Yabby,

"Those who flaunt it commonly do so with borrowed money, low self esteem or other drivers"perhaps."

That would be the majority then - and they are encouraged to do so so they can have it all up front. For the most part, they don't get to do what they want, so busy are they scuttling about for the rest of their lives paying off a house (that is three times larger than it needs to be) and all the other accoutrements of modern consumer society.
I must say that when my son attended school it was interesting everyday watching all the townies trying to manipulate their SUV's into the car spaces to pick up their children - which is really the only reason why they bought them - to pick up the kids and show off.
I say people would actually be better off with a little more "time" and a little less "rush".

Dear Yabby,
just because a few wealthy eccentrics make a fetish of appearing poor, and a few more are tight at fishes' a-holes, that doesn't mean the vast majority don't enjoy conspicuous consumption. In any case I'm not talking only of the mega-rich but of the bourgeoisie in general.

According to your logic on SUV's, and since sustainability doesn't seem to be a factor, maybe we should drive Sherman tanks?

Why do you continue to defend the indefensible?

Squeers
Is that your main argument, or are you keeping your good ones in reserve?

Stern… there are no local ‘tyre dealers’, or manufacturers to buy from.

Given that this brand of tyre is imported, along with every other tyre, and is not stocked in my town by anyone, are you suggesting that I have some responsibility to pay more than double to a local bike shop, effectively as an evil subsidy to keep them going?

An odd view of capitalism, given your objections to subsidies, which sound like a ‘socialist’ idea.

Besides, I see no evidence of ‘free markets’ anywhere.

Take the $35m handed over to Toyota by the ATO to produce a car that no one beyond government fleet buyers wants, the part petrol part brown/black coal powered electric Camry.

And not just this car, but Ford and Holden also get ATO monies.

Free market?

Socialist subsidies?

As with every other industry in our ‘capitalist’ world that refuses to pay its way and charge its true costs to consumers.

Even bank interest is not ‘free market’ is it?

Tax rules distort markets horribly, encouraging investment here but not there.

Really Stern and Yabby both, what you support is a system of public subsidy to all and sundry businesses… particularly when your ‘free enterprise’ fails so magnificently, as it did with the GFC, and seems about to again with the debacle in Europe.

Then there is the subsidy of bankruptcy, where thieves and incompetents alike can escape responsibility, forever.

‘Free markets’ eh?

Stern, in your posts you are fixated on your fear of communism, and seem to believe that this is the only alternative path that has ever or will ever exist, although Napolean surely was not a commo was he?

Can you not see that the system of Capitalism that you think exists, is as much a dangerous illusion, delusion maybe, as were the political systems of coercion you so fear were systems designed to improve the lot of the people they were imposed upon?

I certainly have not read anyone here calling for a reintroduction of any form of Communism.

Yabby, tow hooks always produce more dents on the hitting car.

Yabby and Stern

Just to be sure I understand you:

If the government subsidises business, in particular big business that is "free market Capitalism" - that is the system we have now.

If the government provides a financial safety-net to low income individuals for example, unemployed, infirm the aged - that is communism?

Therefore a company is not a collective?

And individual people are a collective?

And aiding rich people enables poor people. WTF! ? !. What a load of sophistry.

WTF are you people talking about? You make as much sense as Runner and his "Intelligent Design" argument.

How is providing education, health, housing for individual people communism? If people are healthy and educated does it not stand to reason that they are then in a fit state to contribute to our economy in a sustainable manner.

It is not sustainable to maintain the largesse of wealth with a few. Only a minority benefits and they are not accountable to any. As with shareholders, only those with the greatest number of shares have any influence into company policy.

Therefore while your form of capitalism requires a high number of people to sustain those in control, no efforts to limit population will by supported by multi-nationals.

PS

Stern you have no more idea of what fascism is than you do socialism. As evidenced by your own words:

>> and as Lenin said

the goal of socialism is communism

therefore if you are suggesting

the eventual progression and consequences of socialism is fascism.

I doubt I could ever find any reason to disagree with you <<

Perfect example of circular reasoning. And, as such, goes nowhere.

No 'edit' function!

Please read above statement as:

"It is not sustainable to maintain the largesse of wealth of the few by the many - that's feudalism. Only a minority benefits and they are not accountable to any. As with shareholders, only those with the greatest number of shares have any influence into company policy."