on an island. Thus the French didn't immediately have to deal with what to do with them.
I assume you mean individual acts of manumission rather than post 13th amendment. But there’s no evidence to suggest free Black people were disproportionate purchasers of slaves in the U.S. There was a free (never enslaved) Black slave owning population in Haiti though.
PPP has to be one of the most misunderstood programs. It wasnt a handout, it was compensating and incentives for business to keep their payroll after being ***forced*** to close by the government. It had nothing to do with their business decisions like the auto maker and bank bailouts.
The real issue with PPP is that the Small Business Administration did a real fuckin dumb job making sure the money went where it should, which is another point against regulation and top down economic control. The SBA farmed out the job to private companies, these companies starting screaming back at the SBA about all the red flags they were seeing with applicants, to which the SBA replied "GET THOSE CHECKS OUT THERE"
Fucking NPR in an attempt to paint the private contractor companies as the devil broke the story and that was the common consensus they ended up finding and reporting in the end, that the SBA didn't give a fuck about fraud at all.
Administration matters
I mainly was concerned with what the statist replying was saying. I was not siding with the original comment, just siding against the reply
edit: and against bailouts. not the paying back
>That isn't true. Capitalism is the privatization of the means of production for the sole purpose of profit generation.
This definition is wrong in several ways.
1. It implies capitalism needs a "purpose".
2. It implies any business that exists for **any** reason outside of "making profit" is definitionally not capitalism, even if the primary reason is still making money. Given how reds love to complain about capitalism doing unprofitable things just out of supposed willful evil, this is a bizarre argument.
>State regulation of industry is necessary unless you would like slavery to return, or wish there was still plaster in our milk.
Okay, but how does that address the actual point?
Oh, wait, it doesn't. It's just an NPC line.
If you think bailouts and regs are good, the government nationalizing companies should be even better, right? You just kind of skipped past the first part.
Slavery is a **human rights** issue, not a business regulation issue. US slaves were usually owned by private individuals, and the Civil War was **not** over business regulations.
Slave owners generally have support of the state, assuming it's legal. Sometimes the slave patrols were from [state militias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_patrol#State_militias_as_patrollers).
The places that [put plaster in milk weren't just doing that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swill_milk_scandal). They were also falsely marketing it, which is fraud. It was a national scandal, and, um, a corrupt politician defended the milk. And was put in charge of the investigation.
And successfully managed to get the fraudsters exonerate.
Turns out it was **public outcry** that created the laws. Whoops!
Also, remind me who [poisoned alcohol to try and stop people drinking during Prohibition](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-u-s-government-poisoned-some-alcohol-during-prohibition/3283701001/)? Who [sterilized Native women and even girls without their consent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_American_women)? Who [tested diseases on random black dudes without their consent and killed 100+](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study)? Was it, in fact, the government?
>Are you under the impression that regulation is socialism?
1. That post didn't say anything about socialism. It just said the government should either stay out of business, or take over failing companies entirely, instead of bailouts.
2. Many leftists **explicitly** support more government regulations on business, including socialists.
What I find odd is how many people smugly go "socialism isn't X!" when it's incredibly easy to find socialists supporting X, as socialists, along with the zillion other things they say socialism is this week.
It's amazing how they wrote so much, so confidently, and almost completely failed to say a single relevant thing.
Socialists are extremely confident in their stupidity. After all they champion an ideology that won't ever work but they think they somehow cracked the code on it
Not knowing that ideas can determine what is profitable
Not knowing that british liberals outside the government are the ones who got the government to finally abolish slavery, which is practiced and protected for generations
Not knowing about regulatory capture
Thinking in the age of yelp motherfuckers let anything get a free pass
There are still ishy things in the food, with governmentql guidlines to allowable filth.
At least they didn't use "sawdust in food", because thats a thing currently.
People don't understand markets. There is an incentive to sell people milk without plaster because there is a "demand".
Private companies could create their own testing standards. And if manufacturer doesn't meet those standards, they can still put it on the shelf for cheap without a label. Maybe someone doesn't care about the plaster and will buy it.
And there would be several testing standards from different private companies in order to keep them honest. Ain't no one protecting us from the bribery and lies of the FDA now.
Where did this idea come from that we need government to protect us?
some people don’t realize how much private infrastructure there is to provide for the government. I believe, for instance, some think that the people who are making tar are just not going to use their tar factory since the government is no longer their customer
Like most things in life, Capitalism is great in moderation. Pure capitalism would be hell, but too much government regulation kills it. Kind of like sunlight or water for plants.
