The N.H. primary featured a debate about the nature of Capitalism--odd for a Republican event. Is it possible for a Capitalist to be to Capitalist; is unbridled profit seeking at the expense of some in society by others in society justifiable???
That is what capitalismis about!
And the Libertarians do not care where the chips fall.
It's hilarious to see liberals preach FOR recycling, then get pissed off when they see it called something else.
If a company is done and bankrupt, then it is a form of recycling to go in and reuse it all.
Go in, get all the usable capital equipment, check out all the employees that are productive, sell the building to someone who can use it, and sell the land to someone who can use it.
It's recycling, but liberals hate it because it involves "MONEY!!" (NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooo!!!)
Even more hilarious, Evan, when you realize that it WASN'T the liberals who accused Mitt Romney of Vulture Capitalism. It was Perry, and without using that phrase exactly, Gingrich.
Predatory business practices are not recycling. A justification to assuage ones guilt perhaps??
blah blah blah - reusing capital is the same thing as recycling.
When you throw out a can, someone can come along and turn it into a car (or whatever). This is called recycling.
When a company goes bad, someone else can use the materials to make new things and start generating profits. This is the same thing as recycling.
REDUCE (the waste of resources by) REUSING (the failed businesses and) RECYCLING (that which can be).
When a company goes bad people get hurt....a thrown out can does not, unless they were the target...
it is great when you can define terms as you see fit .... it makes debate so much easier
I think the term "Vulture Capitalism" means that the farmer milks the cow to death and will end up with a carcass that he can not squeeze any more drips out.
Capitalism is fine, but it always has to stay balanced, one sells, the other buys, both win, because one gets good merchandise and pays the correct price for that.
But as capitalism is played out in a way that some just dictate the game, offer crappy merchandise, produced in cheap sweatshops under inhumane conditions, and charge top-prices for that, and they can do it since they pushed every solid and correct merchant out of the game, then we end up with the vultures, who rip us off until they only find crumbs on the bones.
And that kind of capitalism inevitably is doomed, since even the vultures will not find enough to eat, once they have have squeezed every drop of blood out of the producers and the customers. Then they have to start to eat their own race, like it happened in the height of the financial crisis, when they sold crappy investments, polished up by a thin varnish of rating-agency cuverture, to institutionalized customers, which normally would be a no-go.
All that means is that they have come to the point where only their own vast ressources are able to soothe their hunger for more, more and more.
Most employees in sweatshops love working in them. Most sweatshops pay three times the normal wages of the country, and the work beats the alternative: child prostitution and starvation.
Oh do they I suppose you been to lots and met their employees hmm? Well I have an your so stupendously wrong that it makes me boggle, how do you think you would feel if you were paid less a quarter than the retail cost of a single pair of shoes of which you make hundreds everyday? Do you think their idiots? no they know they are gettign screwed and they hat the company the work and the dumb consumer who doesent care, its just that starving to death is worse.
A) Economics predicts it,
B) Wendy Diaz and Jane Fonda shows it: http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=45
I read that article, and even though it is interesting and I understand that you cannot go to a Third World country and pay First World wages and have First World working conditions, I'm still not convinced that any of the firms who do that (and take the work away from the First World, as you can see best in the US), do it just in order to help those poor people.
They have clear cut incentives and one of them is to make as much money as they can, so they sell the stuff at high prices and pocket the difference. If they'd spend the difference transparently and openly to improve the overall conditions not only of the countries they transfer the work to (and don't tell me that establishing more sweat shops with slave working conditions is all they need to do), but also the countries they bleed out by taking away employment that would give more people a decent living, then we might talk again.
Until then, I still call that Vulture capitalism, because it doesn't really ask about the consequences as long as the vulture gets the meat.
so lets go back to the Gilded Age .... oh we are almost there
What is that even supposed to mean?
Let's go back to an age of manufacturing?
beware Wikipedia ....try this http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/databa … m?HHID=142
Re: Gilded Age
oh. the old wives tale of the robber barons.
Sorry, let me just end this by parroting the non-sense that you learned by the historians who don't understand economics:
"THEM ROBBER BARONS DONE STOLDED OUR MONEY!!"
According to Gingrich and Perry Romney was a vulture capitalist at Bain. That's one of the few things I'm happy to take Gingrich's and Perry's word on. Bain made much of it's money by buying old line companies from their original owners, borrowing a bundle, paying themselves handsomely from the borrowed money, and laid off long service employees and in many cases running the companies into the ground to the detriment of the workers and the plant communities. In other cases the acquired companies fared better and are still successful. Romney likes to talk about them and avoid the spotlight on the ones that were raped and abandoned by Bain.
Except for the fact that it's not true... sadly, that's what happens when you just take someone's word for it.
What's not true? What I described is an accurate description of leveraged buyouts. Sometimes they work but often they end up in bankruptcy, plant closures and layoffs.
plain ans simple its about ambition. Without a profit motive there'd be no incentive to get up and run a company
Who would would wake up and try to run a successful and PROFITABLE company, electing to employ others for the sake of employing others and to be griped about with no incentive attached.
of course,there are nonprofits(NPO's) but i don't usually hear of them bringing in free market revenues.. its usually from gov.grants ,etc. and would not exist without free market companies and their employess providing them with their taxes as revenue.
so even the socialists have to admit they need the capitalists to survive ... using the grimey saints saying "WHO DAT FONNA give you them tax reveNEWS, HUUUH!
Who DAT bein DA vulture now HUUUUUHH!
by Ralph Deeds5 years ago
Private equity fund operator Steven Rattner provides a fair assessment of Romney's record at Bain here:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/opini … ef=opinion
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
enterprise- capitalist system while many CONSERVATIVES do?
by A Thousand Words3 years ago
There's no one to step on/take advantage of anymore?Capitalism is defined as:- free-market system: an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by...
by Josak4 years ago
About a hundred years ago there was not a single nation on earth that could not e called capitalist, today there is not a single major nation that could be called capitalist and certainly no first world ones, the US may...
by Don W7 years ago
Is "sustainable capitalism" an oxymoron? Can a sustainable model for capitalism be found?
by Audrevea7 years ago
Genuine question & one I haven't had time to read up on to find out. Sounds good in theory - why did it fail? Could it ever work?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.