The WEF and "Degrowth"(a.k.a. Degrowth Communism)

[Gandalf the Grey]

Why is the vicious "creative destruction" inherent in capitalism OK but not the same phenomenon arising from other causes?

Because I have more faith in the gradual processes of innovation and the collective wisdom of the millions of people who comprise the market than I do elitist coterie of social-constructionist autocrats who just want to use the populace as a petri dish for their social conditioning experiments.

[gherkin]

Why is the vicious "creative destruction" inherent in capitalism OK but not the same phenomenon arising from other causes?

Because I have more faith in the gradual processes of innovation and the collective wisdom of the millions of people who comprise the market than I do elitist coterie of social-constructionist autocrats who just want to use the populace as a petri dish for their social conditioning experiments.

When you consider the size of the porn "industry," is your faith in the wisdom of the market at all shaken?

More deeply, why would you consider that the market somehow operates in isolation from the guidance of the social-constructionist autocrats? If you've studied Distributism, you're aware that one of the major critiques of capitalism in their view is its dependence for "success" on the few plutocrats who make the rules (and, as it happens, also own much of the property).

[Gandalf the Grey]

When you consider the size of the porn "industry," is your faith in the wisdom of the market at all shaken?

I'm sorry, but that's like someone arguing that because there are some pedophile priests that therefore I should be shaken regarding the wisdom of the existence of the priesthood.

Do people abusing the system or institution necessarily call to question the validity of the system or institution?

More deeply, why would you consider that the market somehow operates in isolation from the guidance of the social-constructionist autocrats?

I won't argue that there might be some minor overlap. But I don't seriously believe that there's sufficient enough there for it to be significant. People make their own decisions on their own needs, not because some commercial or some government bureaucrat tells them to.

If you've studied Distributism, you're aware that one of the major critiques of capitalism in their view is its dependence for "success" on the few plutocrats who make the rules (and, as it happens, also own much of the property).

And as far as I'm concerned that's a strawman fallacy. Cronyism and Corporatism-the idea of corporations and governments working hand-in-hand to carve out government sanctioned monopolies-isn't Free Market Economics but AFAIC is more closely related to Leftist collectivist programs. It's no different than Marx ascribing "capitalism" to late 19th century British mercantilism.

It's like trying to say a system like the WEFs "Stakeholder Capitalism" is somehow capitalism, when it's anything but. I'm not saying that it's using "capitalism" as a catch-all term for all sorts of economic practices that someone doesn't like, but it sorta is exactly like using "capitalism" as a catch-all term for all sorts of economic practices that they don't like.

I correct plenty of Republicans who blithely want to ascribe "socialism" to everything from social security to funding local fire departments. So it's not like I'm only doing this from some stilted and ideologically biased point of view.

[gherkin]

I'm sorry, but that's like someone arguing that because there are some pedophile priests that therefore I should be shaken regarding the wisdom of the existence of the priesthood.

Do people abusing the system or institution necessarily call to question the validity of the system or institution?

It's not like that at all. The porn industry isn't an abuse of the system. It is the system at work. Supply and "value" are driven by demand. You say you're trusting in the collective wisdom of those who generate the demand that drives the market. But have a quick look at some of what they demand. Disposable appliances, porn, "convenience" food, plastic everything.

I won't argue that there might be some minor overlap. But I don't seriously believe that there's sufficient enough there for it to be significant. People make their own decisions on their own needs, not because some commercial or some government bureaucrat tells them to.

You need to study up, my friend. As a first place to look into, check out the overlap between the USDA and the few giant firms that run food in the US (and globally). There is a straightforward revolving door between the major corporations like Tyson and the USDA: the people making the regulations are the people running corporate food. And hence, food regulation for the last century has invariably favored the massive producers (and helped them in their near-total monopolies) and damaged the small producer. Or just think about the recent ridiculous covid responses: ask yourself which businesses benefited (cough Amazon) and which suffered. How many small businesses were finally killed off--leaving a market gap for the major corporate entities to take over--precisely because of government interference?

And as far as I'm concerned that's a strawman fallacy. Cronyism and Corporatism-the idea of corporations and governments working hand-in-hand to carve out government sanctioned monopolies-isn't Free Market Economics but AFAIC is more closely related to Leftist collectivist programs. It's no different than Marx ascribing "capitalism" to late 19th century British mercantilism.