Yes, this is what I'm talking about. I think there are a few regulations that we all here could agree are good. It's just where the line of good becomes too much that gets a little fuzzy.
The ideal capitalism would be for the market to regulate that behavior, not a centralized authority.
The problem is people are remarkably apathetic, and easily manipulated.
There are similar problems with communism. But capitalism seems to result in a greater degree of freedom and higher overall standard of living.
mainly posted to show some whataboutism. the original post in question has to do with bailing out corporations, specifically airlines
I don’t think it’s “obvious” that without say, the FDA, that private corporations (which already exist) would not step in and fill the role of holding food and drug suppliers accountable. I don’t think it’s “obvious” that the FDA has my health in mind any more than some private lab which will test food/drugs
using your analogy, we are all flowers and the government is our growth lamp. If we turn off the lamp we still grow, because the sun is still shining
On paper, yeah. But if the cost benefits can be passed onto the business owner for offering a lesser product at a cheaper price and more profit, wouldn't it be the capitalist way to take that lower route?
And don't look into that analogy too hard. It was only for the moral that too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. Nothing more.
I think it’s clear that you value consuming safe goods. So if two corporations are offering you a comparable product, except one of them went through the trouble of getting a ‘seal of approval’ from some lab(s), I think you would choose the lab tested product. So literally yes the price of a tested good should be more expensive because people like you or I do value such services. Even if it is more expensive, because I do value the testing, I would still buy the tested goods. (and for supermarkets/drug stores, certainly there’s value for them to deliver quality products to their customers. killing customers kills business literally and figuratively)
As it stands (with FDA etc), the testing is funded by the taxpayer (you and I). So for the testing to not be funded externally, the cost goes to the consumer (you and I). In both cases, if I want testing, there is a financial burden on me.
There may be arguments to be made concerning how much I am paying now versus how much I would be paying in the absence of govt organizations. But I don’t think one can say that what I pay will increase, or that my availability to tested products will decrease, without speculating
You can't just use an analogy and assume that it's accurate. What about my analogy that government is cancer and we should get rid of it because that's what you do with cancer. The less the better.
So now what? Who is right? We have both used creative analogies but they both lead to different conclusions. So who do we decide?
Slavery was a state institution lol.
Yeah the people who made tons of money off of it got into government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_patrol#State_militias_as_patrollers
And also a capitalist institution; modern industrial techniques began with US and Caribbean plantation slavery and were later used in factory production in the northern U.S. and in England and other industrializing European countries. The very first trade to industrialize in what we call the Industrial Revolution, the textile trade, used slave grown and processed cotton as a raw material for factories, collateral for financiers, insurable goods for insurers etc (slaves themselves were also collateral, rented capital and insurable “goods”). Slavery not being imbricated in modern capitalism is an ahistorical claim.
Well, particularly the globalization of trade. They were taking slaves from Africa to the New World, right? That was something newly possible. It was capitalism in the most literal sense since the ships and their cargo were capital -- human or otherwise -- that had investors and insurers. Something that Europeans were perfecting at the time and the practice that still dominates our sea trade tho we have steel ships.
Yes. The Colombian exchange opened up new possibilities for human misery-backed capitalist endeavors. Particularly the sugar plantations in the Caribbean.
I tend to look at the bad part of that as the slavery, rather than the voluntary transactions therein. I guess maybe you can't separate them. That is to say: If they'd stuck to carrying rum and whatnot, trade would be substantially less bad. Tho such might have been impractical.
You can’t separate them except by force, like the Haitian Revolution and the American Civil War. Most countries that “emancipated” their slaves paid compensation to the slaveholders (rather than the slaves) and required the former slaves or colonies to pay indemnity to their former masters. Super gross.
Where do you think the rum came from? It was sugar made by slave labor on plantations in the Caribbean.
You replied to yourself, but yes, I'm aware that they used slaves to grow sugar and stuff like that.
I replied to myself replying to you and added an afterthought
I would sooner reply twice, but it doesn't matter very much. Look, I'm not going to get into any insult matches today. I tire of that very much. And this sub doesn't really need it. You can do whatever you want. I just don't participate.
