Capitalism and non-audit...audits.

Capitalism and non-audit...audits. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> Capitalism and non-audit...audits. (8/15/2014 9:32:45 PM)
What use are these firms ? When is the scum going to ever be held responsible ? This IS the culture of capitalism...gaming the system by gaming the laws. Result, not the auditors and not the principals...NOBODY is responsible. Here

NorthernGent -> RE: Capitalism and non-audit...audits. (8/17/2014 1:38:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers What use are these firms ? When is the scum going to ever be held responsible ? This IS the culture of capitalism...gaming the system by gaming the laws. Result, not the auditors and not the principals...NOBODY is responsible. Here Just not right in any man's book, Mr Rogers. Every man knows the rules with Capitalism, mate, more so than any other political ideology. Pay your money; take your chances. Unlike Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and assorted mad men who just arrive in the night and ship you off to Siberia or some other God forsaken place with no claim to being conducive to human habitation. Capitalism is actually the best system that human beings have been able to come up with and that is a demonstrable fact, mate. Not perfect by a long chalk, but very good all the same.

MrRodgers -> RE: Capitalism and non-audit...audits. (8/17/2014 5:49:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers What use are these firms ? When is the scum going to ever be held responsible ? This IS the culture of capitalism...gaming the system by gaming the laws. Result, not the auditors and not the principals...NOBODY is responsible. Here Just not right in any man's book, Mr Rogers. Every man knows the rules with Capitalism, mate, more so than any other political ideology. Pay your money; take your chances. Unlike Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and assorted mad men who just arrive in the night and ship you off to Siberia or some other God forsaken place with no claim to being conducive to human habitation. Capitalism is actually the best system that human beings have been able to come up with and that is a demonstrable fact, mate. Not perfect by a long chalk, but very good all the same. Not settling for the idea that it is just terminology, the best economic system is a free market that is a truly regulated market if it is going to use paper as money and not one that depends on a monetary system that requires the creation of an imaginary fiat currency and govt. and private debt that [it] requires. America does not have free markets and that is the last thing...capitalism is. Thus my belief that so-called free market/capitalism is an oxymoron. The best economic system would be one that as a result of that regulation, would best serve all investors even the small ones, much more of society and actually rely upon a country's own people for its production and one that truly mitigates the business fiduciary responsibility and require [it] to serve both investors and society. Capitalism does not and it hasn't for almost 40 years now. One can only say now that capitalism serves society if only because the necessary debt accumulation such as for housing, transportation and now ever-increasingly on consumer debt, hasn't caused society to hit rock bottom...yet. But the American economy is slowly getting there. We are now if things continue, on our way to 3rd world status.