It's like trying to say a system like the WEFs "Stakeholder Capitalism" is somehow capitalism, when it's anything but. I'm not saying that it's using "capitalism" as a catch-all term for all sorts of economic practices that someone doesn't like, but it sorta is exactly like using "capitalism" as a catch-all term for all sorts of economic practices that they don't like.

I correct plenty of Republicans who blithely want to ascribe "socialism" to everything from social security to funding local fire departments. So it's not like I'm only doing this from some stilted and ideologically biased point of view.

What do you think I'm strawmanning? I'm not talking about fairy story "capitalism," as found in the textbooks written by libertarians or Ayn Rand. I'm talking about "capitalism" (or, if you like, your "market") as it has ever actually existed. On that point, see my above.

[Vern Humphrey]

And as far as I'm concerned that's a strawman fallacy. Cronyism and Corporatism-the idea of corporations and governments working hand-in-hand to carve out government sanctioned monopolies-isn't Free Market Economics but AFAIC is more closely related to Leftist collectivist programs. It's no different than Marx ascribing "capitalism" to late 19th century British mercantilism.

It's like trying to say a system like the WEFs "Stakeholder Capitalism" is somehow capitalism, when it's anything but. I'm not saying that it's using "capitalism" as a catch-all term for all sorts of economic practices that someone doesn't like, but it sorta is exactly like using "capitalism" as a catch-all term for all sorts of economic practices that they don't like.

I correct plenty of Republicans who blithely want to ascribe "socialism" to everything from social security to funding local fire departments. So it's not like I'm only doing this from some stilted and ideologically biased point of view.

Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production and distribution, operated for profit in a competitive market.

Name two capitalists from the bible: Jesus and Joseph. They were carpenters and owned their own tools (the means of production.) They supported themselves by selling the finished product for more than the cost of the raw materials (profit). and they were not the only carpenters in Galilee.

Socialism is govern ownership or control of the means of production and distribution, operated for political reasons in a monopoly environment.

Communism is socialism with class warfare.

[Gandalf the Grey]

It's not like that at all. The porn industry isn't an abuse of the system. It is the system at work. Supply and "value" are driven by demand. You say you're trusting in the collective wisdom of those who generate the demand that drives the market. But have a quick look at some of what they demand. Disposable appliances, porn, "convenience" food, plastic everything.

So, again, turning your own argument back on you, you're saying that because the Church drives the supply of available children in order to meet the generated demand of pedophiles that the Church and Catholicism as systems and institutions drives pedophilia.

It's not fair to make the assertion that because "capitalism"-which hasn't ever made any sort of promise to stop people from acting maliciously- has "failed" because it doesn't sufficiently stop people from acting maliciously. Just like it's not fair to blame Catholicism because of the pedophile scandal because it never promised to make people perfect or to stop them from sinning. It can't. Just like it can't stop malicious actors intent on doing evil from gaining positions of high authority. The Episcopacy makes the decision to trust the general good-will of people, to give them the charity of the benefit of the doubt, including people who claim to feel the call for priestly vocation. That allowed malicious individuals to abuse that good will and to infiltrate Holy Orders. So, with that said, according to you I should conclude that this corruption means that I should abandon the Church because it's failed?

No. I don't buy that for a second. And I don't think that you would either.

So "capitalism" doesn't act in the manner that you'd like it to. Ok, so what? It never claimed to be a perfect system, nor did I. So it's probably the best system there is among a whole host of really bad ones. I fine with that.

As Thomas Sowell says, "There are no such things as solutions, only trade-offs."

So when I say that I "prefer the wisdom of the market" it's just to say that I prefer the wisdom and experience of people of good will. That's it. The existence of malicious actors isn't a negation of the rule, it's just the exception to it.

You need to study up, my friend. As a first place to look into, check out the overlap between the USDA and the few giant firms that run food in the US (and globally). There is a straightforward revolving door between the major corporations like Tyson and the USDA: the people making the regulations are the people running corporate food. And hence, food regulation for the last century has invariably favored the massive producers (and helped them in their near-total monopolies) and damaged the small producer. Or just think about the recent ridiculous covid responses: ask yourself which businesses benefited (cough Amazon) and which suffered. How many small businesses were finally killed off--leaving a market gap for the major corporate entities to take over--precisely because of government interference?

