[Newfie]

I hear you, but picking your beliefs it just an example of "natural selection."

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wildbourgman', 'R')alfy, crony capitalism and/or the fascism of today that bails out failure in the name of growth and protecting the middle class is not the free market and never will be.

I think the sentence below works better. See we almost agree.

Free market capitalism that has been dormant for decades, which is why the global economy is controlled by financial corporations :

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wildbourgman', 'N')ewfie, I think that the term you used "quest for efficiency" is where I think that free market capitalism in it's true and un-bastardized form is very similar to natural selection.

I also find it very telling that many leftward leaning people chide folks on the right for not believing in science when it fits thier agenda on issues such as climate change. Now, I'm of the belief that science doesn't stop just before it gets to homo sapiens. I'm of the view whether it's sociology, economics, biology or physics, having a robust welfare state can not be healthy for the human species. Now why would someone who will rebuke folks for not believing in evolution not also see that evolutionary concepts are still at play when it comes to humans today.

One example I would use is mate selection. A man naturally looks for physical attributes that will eventually assist his mate in rearing children, like large breast, no change there. A woman (and her family when applicable) used to look for a mans ability to provide for and protect her young. Now a mans ability to provide could go from being able to club bambi and drag it back to the cave or it could be his ability to navigate Wall Street and make a high six figure salary.

My thought is that in Welfare state a woman can throw all those concepts to the side, because it's not the father that is the provider, it's the state. So what I'm getting to is that if we are to believe in evolution and not an omnipotent being in control, then why is it such a foriegn concept to believe that humans are getting away from the concepts of Darwin genetically?

As an aside it's funny how folks like Obama quote scripture when it fits their narative as he has done recently and then mock religion when science better fits his agenda. I know that's just politics.

[wildbourgman]

Ok Ralphy you say this "in natural selection, nature selects which species will thrive. The ability of that species to thrive is based on mutation (in general, random), and that may be advantageous given particular features in the environment. "


But you also say "Crony capitalism, bailouts, and protecting the middle class are the result of a free market. That's because with a free market, some become stronger than most and then take over."

I have been saying that Natural selection is alot like free market capitalism I stand by that even more because of your two quotes and you actually explain it well in those two quotes. Now after reading your last two post I'm having a real hard time disagreeing with you, but I will say that I think from what you said in the two comments I posted you should agree with me too. I changed a few words and put your two comments together below in bold. I can agree with that and I think you pretty much said it.

I don't like it, but your right the free market has mutated, just as organisms do in natural selection, so are they not the same? I don't think all mutations in natural selection end up being sustainable just as the mutation of the free market towards cronyism will not be sustainable. That's the part I don't want to agree with you on due to my political leanings, but it's becoming more and more apparent every day.


In the free market, economics select which business will thrive. The ability of that business to thrive is based on mutation (in general, random), and that may be advantageous given particular features in the economic environment. Crony capitalism, bailouts, and protecting the middle class are the result of a free market's mutation. That's because with a free market, some become stronger than most and then take over.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wildbourgman', '[')b]Ok Ralphy you say this "in natural selection, nature selects which species will thrive. The ability of that species to thrive is based on mutation (in general, random), and that may be advantageous given particular features in the environment. "

But you also say "Crony capitalism, bailouts, and protecting the middle class are the result of a free market. That's because with a free market, some become stronger than most and then take over."

I have been saying that Natural selection is alot like free market capitalism I stand by that even more because of your two quotes and you actually explain it well in those two quotes. Now after reading your last two post I'm having a real hard time disagreeing with you, but I will say that I think from what you said in the two comments I posted you should agree with me too. I changed a few words and put your two comments together below in bold. I can agree with that and I think you pretty much said it.

[Newfie]

I don't know this guy, but it seemed appropriate to here.


http://drglenbarry.blogspot.com/search? ... date=false

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')od Pollution: Nature Is My Religion, Earth Is My Temple
There are no invisible ghosts in the sky ruling over and judging us. God pollution kills, obscures truth, and slows progress. All we have and need is each other, kindred species, ecosystems, and the biosphere.

[wildbourgman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')n top of that, the economic environment can even be shifted to the advantage of one group of businesses, industry sector, etc., or another. This runs contrary to natural selection, where the environment changes naturally and mutations (which are not deliberate) take place. This is also why a free market does not mutate. Rather, laws and regulations are changed to suit the advantage of those who have concentrated amounts of wealth, which is what happens when a free market becomes a free market capitalist system.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wildbourgman', '
')
See your forgetting that humans are part of nature and have we not shifted the environment to take advantage of things and are you not in favor of shifting it back? So the capability of organisms shifting an environment is not out of the question even in nature. The mutations and natural selection that gave humans the mental capability to shift the environment may not be considered natural, but I don't think it has to be natural in the free market either.

[wildbourgman]

Ok Ralfy, now I'm thoroughly confused to the point that I can niether agree nor disagree.