Zonie63 -> RE: Capitalism and non-audit...audits. (8/18/2014 9:25:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers What use are these firms ? When is the scum going to ever be held responsible ? This IS the culture of capitalism...gaming the system by gaming the laws. Result, not the auditors and not the principals...NOBODY is responsible. Here Just not right in any man's book, Mr Rogers. Every man knows the rules with Capitalism, mate, more so than any other political ideology. Pay your money; take your chances. Unlike Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and assorted mad men who just arrive in the night and ship you off to Siberia or some other God forsaken place with no claim to being conducive to human habitation. Capitalism is actually the best system that human beings have been able to come up with and that is a demonstrable fact, mate. Not perfect by a long chalk, but very good all the same. In trying to define what is the "best system" versus the "worst system," it really depends on whose ox is gored and who gets to live the cushy, luxurious lifestyles. One can move up and succeed in any system, provided that one knows the rules and the right behinds to kiss. There were those who did quite well for themselves under Hitler or Stalin, so from their point of view, those systems would be the "best system." Of course, one should also note that the systems of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot were in countries which had been traumatized by war and massive internal strife before they even took power and had a chance to implement any "system." So, to cavalierly declare that they had a "bad system" is, at best, an oversimplification. Capitalism doesn't protect anyone from being murdered or shipped off to some godforsaken place. A constitutional form of government with checks and balances and a commitment to human rights and freedom has done a better job of doing that than "capitalism" could ever do, in and of itself. On the other hand, if you judge a system by its efficiency and utilization of resources to create a superpower which can compete with, match, and/or defeat any of its peer nations, then that may be another measure one can use. At least as far as determining what is the "best system." Since you mention Hitler's and Stalin's "systems," one could argue that they were rather powerful at their peak. Our capitalist system by itself could not compete or marshal the necessary resources and manpower to be able to defeat the Axis; FDR had to adopt and implement a number of programs which were counterintuitive to the capitalist/free-market dogma, such as wage/price controls, rationing, and more centralized planning. As a practical measure, we realized that we couldn't adhere to and maintain the ideological purity of the capitalist dogma while trying to win a war at the same time. It just wasn't possible, and that, just by itself, would call into question whether capitalism is truly the "best system" when the chips are down and the "barbarians are at the gates," so to speak. If we were to look at today's situation, tying it in with the OP, it appears that the capitalist system has got us stuck in quite a fix lately. Due to some inexplicable desire to maintain capitalist ideological purity, we let these vultures make a mockery of our system while they're laughing all the way to an offshore bank. I'm not saying that capitalism is necessarily "bad" or that it can't be good under the right conditions. But sometimes, I see far too much religious devotion to the ideology of capitalism that it can become impractical and even harmful to a nation's well-being. That's when capitalism can become bad, when people idolize it as if it's too "good" to be true. I believe that a better "system" is one that allows for minor tweaks and changes, in the interest of political harmony, compromise, and practical common sense. That's one of the key elements of our own "system," since it allows a bit more flexibility and democratic input (although lately, many politicians have become more inflexible, which is a problem). Some reforms might be called for, at least to flush out the bad apples in the capitalist system. It doesn't mean that the whole system has to be turned upside down, but it can evolve into something better. In fact, I would say that it's inevitable that the capitalist era will ultimately come to an end anyway. It had a good run for a few centuries, but no system remains permanent.

NorthernGent -> RE: Capitalism and non-audit...audits. (8/18/2014 11:44:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Capitalism doesn't protect anyone from being murdered or shipped off to some godforsaken place. Well, taking the history of Capitalism into account there is a direct link between liberal values and Capitalism. Capitalism, Liberalism and Protestantism came to the fore around the same time. 'Say 1700s in England. They were synonymous with another. Those liberal countries, and I mean liberal in the sense of democratic and reasonable (as reasonable as a nation can be that is), are largely England and those countries that sprang from her: Oz, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States; and while all are from perfect and you certainly can be found guilty of a crime for which you are innocent, you are far more likely to have your liberty respected than any other country in the world. No use in pointing to random injustices because these will always happen by virtue of no system being perfect, but my post was more concerned with systemic Totalitarianism. Because Capitalism could not have happened without Liberalism, and vice versa, you may find that the countries that cling doggedly to Capitalism are also countries that cling doggedly to preserving liberty in the sense that we mean it. No one is entirely free because quite simply neither you nor I have all of the information at hand from which to make an informed decision regarding your politicians and my politicians, but it's the best the world has been able to come up with at this juncture.

