This country is great and capitalism is why - make your case

SixteenBlue wrote:

I can't believe I'm doing this, but that's not really what cheeba said. Cheeba said capitalism made America great and said the Wright brothers were great (due to capitalism). Other countries also working on powered and manned flight doesn't negate any aspects of that. Even if someone else did it first, the Wright brothers were still great.

It's all been a little fast and loose on the causality front, but it read like cheeba was trying to cite the Wright Brothers' achievement as an example of American greatness that resulted from capitalism.

I'd agree that your summary is a more accurate reflection of what's been put forward, namely:

* The Wright Brothers achievement in flight was an example of greatness
* Capitalism played some role in their achievement

I think that even if those points are conceded, there's a pretty big gap between that and the assertion that "capitalism made America great".

I also think that the terms under discussion have been pretty loosely defined, which is hampering efforts for more substantive conversation.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

I can't believe I'm doing this, but that's not really what cheeba said. Cheeba said capitalism made America great and said the Wright brothers were great (due to capitalism). Other countries also working on powered and manned flight doesn't negate any aspects of that. Even if someone else did it first, the Wright brothers were still great.

It's all been a little fast and loose on the causality front, but it read like cheeba was trying to cite the Wright Brothers' achievement as an example of American greatness that resulted from capitalism.

I'd agree that your summary is a more accurate reflection of what's been put forward, namely:

* The Wright Brothers achievement in flight was an example of greatness
* Capitalism played some role in their achievement

I think that even if those points are conceded, there's a pretty big gap between that and the assertion that "capitalism made America great".

I also think that the terms under discussion have been pretty loosely defined, which is hampering efforts for more substantive conversation. :(

Could not agree more with any of this. Regarding the bold part though, even that phrasing isn't negated by examples of other countries also doing the same thing.

I guess I'm just trying to cut off legitimate cases of "I didn't say that!" so we can at least just be left with the BS ones.

SixteenBlue wrote:

I can't believe I'm doing this, but that's not really what cheeba said. Cheeba said capitalism made America great and said the Wright brothers were great (due to capitalism). Other countries also working on powered and manned flight doesn't negate any aspects of that. Even if someone else did it first, the Wright brothers were still great.

Note: I don't agree with his argument, but that's going down the wrong rabbit hole if you're trying to disprove him.

cheeba wrote:

Are you seriously questioning whether the country that invented the internet, that put a man on the moon (famously beating socialists, none of which have been capable of performing this feat, over 40 years now since we did it), is great? Or that it was capitalism behind what are most of mankind's greatest inventions? The assembly line? The Wright brothers? Edison?

cheeba wrote:

Inventions - easier just to google American inventions. Nearly all of them happened because of the American economy, including the Wright Brothers.

No, he took it the extra step of saying that capitalism was either required to make great inventions or was the prime driver behind said inventions. Not that people were curious. Not that, like with any discovery, it was done by standing on the shoulders of giants. Just capitalism.

This also ties into his assertion that our universities world-renowned because companies will buy sponsorship stickers and not because Uncle Sam has funded virtually all of the research that those institutions do.

The benefit of the doubt interpretation is the "capitalism was the prime driver" version, I think. If he's saying that it's the only possible driver then that does change things.

imbiginjapan wrote:

Most of your earlier examples of achievements above represent a symbiosis between government and capital interests. That symbiosis allows freedom to profit, with the expectation that profit will bear fruit in the social good. This has occurred in the past via the government distributing portions of wealth generated with the mandate that it be used to improve the nation in a way that hopefully benefits the population at large.

Agreed. The symbiosis between government and capital interests, which is prevalent in several of cheeba's examples, is not capitalism. At it's heart, capitalism says respond to market demand no matter the social consequences.

Even Adam Smith warned against allowing business owners to collude together to work against consumers. He also warned against allowing government to pass laws favoring business over citizens interests. So even at it's theoretical start, the ideas that would later be called "capitalism" (in 1854, in a novel by William Makepeace Thackeray) are inextricably intertwined with a government actively protecting the interests of citizens.

This is (another reason) why actually defining terms is useful.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

This is (another reason) why actually defining terms is useful. :)

What? You mean pointing to a Wiki article describing all the various types of capitalism and their underlying theories isn't precise enough? Can't you like all the capitalism?

You know what really made this country great is capitalization--the one thing China will never have.

realityhack wrote:

Ok just to be clear the fact that a company sponsors one of the teams like the solar car team does NOT mean they give significant money to the school. It means they gave something like a couple thousand worth of supplies etc. for that specific club. And it isn't typically in the interest of science. It's advertising.

Google university corporate partnerships and you'll see what I'm referring to better.

IMAGE(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7fyG2TcUNUg/TiVuGtyggsI/AAAAAAAAGNQ/uDbKNivUPGU/s1600/goalposts.jpg)

boogle wrote:

IMAGE(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7fyG2TcUNUg/TiVuGtyggsI/AAAAAAAAGNQ/uDbKNivUPGU/s1600/goalposts.jpg)

You don't say!