All you're doing is describing Cronyism, not capitalism. This is what happens when you get a marriage between corporations and the government, which is exactly the sort of thing that socialists and fascists want.

We haven't had actual capitalism at the federal level since the turn of the 20th century when the SC decided to screw with the Commerce Clause and essentially make every corporation that does business across state lines or overseas basically extensions if the federal government. The only actual capitalism that happens anymore is within states or locally.

What do you think I'm strawmanning? I'm not talking about fairy story "capitalism," as found in the textbooks written by libertarians or Ayn Rand. I'm talking about "capitalism" (or, if you like, your "market") as it has ever actually existed. On that point, see my above.

Well, whatever you want to believe that it is, AFAIC it is a strawman. It's a false attribution. Actual capitalism shuns interference either of those individuals running business trying to rig the system by also being in the government or by businesses buying politicians in the government to do the same, or government bureaucrats using the government to assume power over those business to dictate how they are to be ran. Just as there's supposed to be a wall of separation of Church and State(which has never done anything except become a corrupting influence to the Church) there is also supposed to be a wall of separation between business and the state. Or preferably that the state be so sufficiently weak that it both cannot interfere with the market nor become an intriguing target for businesses to corrupt and use to their own advantage, leaving the business at the mercy of the market.


It's really simple, any critique of business and government doing something together, you're not talking about capitalism anymore. You've left that realm and instead are wandering around on some other system's turf.

It's the same sort of thing as lgbtq ideologies trying to call same-sex coupling "marriage." Except that it's not marriage. Marriage has a very specific definition: it's the one-flesh union of a man and woman. Does a gay couple pretending to be married make it a marriage? Does a group of Mormons engaging in bigamy or polygamy make what they're doing a marriage? Does a woman claiming her cat or dog as her husband make it a marriage? The answer to all of those is "No." It's clearly not marriage, it's something else other than marriage.

Same thing here with "capitalism."

[Gandalf the Grey]

It's not like that at all. The porn industry isn't an abuse of the system. It is the system at work. Supply and "value" are driven by demand. You say you're trusting in the collective wisdom of those who generate the demand that drives the market. But have a quick look at some of what they demand. Disposable appliances, porn, "convenience" food, plastic everything.

So, again, turning your own argument back on you, you're saying that because the Church drives the supply of available children in order to meet the generated demand of pedophiles that the Church and Catholicism as systems and institutions drives pedophilia.

I'm sorry, but that's just an extraordinarliy weak argument.

It's obviously not fair to blame the Church for presence of children in the Church or for the proclivities of people who want to abuse them.

Just like it's not fair to make the assertion that because "capitalism"-which hasn't ever made any sort of promise to stop people from acting maliciously- has "failed" because it doesn't sufficiently stop people from acting maliciously. Just like it's not fair to blame Catholicism because of the pedophile scandal because it never promised to make people perfect or to stop them from sinning. It can't. Just like it can't stop malicious actors intent on doing evil from gaining positions of high authority. The Episcopacy makes the decision to trust the general good-will of people, to give them the charity of the benefit of the doubt, including people who claim to feel the call for priestly vocation. That allowed malicious individuals to abuse that good will and to infiltrate Holy Orders. So, with that said, according to you I should conclude that this corruption means that I should abandon the Church because it's failed?

No. I don't buy that for a second. And I don't think that you would either.

So "capitalism" doesn't act in the manner that you'd like it to. Ok, so what? It never claimed to be a perfect system, nor did I. So it's probably the best system there is among a whole host of really bad ones. I fine with that.

As Thomas Sowell says, "There are no such things as solutions, only trade-offs."

So when I say that I "prefer the wisdom of the market" it's just to say that I prefer the wisdom and experience of people of good will. That's it. The existence of malicious actors isn't a negation of the rule, it's just the exception to it.

You need to study up, my friend. As a first place to look into, check out the overlap between the USDA and the few giant firms that run food in the US (and globally). There is a straightforward revolving door between the major corporations like Tyson and the USDA: the people making the regulations are the people running corporate food. And hence, food regulation for the last century has invariably favored the massive producers (and helped them in their near-total monopolies) and damaged the small producer. Or just think about the recent ridiculous covid responses: ask yourself which businesses benefited (cough Amazon) and which suffered. How many small businesses were finally killed off--leaving a market gap for the major corporate entities to take over--precisely because of government interference?