Zonie63 -> RE: Capitalism and non-audit...audits. (8/19/2014 11:33:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Capitalism doesn't protect anyone from being murdered or shipped off to some godforsaken place. Well, taking the history of Capitalism into account there is a direct link between liberal values and Capitalism. Capitalism, Liberalism and Protestantism came to the fore around the same time. 'Say 1700s in England. They were synonymous with another. Those liberal countries, and I mean liberal in the sense of democratic and reasonable (as reasonable as a nation can be that is), are largely England and those countries that sprang from her: Oz, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States; and while all are from perfect and you certainly can be found guilty of a crime for which you are innocent, you are far more likely to have your liberty respected than any other country in the world. For the most part, I agree with your historical analysis, although respect for liberal values went through many changes, some of which didn't always see eye-to-eye with capitalism. Capitalists, just as any other citizens of our respective societies, had to adapt and roll with some of these changes which weren't perfectly in line with the principles of laissez-faire capitalism. Another thing that characterizes our societies is that we've been open enough to allow the written and spoken word to address our problems and be reasonable enough to negotiate and compromise. I mainly take issue with the implication that capitalism is just sooooo wonderful that it shouldn't be changed or altered in any way. That's not how our society has worked, and it's not even how capitalism has worked. Some people criticize liberalism and Protestantism, too, but those too have changed over the centuries. quote: No use in pointing to random injustices because these will always happen by virtue of no system being perfect, but my post was more concerned with systemic Totalitarianism. But that's also a curious point to make in response to a thread about dishonest accounting firms and the wreckage caused by their wanton deceptions. quote: Because Capitalism could not have happened without Liberalism, and vice versa, you may find that the countries that cling doggedly to Capitalism are also countries that cling doggedly to preserving liberty in the sense that we mean it. No one is entirely free because quite simply neither you nor I have all of the information at hand from which to make an informed decision regarding your politicians and my politicians, but it's the best the world has been able to come up with at this juncture. But the "best" may have hit its peak and is now in decline. It's possible that capitalism may have fossilized and its adherents have become ideologically intransigent, considering capitalism the be-all and end-all of human civilization. I've seen this among ideological communists, too. I've seen capitalists and communists argue incessantly over which "system" is better, so this is not exactly a new argument here. But perhaps the argument itself, along with our shared history of Cold War and the potential ramifications of the argument, that may have caused a certain level of entrenchment and a hardened attitude, fueling and solidifying one's commitment to one side or the other. I think we may have gotten to the point where winning the argument (or winning the war) has become more important than actually running an efficient system dedicated to the principles of freedom, liberty, justice, and equality. And even if we "won" the Cold War (although it seems to be starting up again), we still have to consider the costs to our own liberty and the liberty and independence of other nations which were affected by this ideological struggle. As a result, the debate itself has been somewhat traumatized by historical circumstances.

NorthernGent -> RE: Capitalism and non-audit...audits. (8/19/2014 2:13:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 For the most part, I agree with your historical analysis, although respect for liberal values went through many changes, some of which didn't always see eye-to-eye with capitalism. Capitalists, just as any other citizens of our respective societies, had to adapt and roll with some of these changes which weren't perfectly in line with the principles of laissez-faire capitalism. Another thing that characterizes our societies is that we've been open enough to allow the written and spoken word to address our problems and be reasonable enough to negotiate and compromise. I was about to say that I can't agree, Zonie, but I think you'd need to define these differences between Capitalism and Liberalism. I think I know what you're saying and had written a response, but possibly best to add some meat to the bones before I reply. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I mainly take issue with the implication that capitalism is just sooooo wonderful that it shouldn't be changed or altered in any way. That's not how our society has worked, and it's not even how capitalism has worked. Some people criticize liberalism and Protestantism, too, but those too have changed over the centuries. There is no one I know who thinks 'Capitalism is so wonderful'. But, there may be a cultural difference here, because we are naturally sceptical of any idea or system and it's bred in the bone that we are objective and fair (which may seem like a contradiction in terms). We're not impressed by extreme politics and we fully understand that politicians are limited in what they can achieve no matter the system - this has been known here for centuries. In my opinion and experience, Americans are more idealistic, for the most part, and in this you have more in common with say France and Germany than we do. Our biggest strength is our biggest weakness in that we're not easily convinced with politics but on the other side of the coin this means we don't expect much from them (and that doesn't help at times). This is a country that just finds its way as it goes along: no grand designs; no big expectations. But, things are decent enough and certainly not worth rocking the boat over. What are you going to achieve? A load of lunatics running around in Russia or France shouting about how they're going to make everyone free except that when you don't agree with them they lop your head off? There's a lot to be said for individual liberty and history demonstrates this point. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 But that's also a curious point to make in response to a thread about dishonest accounting firms and the wreckage caused by their wanton deceptions. I don't think it is strange because I'm acknowledging there will be perceived injustice and quantifiable corruption in any system. As far as I can tell, you mentioned your opposition being to a view that 'Capitalism being so wonderful', except you're now moving away from this and you're attempting to use the scraps to prove the substance.