I think the nitpicking is missing the forest for the trees here. America's capitalism has created a culture where innovation has thrived.

OG_Slinger, all I can say is you lost my attention when you said that capitalism prevents companies from doing basic research, and to prove your point you argued that Ford's research budget isn't $8 billion, it's only 5 BILLION DOLLARS. You continue to have a problem of saying stuff I didn't say: "you've repeatedly made claims that capitalistic America invented practically everything worth inventing" so there's really no point in me addressing your arguments further as you'll just make up more sh*t.

imbiginjapan wrote:

Cheeba, I think the problem you're running into here is that you established a dichotomy earlier - Capitalism makes this country great. Socialism can/will make this country not-great.

I established no dichotomy because I DIDN'T SAY THAT SOCIALISM CAN/WILL MAKE THIS COUNTRY NOT-GREAT. IMAGE(http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_e_banghead.gif)

Robear wrote:

What does capitalism need to succeed? Strong government and the rule of law... It's all inter-related, what we call the "free market" *requires* a framework which many would, in other contexts, describe as "not free". Capitalism does not stand alone.

Correct.

SixteenBlue wrote:

The benefit of the doubt interpretation is the "capitalism was the prime driver" version, I think. If he's saying that it's the only possible driver then that does change things.

Why would I ever say it was the only possible driver? Don't answer that, rhetorical. There are many drivers that can get you to the finish line. Capitalism is The Stig.

Robear wrote:

Even Adam Smith warned against allowing business owners to collude together to work against consumers. He also warned against allowing government to pass laws favoring business over citizens interests. So even at it's theoretical start, the ideas that would later be called "capitalism" (in 1854, in a novel by William Makepeace Thackeray) are inextricably intertwined with a government actively protecting the interests of citizens.

Correct again!

OG_slinger wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

This is (another reason) why actually defining terms is useful. :)

What? You mean pointing to a Wiki article describing all the various types of capitalism and their underlying theories isn't precise enough? Can't you like all the capitalism?

You obviously never took a philosophy class ;). Things like capitalism or socialism cannot be easily defined.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

You know what really made this country great is capitalization--the one thing china will never have.

FTFY.

[shareholder] capitalism is defined by its limits on long term investments, like r&d. Denying that simple fact puts you on very shaky ground.

cheeba wrote:
realityhack wrote:

Ok just to be clear the fact that a company sponsors one of the teams like the solar car team does NOT mean they give significant money to the school. It means they gave something like a couple thousand worth of supplies etc. for that specific club. And it isn't typically in the interest of science. It's advertising.

Google university corporate partnerships and you'll see what I'm referring to better.

Alternatively, you could give concrete examples (ideally with links to sources) so folks know exactly what you're referring to.

For example, OG Slinger talked about CalTech on the previous page as being a counter-example to the notion that capitalism is the reason American universities are so well-regarded.

cheeba wrote:
Robear wrote:

What does capitalism need to succeed? Strong government and the rule of law... It's all inter-related, what we call the "free market" *requires* a framework which many would, in other contexts, describe as "not free". Capitalism does not stand alone.

Correct.

SixteenBlue wrote:

The benefit of the doubt interpretation is the "capitalism was the prime driver" version, I think. If he's saying that it's the only possible driver then that does change things.

Why would I ever say it was the only possible driver? Don't answer that, rhetorical. There are many drivers that can get you to the finish line. Capitalism is The Stig.

OG_slinger wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

This is (another reason) why actually defining terms is useful. :)

What? You mean pointing to a Wiki article describing all the various types of capitalism and their underlying theories isn't precise enough? Can't you like all the capitalism?

You obviously never took a philosophy class ;). Things like capitalism or socialism cannot be easily defined.

The initial impetus for this conversation was the claim "If they don't understand that capitalism is what made this country great, then I am worried."

That's quite a bit stronger than what it looks like you're arguing now, which seems to be "this country is great, and capitalism played some role in that".

As regards to defining terms: the irony in linking to wikipedia for defining your key term in a conversation that began with "Citation needed" is not lost on me. More seriously, if you're unable or unwilling to define your terms, that makes substantive discussion awfully difficult.

In all seriousness, if there's no dichotomy because other options could also make America great...what's the point of saying "If they don't understand that capitalism is what made this country great, then I am worried"? Without that dichotomy, it makes no sense to make that statement. It feels like the economic equivalent of being upset that there are people that don't understand I take 90 to work instead of 520.

No, Boogle, it's not moving the goalposts. My argument was that capitalism and our universities are inextricably linked. For evidence I showed a bunch of corporate sponsors of a solar car team. People didn't get that and just saw, "ooh stickerz!" It is not moving the goalposts to say they are not just stickers.

Did anyone study at the Ford Automotive Science & Technology lab at the University of Illinois? Gold star to anyone who guesses why Ford is in the name.
To continue picking on Ford, what about the new Battery Lab they are opening at the University of Michigan?

I saw these types of sponsorships first hand at my university, so I'm surprised no one else here is aware of this stuff.