[Newfie]

Wild,

NEVER apologize for you self. You are a thinking person, and more, willing to learn. That in itself is far more useful than a PhD. I too came from the trades, and I've still got dirt under my nails. Lots of damn dumb Drs., Lawyers, Enginners, and such out there. Lots of smart blue collars too.

As to being confused, join the crowd. If your not confused your not listening. And if your not listening your not learning.

One of the hardest things I have ever done is to learn to say "I don't know." I used to be ashamed of not knowing and felt weak willed if I didn't take a stance. That was pretty stupid.

[wildbourgman]

Newfie, I'm trying to develope a comparison and I feel like Ralfy's is picking out distinctions that really don't make a difference to my overall thought. I read through it and I don't see why I should adjust my way of thinking just because it confuses me. I do feel like Ralfy's earlier post in my view actually assisted the analogy I'm trying to create even though Ralfy doesn't agree.

I'm going to work on it.

Have a good day!

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wildbourgman', 'N')ewfie, I'm trying to develope a comparison and I feel like Ralfy's is picking out distinctions that really don't make a difference to my overall thought. I read through it and I don't see why I should adjust my way of thinking just because it confuses me. I do feel like Ralfy's earlier post in my view actually assisted the analogy I'm trying to create even though Ralfy doesn't agree.

I'm going to work on it.

Have a good day!

[wildbourgman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')apitalism : a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government

Full Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wildbourgman', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')apitalism : a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government

Full Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

[SeaGypsy]

WBM, I have had a very similar head bang with Ralphy, I understand your frustration. For instance the last line of his last post- obviously not true. The USA imposes trade tariffs galore, development controls, real estate restrictions & trade rules. Not a free market. He has this weird idea that if growth is at all restricted, capitalism falls dead in it's tracks- again, clearly not true. I give up.

[wildbourgman]

I agree with you SeaGypsy.

[Newfie]

I see very little of capitalism in the USA. I see Consumerisim. Beyond that I ind of think that what Capitalism we had could not support sufficient growth. Thus Capitalisim gave way to Consumerisim, which is just a way to support continued growth at any cost.

Take our screwy health care system. The cost efficient, capitalistic, way for health care would require something far more efficient by way of a Payment system. Instead we have the most convoluted and inefficient payment system in the world. I work, pay taxes, money goes to IRS, transferred to another agency, transferred to the state, transferred to a disbursement t agency, and eventually reaches a Dr. who gives care to someone. There are far more employed in our health care money disbursement system than there are providers.

That fits a Consumerisim model where the goal is to provide full employment. It does not fit a capitalistic model here the goal is efficiency.

That makes sense. In our calorie rich world we have no problem making things. We have all the stuff we need. What we have is a social problem trying to keep people employed, so they feel useful. So they don't riot. Consumerism works to this problem very well. It also requires continued growth to keep up with the growing population.

Other examples abound.

In the US, I contend, belief in this system has risen to the level of religion.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'W')BM, I have had a very similar head bang with Ralphy, I understand your frustration. For instance the last line of his last post- obviously not true. The USA imposes trade tariffs galore, development controls, real estate restrictions & trade rules. Not a free market. He has this weird idea that if growth is at all restricted, capitalism falls dead in it's tracks- again, clearly not true. I give up.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'I') see very little of capitalism in the USA. I see Consumerisim. Beyond that I ind of think that what Capitalism we had could not support sufficient growth. Thus Capitalisim gave way to Consumerisim, which is just a way to support continued growth at any cost.

Take our screwy health care system. The cost efficient, capitalistic, way for health care would require something far more efficient by way of a Payment system. Instead we have the most convoluted and inefficient payment system in the world. I work, pay taxes, money goes to IRS, transferred to another agency, transferred to the state, transferred to a disbursement t agency, and eventually reaches a Dr. who gives care to someone. There are far more employed in our health care money disbursement system than there are providers.

That fits a Consumerisim model where the goal is to provide full employment. It does not fit a capitalistic model here the goal is efficiency.

That makes sense. In our calorie rich world we have no problem making things. We have all the stuff we need. What we have is a social problem trying to keep people employed, so they feel useful. So they don't riot. Consumerism works to this problem very well. It also requires continued growth to keep up with the growing population.

Other examples abound.

In the US, I contend, belief in this system has risen to the level of religion.

[SeaGypsy]

Bloody hell mate. Do a synonym search for 'free'. The word 'regulation' will not be there. The only free market is the black market.

You just don't get the fact that growth virtually always occurs in some areas, while decline happens in others. Nobody compels investment, with the sole exception of mandated retirement funds, 401k, Aus Super etc. investment is at the discretion of the investor. Most of the economy can go down the toilet, overall growth can vanish, without at all affecting capitalism as the mainstay of the economic system.

Sick of this crap. Have fun anyone who can be bothered.