MrRodgers -> RE: Capitalism and non-audit...audits. (8/19/2014 5:01:52 PM)
First, my OP was about the economic system not a political system. Capitalism and corporatism live just fine and in fact beautifully together with fascism. See Mussolini's Italy, circa 1915 to 1945. The Chinese now have in fact a fascist capitalism while they just call it communism which is patently ridiculous. So no, Friedman and others are wrong, capitalism does nothing that requires political freedom of any kind. The US is on that path particularly now that capitalism's singular goal is profits at any cost to society and those profits have now become protected free (political) speech. [sic]

Zonie63 -> RE: Capitalism and non-audit...audits. (8/20/2014 7:34:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 For the most part, I agree with your historical analysis, although respect for liberal values went through many changes, some of which didn't always see eye-to-eye with capitalism. Capitalists, just as any other citizens of our respective societies, had to adapt and roll with some of these changes which weren't perfectly in line with the principles of laissez-faire capitalism. Another thing that characterizes our societies is that we've been open enough to allow the written and spoken word to address our problems and be reasonable enough to negotiate and compromise. I was about to say that I can't agree, Zonie, but I think you'd need to define these differences between Capitalism and Liberalism. I think I know what you're saying and had written a response, but possibly best to add some meat to the bones before I reply. I suppose one could write whole volumes about the differences between capitalism and liberalism, although in a nutshell, I would say liberalism is about the promotion of human rights, while capitalism focuses mainly on property rights, business rights, and accumulating wealth. The only real overlap would be in the area of property rights, which are considered sacrosanct in the capitalist dogma. Liberals tend towards championing individual human rights, which would also include the rights of employees, landless tenants, and consumers (among other things). It's in these areas where capitalists and liberals have tended to differ. For example, liberals tend to support the right of workers to collectively bargain, whereas capitalists have staunchly opposed society granting such a right to workers, essentially arguing that their property rights should trump all other considerations. Other conflicts have arisen in the area of consumer protection, where capitalists typically argue that their property rights should trump consumer rights ("caveat emptor"). Another well-known argument is in the area of environmental protection, where extolling property rights might lead one to conclude that the property owner can dump whatever chemicals he wants on his own property, while liberals typically disagree with that view. Liberals and capitalists traditionally believed in the same set of rights and principles for society, although their main difference seems to be one of emphasis. They ostensibly differ on which rights are most important. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I mainly take issue with the implication that capitalism is just sooooo wonderful that it shouldn't be changed or altered in any way. That's not how our society has worked, and it's not even how capitalism has worked. Some people criticize liberalism and Protestantism, too, but those too have changed over the centuries. There is no one I know who thinks 'Capitalism is so wonderful'. But, there may be a cultural difference here, because we are naturally sceptical of any idea or system and it's bred in the bone that we are objective and fair (which may seem like a contradiction in terms). We're not impressed by extreme politics and we fully understand that politicians are limited in what they can achieve no matter the system - this has been known here for centuries. In my opinion and experience, Americans are more idealistic, for the most part, and in this you have more in common with say France and Germany than we do. I've encountered quite a number of American ideological capitalists who seem to think that capitalism is above reproach, and it wasn't too long ago when any criticism of capitalism might have gotten someone branded as a "pinko" or a "commie." I remember people saying things like "If you don't like capitalism, then go to Russia!" Maybe it was different in England; I can't really say, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. Have there ever been any "love it or leave it" types in your country? I agree that the U.S. and U.K. have generally eschewed extremist politics, although we do so with the luxury of getting to define what "extremist politics" is from our point of view. We also shared another bit of good fortune in that the UK is an island and the US has a buffer of two oceans, so most people had to go over the water to even get to our countries. That didn't make us isolated nor invulnerable, but it did give us some breathing room and likely influenced the political development in our countries. I'll take your word for it that Americans are more idealistic than the English, although I have no real basis of comparison regarding France and Germany. In some ways, there might be some parallels between "Manifest Destiny" and "Rule Britannia" which were powerful forms of idealism in our countries and affected our perceptions and the direction we took. quote: Our biggest strength is our biggest weakness in that we're not easily convinced with politics but on the other side of the coin this means we don't expect much from them (and that doesn't help at times). It depends. A lot of people get caught up in political causes for one thing or another, but they don't seem to embrace cults of personality which have existed in other countries. The President is generally the butt of jokes in our culture, even Presidents we like. There's nothing really "holy" about politics in our country, where nothing is sacred. We also don't believe in any such thing as "royal blood," a concept which has definitely influenced politics on your side of the Atlantic. quote: This is a country that just finds its way as it goes along: no grand designs; no big expectations. But, things are decent enough and certainly not worth rocking the boat over. What are you going to achieve? A load of lunatics running around in Russia or France shouting about how they're going to make everyone free except that when you don't agree with them they lop your head off? There's a lot to be said for individual liberty and history demonstrates this point. Definitely. I agree completely, except that it's hard for me to judge those "lunatics in Russia or France" so harshly, since I haven't walked in their shoes or experienced what they experienced. We've had different experiences in our countries, and to a large extent, our embracing of individual liberty was actually highly selective for most of our history. Those of a certain ethnic groups within our borders got liberty, while other ethnic groups did not get as much. Outside of our own respective homeland territory, our devotion to individual liberty has been questionable, to say the least, as history has also demonstrated. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 But that's also a curious point to make in response to a thread about dishonest accounting firms and the wreckage caused by their wanton deceptions. I don't think it is strange because I'm acknowledging there will be perceived injustice and quantifiable corruption in any system. As far as I can tell, you mentioned your opposition being to a view that 'Capitalism being so wonderful', except you're now moving away from this and you're attempting to use the scraps to prove the substance. Not sure what you mean. I think acknowledging perceived injustice and quantifiable corruption in our system is what we do, part of the same liberal traditions which have prevented us from falling down that slippery slope towards extremism. However, that injustice and corruption must still be addressed, but it's possible that overzealous devotion to the ideal of capitalism may become an impediment to that process. What you might see as "moving away from this" could be referring to the part where I tried to expand further and speculate as to the possible causes of this devotion to capitalism and your point about Hitler and Stalin regarding the opposition to extremism in the Anglosphere. Not that we embraced extremism ourselves, but we had to face it on a global level. That, just by itself, seems to have colored and clouded the capitalistic viewpoint. It would be one thing to argue for or against capitalism within our own countries, but once the international perspective is brought into the argument, the debate changes.