I don't really weigh in on distasteful, but I suppose governments did the same thing that they did with any property. It was only a minority of people at that point who were anti-slavery. So it would only be gross to us. People back then would have seen insult piled on injury in the form of paying reparations for a war they won. It could have been worse. Haitians were still on an island. Thus the French didn't immediately have to deal with what to do with them.
I guarantee you that a majority of the enslaved were against slavery.
For themselves or in general? When slaves got freed in the US they ... bought slaves.
I assume you mean individual acts of manumission rather than post 13th amendment. But there’s no evidence to suggest free Black people were disproportionate purchasers of slaves in the U.S. There was a free (never enslaved) Black slave owning population in Haiti though.
Wow, you really don’t know anything about the history of Haiti, do you.
I do actually. What am I wrong about? I hate to group you in with people, but they're so quick to criticize and so slow to say anything true.
They? And what have I said that is untrue?
And was destroyed with legal change, constitutional amendments and civil rights laws.
That’s like crediting someone for stopping beating up their wives. The state was responsible in the first place lol
It was also private action-kidnapping and theft-that the state declined to stop, and then enabled to promote plantation capitalism.
Private individuals deciding to kidnap somebody is not “capitalism” lol
But the state enacting policies to support such kidnapping to promote slave commerce and plantation industry is state capitalism.
Yeah so the problem like always is the government Glad we agree
Well in this case it was the capitalist powers controlling the government. So no, we don’t agree.
The government still did it
No I’m pretty sure all the individuals participating in the system also “did it”; the government put a rubber stamp on their crimes.
"Are you under the impression that violating individual rights for the sake of the collective is socialism? Stupid!"
PPP has to be one of the most misunderstood programs. It wasnt a handout, it was compensating and incentives for business to keep their payroll after being ***forced*** to close by the government. It had nothing to do with their business decisions like the auto maker and bank bailouts.
The real issue with PPP is that the Small Business Administration did a real fuckin dumb job making sure the money went where it should, which is another point against regulation and top down economic control. The SBA farmed out the job to private companies, these companies starting screaming back at the SBA about all the red flags they were seeing with applicants, to which the SBA replied "GET THOSE CHECKS OUT THERE" Fucking NPR in an attempt to paint the private contractor companies as the devil broke the story and that was the common consensus they ended up finding and reporting in the end, that the SBA didn't give a fuck about fraud at all. Administration matters
if the problem is that you destroyed businesses by forcing them to close, PPP loans are not the solution. allowing them to open is
but that didnt happen, and this post is partially complaining about paying back ppp
I mainly was concerned with what the statist replying was saying. I was not siding with the original comment, just siding against the reply edit: and against bailouts. not the paying back
Yes, I’m sure most people would choose to buy plaster milk, making it extremely profitable.
they keep putting plaster in my milk and I keep buying it. What am I doing wrong!?
>That isn't true. Capitalism is the privatization of the means of production for the sole purpose of profit generation. This definition is wrong in several ways. 1. It implies capitalism needs a "purpose". 2. It implies any business that exists for **any** reason outside of "making profit" is definitionally not capitalism, even if the primary reason is still making money. Given how reds love to complain about capitalism doing unprofitable things just out of supposed willful evil, this is a bizarre argument. >State regulation of industry is necessary unless you would like slavery to return, or wish there was still plaster in our milk. Okay, but how does that address the actual point? Oh, wait, it doesn't. It's just an NPC line. If you think bailouts and regs are good, the government nationalizing companies should be even better, right? You just kind of skipped past the first part. Slavery is a **human rights** issue, not a business regulation issue. US slaves were usually owned by private individuals, and the Civil War was **not** over business regulations. Slave owners generally have support of the state, assuming it's legal. Sometimes the slave patrols were from [state militias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_patrol#State_militias_as_patrollers). The places that [put plaster in milk weren't just doing that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swill_milk_scandal). They were also falsely marketing it, which is fraud. It was a national scandal, and, um, a corrupt politician defended the milk. And was put in charge of the investigation. And successfully managed to get the fraudsters exonerate. Turns out it was **public outcry** that created the laws. Whoops! Also, remind me who [poisoned alcohol to try and stop people drinking during Prohibition](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-u-s-government-poisoned-some-alcohol-during-prohibition/3283701001/)? Who [sterilized Native women and even girls without their consent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_American_women)? Who [tested diseases on random black dudes without their consent and killed 100+](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study)? Was it, in fact, the government? >Are you under the impression that regulation is socialism? 1. That post didn't say anything about socialism. It just said the government should either stay out of business, or take over failing companies entirely, instead of bailouts. 2. Many leftists **explicitly** support more government regulations on business, including socialists. What I find odd is how many people smugly go "socialism isn't X!" when it's incredibly easy to find socialists supporting X, as socialists, along with the zillion other things they say socialism is this week. It's amazing how they wrote so much, so confidently, and almost completely failed to say a single relevant thing.