SixteenBlue wrote:

In all seriousness, if there's no dichotomy because other options could also make America great...what's the point of saying "If they don't understand that capitalism is what made this country great, then I am worried"? Without that dichotomy, it makes no sense to make that statement. It feels like the economic equivalent of being upset that there are people that don't understand I take 90 to work instead of 520.

If I say the sky is orange, I'm not saying it isn't blue.

I don't think "MSU had a coke machine on campus, thus universities are capitalism" is a good argument.

I realize that's not what you're saying, cheeba, but it's an exaggeration that's not far off. Are you using some sort of ratio of sponsorship dollars to public funds + tax incentives to conclude that universities and capitalism are inextricably linked? Or a general dollar amount?

I mean if your minimum threshold to prove linkage of universities and private investment is $1.00, you've proven your point and I accept that private businesses invest more than one dollar in universities.

I would also posit, then, that all American religions are inextricably tied to capitalism.

If I'm being even half-honest, Cheeba, China is a great example to support your argument. Pretty much the second it switch to a quasi-free market capitalist economic model, the economic growth has, how can I understate this, kinda exploded. No doubt capitalism is an outstanding engine for achieving economic greatness. But I would argue that capitalism is not the defining factor that leads to national greatness. China's economy is pretty powerful and will continue to be for a long time, but its social and cultural infrastructure is riddled with cracks that are getting worse.

The healthcare system is a great example. It's, ironically I will note, a very not communist type of healthcare, in which no one gets any kind of effective free healthcare. Sounds really capitalistic/free market to me, actually. It is relatively cheaper than in the US, but it also, let's see if I can understate this again, sucks. It is terrible. For reasons I don't want to derail about, but my point is, there is nothing capitalism can do to improve it. Healthcare in China needs the government (and it is trying, to be fair) to invest heavily, because there's just no profit to be had in it right now. Once the government can get things up to a certain level, once poor people can actually not worry about dying from a mild infection and people don't get lung cancer at the age of 8, I bet capitalism can then be used to make it much better. But an engine with no gas is just a few hundred pounds of dead weight.

Sixteen don't point out where cheeba insults everyone, he considers it insulting and then plays the victim card.

Seth wrote:

Sixteen don't point out where cheeba insults everyone, he considers it insulting and then plays the victim card. :)

Ha! You beat me before I could make my edit to specifically say I'm not trying to be insulting.

You obviously never took a philosophy class . Things like capitalism or socialism cannot be easily defined.

Which is not to say they can't be thrown around with ease!

Dimmerswitch wrote:

For example, OG Slinger talked about CalTech on the previous page as being a counter-example to the notion that capitalism is the reason American universities are so well-regarded.

It took about 2 seconds to find this on one of CalTech's websites: "Caltech uses seed funding from private donors to nurture the kinds of risky but potentially revolutionary early-stage research projects grant makers rarely support." Link. Every top university has a large amount of corporate and private involvement.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

That's quite a bit stronger than what it looks like you're arguing now, which seems to be "this country is great, and capitalism played some role in that".

Capitalism played the major role in that. Capitalism is not the only reason the US is great.

More seriously, if you're unable or unwilling to define your terms, that makes substantive discussion awfully difficult.

It would require dozens of sources and thousands upon thousands of words to define these concepts. If people are unable to look up capitalism and socialism and get a basic understanding, I'm not paid to teach you.

SixteenBlue wrote:

In all seriousness, if there's no dichotomy because other options could also make America great...what's the point of saying "If they don't understand that capitalism is what made this country great, then I am worried"? Without that dichotomy, it makes no sense to make that statement.

OK, there's a dichotomy, but it's a slider scale. Capitalism is far better than socialism at incentivizing innovation. That does not mean innovation cannot come from socialism or that great things cannot come from socialism.

Will this discussion come down to semantics about how something can't be defined but is defined but isn't really defined?

Cuz that's one of those total shockers.

cheeba wrote:

I'm surprised no one else here is aware of this stuff.

Maybe people are aware of things and simply disagree with you. Your constant need to condescend and claim you're more educated and informed on everything is really tiresome.

I see you guys aren't that well versed in the space race.
I'm not seeing much evidence of decent education or broad life experience
much of this stuff seems like basic knowledge to me and I don't understand why it is not to others.
I don't see how anyone who went to a university can not see that capitalism is inextricably part of higher education.
You obviously never took a philosophy class

That's just from this discussion.

Edit: The reason I bring this up is not to be insulting but to point out that it really defeats any purpose of discussion with you. When your knee jerk reaction is to simply decry people that disagree as uneducated, you show you're not willing to argue in good faith.

Edit 2: Oh look, another one.

If people are unable to look up capitalism and socialism and get a basic understanding, I'm not paid to teach you.
Bloo Driver wrote:

If I say the sky is orange, I'm not saying it isn't bloo.

How you missed that one, I'll never know. Better up your game, I won't always be around to fix this stuff for you.

How robearassing.

Bloo Driver wrote:

Will this discussion come down to semantics about how something can't be defined but is defined but isn't really defined?

Cuz that's one of those total shockers.

Totally depends on what you mean by "cuz."