Capitalism... What the hell?

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Anarcho Union, Oct 21, 2010.

  1. Anarcho Union No Gods No Masters Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Okay, maybe this is trolling or flaming but what are people thinking? Capitalism has to be the worst idea since Nationalism. "Hey guys, lets put everyone against eachother and call it "competition" force everyone to fight for their lives, put a price on meds and food something that should be free, and create social classes that are segregated and makes an econamic fedual styled system!!" -_-
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    because people tend to be selfish and don't realize they have to depend on eachother. the streetsweeper is just as important as a ceo of a company but people lose sight of that in capitalism.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Anarcho Union No Gods No Masters Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    exactly. I dont understand it. Its gross.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Perhaps the new posts in this new thread could go here:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104540
    The value of ethics in economics (or some such title)
    I will not yet move initial post there, but wait and see if this thread differs from ethical questions in economics.
     
  8. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Would working for the same pay, housing and clothing allowances be any better like in a communist society?
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2010
  9. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    I completely agree that capitalism is the worst economic system ever...except for all the others.

    What is the better system? Let's imagine, for example, that all medicine was free...who would spend the millions of dollars its takes to develop new medicines? It's all fine and well to say that we should invest the money in that seeking no gain, but the reality of human nature is that we wouldn't, for the same reason that people working in the local fast food joingt would not work for free...there's nothing in it for them. You can argue that those workers should get satisfaction knowing that people are leaving well fed and satisfied, but that is to argue "Humans should be angels."

    There's nothing wrong with saying that humans should be angels, and the world would be a better place if we were, but that isn't a realistic basis for policy. Communist nations tried for decades to retrain people and educate children to act altruistically for the good of others, and that training was a systematic failure. Selfishness is bred into our bones.

    By the way feudalism is very different than capitalism--they are no where near equivalents--and while they both had social classes, so did the Soviets, Cubans and the Chinese Communists. Every system has its haves and its have-nots. Indeed, Soviet-style socialism was far closer to feudalism than is capitalism.
     
  10. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    the problem is people are not given the opportunity or used for thier skills or abilities. in a capitalistic system, it's just win or lose so it engenders all forms of dishonesty and cheating since there is no security or recognition of them.

    think of all the homeless people in society, do people really believe that they are that way due to laziness? society was just not smart enough to realize what thier needs were and how to cultivate productivity. they may not be able to 'compete' so you have lost resources there that still could have been productive in some way.
     
  11. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    I'm not so sure about that. I grew up in a very poor family. I got a scholarship by studying hard in high school, went to grad school, worked my ass off for a PhD, and now I'm quite happy with my life and economic situation. I don't think anyone could say that I didn't have the opportunity to use my skills and abilities, and it's hard to imagine anyone being much worse off economically than I was. Sure, there are all sorts of disadvantages that a person might have that could keep them from being able to use their skills and abilities, but for the most part they aren't purely economic issues.

    And yeah, people who grow up rich usually have an easier time than people who grow up poor. They don't have to work as hard to get what they want. But that doesn't mean that poor people can't do well - it just means that they have to work harder.
    Probably not "laziness" exactly, but probably through a series of very poor life decisions.
     
  12. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    The CEO is FAR more valuable to the company's success than the guy they hire to sweep the streets in front of it, furthemore, the person who has applied themselves their whole life to get to the position of CEO is far more valuable to society as a whole then a person whose top skill is to get dust into a pan.
     
  13. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Capitalism has it's flaws, but it is far superior to anything else we've tried.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    Both of you are not getting it. What i mean by opportunities is that everyone could be used with some skill level no matter how humble it is. as for your education etc is irrevelant, the point is someone has to do those necessary jobs that do not require a higher education. they should be compensated well enough so that they continue to do it well and not have high turnover.

    as for the ceo vs streetsweeper, you misunderstood the point. the streetsweeper is necessary so they should be compensated well enough to have some dignity. if the job wasn't needed, that would be different. don't forget that without your basic needs met, you can't do anything. so food, medicine and sanitation are most important as well as a roof over your head.

    for instance, farmers are crucial but they aren't paid well. i'm not advocating that people should be paid the same but that people should be paid decently for the work they do. those who have attained higher education should be paid more but just because someone does not have a higher education doesn't mean they don't work hard or shouldn't be afforded a decent living with dignity especially if what they do contributes to society.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2010
  15. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    But your initial statement was that the streetsweeper is just as important as the CEO. That is clearly untrue. A bad CEO can run the entire company into the ground and cause everyone to lose their jobs. A good CEO can make a failing company profitable and save everyone's job.

    A streetsweeper? His potential to do good or bad is much more limited. This doesn't mean that he shouldn't be paid a reasonable wage, but some jobs are clearly more important than others.
     
  16. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    True with possible exceptions like small worker-owned lumber companies in the NW, often with only Scandinavians as owner/workers.

    But I think the Chinese hybrid is a better economic system than capitalism. - It has proof of this as it has been able to produce at least three times US GDP growth rates for 30 years now! Goldman Sacks projects the Chinese economy will be larger than the US by 2024, even though it is only 1/3 that of the US now.

    The CCP, most of whom are engineers (not lawyers as US leadership is), use long range central planning only for the infrastructure needed by the society. Thus, they can and do have plans extending over decades to, for example, build more miles of very high speed train than the rest of the world will have, build nuclear power plants to replace their excessive dependence on coal, etc. Also are already the world's largest market for wind power machines and photo voltaic power (Germany was with great government subsidy but the cost that is making electric bills too high so it is being reduced with essentially no new instillations.)