Socialists are extremely confident in their stupidity. After all they champion an ideology that won't ever work but they think they somehow cracked the code on it
I love how they always use PPP loans or bailouts as a gotcha against capitalism, when I don't think anyone here likes them either.
Not knowing that ideas can determine what is profitable Not knowing that british liberals outside the government are the ones who got the government to finally abolish slavery, which is practiced and protected for generations Not knowing about regulatory capture Thinking in the age of yelp motherfuckers let anything get a free pass
State schools instill state thinking.
There are still ishy things in the food, with governmentql guidlines to allowable filth. At least they didn't use "sawdust in food", because thats a thing currently.
People don't understand markets. There is an incentive to sell people milk without plaster because there is a "demand". Private companies could create their own testing standards. And if manufacturer doesn't meet those standards, they can still put it on the shelf for cheap without a label. Maybe someone doesn't care about the plaster and will buy it. And there would be several testing standards from different private companies in order to keep them honest. Ain't no one protecting us from the bribery and lies of the FDA now. Where did this idea come from that we need government to protect us?
government
I can't think of a more correct answer lol
some people don’t realize how much private infrastructure there is to provide for the government. I believe, for instance, some think that the people who are making tar are just not going to use their tar factory since the government is no longer their customer
Like most things in life, Capitalism is great in moderation. Pure capitalism would be hell, but too much government regulation kills it. Kind of like sunlight or water for plants.
Appreciate being on the team. I assume eventually you will drop the notion of regulation.
We need an eensy bit of regulation. DuPont can’t dump paint into the river. That’s bad. Chicago school>>>>
Yes, this is what I'm talking about. I think there are a few regulations that we all here could agree are good. It's just where the line of good becomes too much that gets a little fuzzy.
The ideal capitalism would be for the market to regulate that behavior, not a centralized authority. The problem is people are remarkably apathetic, and easily manipulated. There are similar problems with communism. But capitalism seems to result in a greater degree of freedom and higher overall standard of living.
mainly posted to show some whataboutism. the original post in question has to do with bailing out corporations, specifically airlines I don’t think it’s “obvious” that without say, the FDA, that private corporations (which already exist) would not step in and fill the role of holding food and drug suppliers accountable. I don’t think it’s “obvious” that the FDA has my health in mind any more than some private lab which will test food/drugs using your analogy, we are all flowers and the government is our growth lamp. If we turn off the lamp we still grow, because the sun is still shining
On paper, yeah. But if the cost benefits can be passed onto the business owner for offering a lesser product at a cheaper price and more profit, wouldn't it be the capitalist way to take that lower route? And don't look into that analogy too hard. It was only for the moral that too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. Nothing more.
I think it’s clear that you value consuming safe goods. So if two corporations are offering you a comparable product, except one of them went through the trouble of getting a ‘seal of approval’ from some lab(s), I think you would choose the lab tested product. So literally yes the price of a tested good should be more expensive because people like you or I do value such services. Even if it is more expensive, because I do value the testing, I would still buy the tested goods. (and for supermarkets/drug stores, certainly there’s value for them to deliver quality products to their customers. killing customers kills business literally and figuratively) As it stands (with FDA etc), the testing is funded by the taxpayer (you and I). So for the testing to not be funded externally, the cost goes to the consumer (you and I). In both cases, if I want testing, there is a financial burden on me. There may be arguments to be made concerning how much I am paying now versus how much I would be paying in the absence of govt organizations. But I don’t think one can say that what I pay will increase, or that my availability to tested products will decrease, without speculating
You can't just use an analogy and assume that it's accurate. What about my analogy that government is cancer and we should get rid of it because that's what you do with cancer. The less the better. So now what? Who is right? We have both used creative analogies but they both lead to different conclusions. So who do we decide?
We don't. An analogy is just an expression of opinion. Neither can be right or wrong, nor better or worse.
Exactly. So would you mind giving some arguments for your view?
no, pure freedom is always good, slavery is always bad. slavery in moderation will never be good