All you're doing is describing Cronyism, not capitalism. This is what happens when you get a marriage between corporations and the government, which is exactly the sort of thing that socialists and fascists want.

We haven't had actual capitalism at the federal level since the turn of the 20th century when the SC decided to screw with the Commerce Clause and essentially make every corporation that does business across state lines or overseas basically extensions if the federal government. The only actual capitalism that happens anymore is within states or locally.

What do you think I'm strawmanning? I'm not talking about fairy story "capitalism," as found in the textbooks written by libertarians or Ayn Rand. I'm talking about "capitalism" (or, if you like, your "market") as it has ever actually existed. On that point, see my above.

Well, whatever you want to believe that it is, AFAIC it is a strawman. It's a false attribution. Actual capitalism shuns interference either of those individuals running business trying to rig the system by also being in the government or by businesses buying politicians in the government to do the same, or government bureaucrats using the government to assume power over those business to dictate how they are to be ran. Just as there's supposed to be a wall of separation of Church and State(which has never done anything except become a corrupting influence to the Church) there is also supposed to be a wall of separation between business and the state. Or preferably that the state be so sufficiently weak that it both cannot interfere with the market nor become an intriguing target for businesses to corrupt and use to their own advantage, leaving the business at the mercy of the market.


It's really simple, any critique of business and government doing something together, you're not talking about capitalism anymore. You've left that realm and instead are wandering around on some other system's turf.

It's the same sort of thing as lgbtq ideologies trying to call same-sex coupling "marriage." Except that it's not marriage. Marriage has a very specific definition: it's the one-flesh union of a man and woman. Does a gay couple pretending to be married make it a marriage? Does a group of Mormons engaging in bigamy or polygamy make what they're doing a marriage? Does a woman claiming her cat or dog as her husband make it a marriage? The answer to all of those is "No." It's clearly not marriage, it's something else other than marriage.

So what would you call it if someone came here insisting that a those things, and whatever other scenarios besides, were in fact "marriage"?

Same thing here with "capitalism."

[gherkin]

It's not like that at all. The porn industry isn't an abuse of the system. It is the system at work. Supply and "value" are driven by demand. You say you're trusting in the collective wisdom of those who generate the demand that drives the market. But have a quick look at some of what they demand. Disposable appliances, porn, "convenience" food, plastic everything.

So, again, turning your own argument back on you, you're saying that because the Church drives the supply of available children in order to meet the generated demand of pedophiles that the Church and Catholicism as systems and institutions drives pedophilia.

I'm sorry, but that's just an extraordinarliy weak argument.

I have no idea what you are trying to say, but whatever idea is lurking underneath this mess has nothing to do with my argument, which you can reread for yourself in order to see.

Just like it's not fair to make the assertion that because "capitalism"-which hasn't ever made any sort of promise to stop people from acting maliciously- has "failed" because it doesn't sufficiently stop people from acting maliciously.

Once again, you're not on point here. I'm not saying that the market promised to rid us of bad behavior and has failed at that. I'm simply saying that the prevalence of porn as a mulit-billion dollar industry built on human trafficking is not an abuse of the market, it is the market at work. And that fact seems to me to raise legitimate doubts about what you're calling the wisdom of the market.

So when I say that I "prefer the wisdom of the market" it's just to say that I prefer the wisdom and experience of people of good will. That's it. The existence of malicious actors isn't a negation of the rule, it's just the exception to it.

What do you prefer the wisdom and experience of people of goodwill to? To the wisdom and experience of politicians? Fair enough. But what about to the wisdom and experience of politicians of goodwill? If we artificially limit the latter class as you're artificially limiting the former, then once again we see no reason to prefer the market to governmental actors. Of course, in neither case are the wise and experienced somehow actually in charge.

Well, whatever you want to believe that it is, AFAIC it is a strawman. It's a false attribution. Actual capitalism shuns interference either of those individuals running business trying to rig the system by also being in the government or by businesses buying politicians in the government to do the same, or government bureaucrats using the government to assume power over those business to dictate how they are to be ran. [...]So what would you call it if someone came here insisting that a those things, and whatever other scenarios besides, were in fact "marriage"?

If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I already address this. You are not dealing with what I'm actually saying at all.