    With Congressmen / lawyers funding infrastructure none is done with payoff far beyond the next election. Likewise, the time horzion for private project pay back must be less than a decade. Existing US infrastructure cannot even be kept in good state of repair as that is cost now with benefits later when the bridge does not collapse or the dam does not burst. etc.

    However, China is not repeating USSR's errors of central planning for consumer goods. That is planned very capitalistically by the invisible hand of Adam Smith. Thus China is becoming the world's main sales center for luxury goods (Carl Marks is spinning in his grave.) as there is profit to be made in them. But the average Chinese is not forgotten either. For example, they have about 350 million regular users of the internet (more than all Americans) and that number is rapidly growing. There are many dozens of cell phones on the market, a few even have refillable chambers for ladies* to keep perfume in and later discretely spray themselves with.

    SUMMARY: If it sells in the market place at a profit, you can find and buy it in China. China's consumer market is very pure laissez-faire capitalism - too pure as it even lacks many safety regulations.

    --------------
    * BTW, more than half of the world's top 20 richest women are Chinese and their rate of billionaire formation leads the world also, I think as that is where then most million dollar plus homes are being built. Some are clearly more equal than other in "communistic" China.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2010
  17. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    yes, they are which people forget.
     
  18. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    right which is why a ceo can run a company into the ground and than get a 100 million dollar severance package. the CEO is not worth the 500 times the average worker salery he gets
     
  19. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    My standard complaint when ever somebody uses the word "Capitalism" as if the word "Capitalism" means something is that the word "Capitalism" only started being used after Marx to mean "not communism". Talking about Capitalism as if it means something is like talking about the "Tea Party" as if that means something. In both cases you all know what "Capitalism" and the "Tea Party" are not.

    "Capitalism" is too broad of a term.
     
  20. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Well Fuck Capitalism. I think you could still have a great "Free" market without fucking banks.
     
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I think it has a meaning, which admittedly is different from communism, but it is not negatively defined as being "not communism."

    All societies have some capital, most of which is already invested. For example, the natives of a South Seas Island may have a king and no concepts relating to ownership of land, or money, etc. but they have "capital" in their boats and fishing equipment, etc.

    The essence of "capitalism" is that some of the existing capital is owned (controlled, if no concepts of ownership exist)* by some individual (or co-owned by several) who decide how it is to be used. If its use produces more capital, then that new capital is also owned (controlled) by the same people or person.

    "Pure capitalism" is when only the owners decide how it is to be used independent of the wishes or concerns of "non-owners." That is very rare, so normally capitalism is really "Social Capitalism" -I.e. the owner's rights as to how his capital is used are limited (regulated) by the society. For example, the owner of a back hoe can not use it to dig up the river bank looking for gold if that will pollute the water that non-owners drink.

    --------------
    *Not all of a society's capital has an owner, and this usually causes considerable problems. For example in the middle ages normally there were fields where any owner of a cow could place it without paying rent to anyone. (Their name still persists as in the "Boston Commons." etc. but no one places cows in the Boston Commons any more.) Thus it was to each cow owner's advantage to place his cow in the commons despite the fact that this resulted in serious over grazing of the commons and reduced the potential productivity of that land compared to what was possible if it had a controlling owner. This problem is quite common today and called the problem of the commons in economics. For example you find is advantage to not keep spending money to tune up your car (or replace the worn rings of the motor) so you pollute the commonly breathed air. That is a problem of the commons and there are dozens of others.

    Thus, a very important reason for capitalism (as defined above) not often mentioned, is it can reduce the damage done by the problem of the commons.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2010
  22. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    I agree with that,/* but "utopia" is not an economic model that is easy to follow. Obviously there is room to improve on the pure "free market" outcome, and the regulation of capitalism is a way to address that...yet problems remain because no one and no committee is smart enough to direct every wayward individual and asset to his/her/its highest valued use. A free market *is* a powerful tool for directing people and assets to their highest valued use (and you have to admit, as a percentage of the population, there are not that many homeless people), even if it is not perfect.

    ----------------
    /* I should say "I agree with that as stated. Below you suggest that everyone should be paid an amount that gives them their "dignity" and I do *not* agree that everyone can be used in a position where they enough value to justify paying them that much. Some people are irredeemable junkies and couldn't even successfully sweep a street on a regular schedule.
    ----------------

    The real issue is that the market can fail in large and small ways, and we want to believe it can be fixed and and fine-tunes in the smallest of details. In the end though legislation can't fine tune anything, it is as subtle as a club.

    With big failures the club can be used to improve things, with smaller more subtle failures the club causes more damage than it fixes.

    So, as I said in stealing Churchill's line, capitalism is a terrible system, it's just a better one than every other system.

    The problems with that (to take two) are that (i) it ignores that we have limited resources, and (ii) the amount that dignity costs is entirely subjective and prone to be much higher for the people who are street sweepers than for those who are above that economic level.

    On the first point, what if "dignity" is worth the equivalent of $20K per year, but the street sweeper job only adds $2K per year worth of value?

    Second, what is "dignity" worth? That will become a political football to be sure. The people who have those subsidized jobs will never be happy with what they have, it's human nature. Others higher than them on the socioeconomic ladder will just as surely undervalue them, and the only way to settle the debate will be to vote on it, with "answers" that change with each election cycle or sooner.
     
  23. Anarcho Union No Gods No Masters Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    yeah, thats not propaganda at all
     

Share This Page