MrRodgers -> RE: Capitalism and non-audit...audits. (8/20/2014 3:38:40 PM)
While your debate is cogent to a point, I speak of the larger and more historical picture. From the perspective of those that were witness to the end of the so-called Puritan ethic. Paraphrasing..... Andrew Jackson had to battle corrupt forces insistent on forming a 2nd corrupt US Bank 1830's Alex De Tocqueville "I never saw a country more in love with money" He was correct. Adams "Creating a fed banking system, turning paper into money will have us slave to the speculators." He was correct. Lincoln "the corporation is now enthroned and they and the bankers will have the people bankrupt in the land the ancestors conquered." He was correct. Created the greenback but lost his own bank war...after being murdered. Banks had their own currencies and were corrupt, sellers of civil war bonds were corrupt. Many buying out of the draft were corrupt. Is this forever apparently in our economic DNA ? So while western civilization shares much in their political institutional success, the US is unique and Europe not far behind in allowing far too much greed and corruption take over the economic laws and institutions working now...in their favor. Hence the audit that is NO audit or at least none that requires anybody to take and responsibility. I bet Madoff wishes he had THAT kind of audit. Would somebody please tell me just what is the difference ? After all, the SEC missed his corruption too after being told things smelled several times over the years. Capitalism is what, a big crap shoot for the endowed and privileged ? All of the while society at large...can go to hell ?

Musicmystery -> RE: Capitalism and non-audit...audits. (8/20/2014 3:52:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers First, my OP was about the economic system not a political system. Now all you have to do is find an economic system that exists outside of a political system. Good luck with that.

MrRodgers -> RE: Capitalism and non-audit...audits. (8/20/2014 4:47:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers First, my OP was about the economic system not a political system. Now all you have to do is find an economic system that exists outside of a political system. Good luck with that. The point being that no economic system requires there be a democratic republic or any political freedoms at all. The feudal system was much more of an economic system than a political system beyond the king dolling out spoils for loyalty and existed at the kings behest and in many ways...resembles capitalism. Labor being the peasant...doing the work building up debt while the lords took the wealth and doing the lending. One could argue and persuasively so, that the Sumerians had an economy before they even invented govt. The big difference now is that capital...is king.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875