fundamental flaws of capitalism.

[danyboy27]

this
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/12/05/globalwealth.html

[Nolan]

There's no reason 1% should own 40% of the wealth. That's..... silly, for lack of a better term.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's a dynamic system but also highly unstable and contradictory: it actually creates new poverty through creating abundance.

[Bud Struggle]

There's no reason 1% should own 40% of the wealth. That's..... silly, for lack of a better term.

I agree that's why I CREATE my own wealth.

Instead of taking away someone's % of wealth it's easier and better for society for one to just create some wealth of one's own. It decreases the super rich's % and it gives one the opportunity to live quite nicely, too.

Doing good by doing well. :)

[Dean]

I agree that's why I CREATE my own wealth.

Instead of taking away someone's % of wealth it's easier and better for society for one to just create some wealth of one's own. It decreases the super rich's % and it gives one the opportunity to live quite nicely, too.

Doing good by doing well. :)

So are you saying that you support a system wherein wealth is less concentrated in the hands of a few?

[danyboy27]

I agree that's why I CREATE my own wealth.

Instead of taking away someone's % of wealth it's easier and better for society for one to just create some wealth of one's own. It decreases the super rich's % and it gives one the opportunity to live quite nicely, too.

Doing good by doing well. :)

well, technicly bud you dont create your own wealth, since you need to employ people to do the job that give you profit, you make cash on the back of other worker.

Yea, more people like you with medium sized buisness would undermine big corporate bully, but wouldnt resolve the problem.

in that case the problem is capitalism.

Since you seem to be someone who know how to move things, you really dont have to fear communism bud. IF you can show skill of leadership there is no reason for your worker to throw you out.

where i live there is a cooperative of taxi, and the leader of that cooperative havnt been overthrown once by the other member. Why? he been doing its job properly.

[Bud Struggle]

So are you saying that you support a system wherein wealth is less concentrated in the hands of a few?

Nope.

I'm saying that it's not a closed system. The amount of wealth in the world isn't static--if you want wealth you can create it over and above the amount that is owned by the rich and the poor and the inbetween of the world.

(But to be honest, I also do believe 40% to be in the hands of just a couple of people seems to have something wrong with it.)



Since you seem to be someone who know how to move things, you really dont have to fear communism bud. IF you can show skill of leadership there is no reason for your worker to throw you out.


I have no fear of Communism at all. As a Capitalist there is NO ONE I love more than Stalin. Maybe Mao and Kim Il Jong, and all their followers, too. It guys like Demogogron and KH and Jazz and even you that will be a problem for Capitalism.

But bring on Communism--if people can make it work right, I'm all for it.

[IcarusAngel]

that's what happens when you don't have people democratically deciding what to do with resources, and instead place them in the "magic" of the market place. Really, this is a dictatorship, because the scraps that are left everybody else has to fight over, and much of it is just run by smaller privatized firms.

"'Income inequality has been rising for the past 20 to 25 years "

It's interesting that capitalists were claiming that the free-market was actually shortening the gap between the rich and the poor and providing more people with food, now we know that there are more people starving than ever before and there is a wider wealth gap than ever before with the rich controlling all kinds of resources that the poor helped to build.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=IcarusAngel;1636641]that's what happens when you don't have people democratically deciding what to do with resources, and instead place them in the "magic" of the market place.

But see, the problem here in saying that the people will "democratically" ration resources, is that one still has to describe HOW they will do this. So in that sense, you are making a false comparison.

[danyboy27]

[QUOTE]

But see, the problem here in saying that the people will "democratically" ration resources, is that one still has to describe HOW they will do this. So in that sense, you are making a false comparison.

you can manage ressources without a supreme authority. all you need is to appoint people to manage the ressources and appoint watchdog supervizing the operation.

its not really different from a buisness you know. people manage the inventory, and report shortage and anomalies to the personnal when there is, inform people about surplus and unused ressources.

i have been doing that for 3 year on a much much smaller scale. You dont need tyranical control, all you need is motivated people who care about their work.

everyone, at a smaller scale is more than able to control the ressources they currently have, and sending this data to a central that would then ask them to reap more of that ressource or to reap less.

then again there is no coercion in that. The people living near that ressource could decide not to reap it beccause they dont want to. In that case, if people really need that ressource we could barter it against another ressource they really want.

everybody would be free to quit this system, but what the use of quitting a system that allow you to make more trade with your neigbor, have more services and more technology?

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Green Dragon;1636674]

you can manage ressources without a supreme authority. all you need is to appoint people to manage the ressources and appoint watchdog supervizing the operation.

its not really different from a buisness you know. people manage the inventory, and report shortage and anomalies to the personnal when there is, inform people about surplus and unused ressources.

i have been doing that for 3 year on a much much smaller scale. You dont need tyranical control, all you need is motivated people who care about their work.

everyone, at a smaller scale is more than able to control the ressources they currently have, and sending this data to a central that would then ask them to reap more of that ressource or to reap less.

then again there is no coercion in that. The people living near that ressource could decide not to reap it beccause they dont want to. In that case, if people really need that ressource we could barter it against another ressource they really want.

everybody would be free to quit this system, but what the use of quitting a system that allow you to make more trade with your neigbor, have more services and more technology?

A "watchdog" who "supervises" operations is otherwise known as a boss who has to have the authority to tell people what to, and not, to do.

What you do now is within the structures and confines of capitalism. Decisions based upon the information you send is made according to the dictates and logic of capitalism. Obviously, the decisions made will be somewhat different in a socialist community as it follows the dictates and logic of socialism.

[danyboy27]

A "watchdog" who "supervises" operations is otherwise known as a boss who has to have the authority to tell people what to, and not, to do.


watchdog isnt a capitalist term. watchdog exist even in cooperative where there is no boss and can be replaced if he do a crappy job. on the other hand, you cant replace your boss beccause he doing a crappy job, you just have to wait until he die.





What you do now is within the structures and confines of capitalism. Decisions based upon the information you send is made according to the dictates and logic of capitalism. Obviously, the decisions made will be somewhat different in a socialist community as it follows the dictates and logic of socialism.

the only difference is that capitalist use this structure in a much more greedy, selfish way. Logistics are neutral and could be use by any political structures.
the thing is, capitalist often try to cut down logistics beccause of cost or they manipulate it so they can make more money.
The artificial scarcity of petrol is a great exemple. They could pump more but they store a large quantity and stop pumping to maximize profit. At the end it might seem mondaine for the people living north america but for many third world countries, the rise of oil cost is really terrible.

same goes for food, by promoting so called bio fuel, american farmer have created an artificial scarcity of ressources. for many people in the middle east, the corn is actually here in abundance, but beccause of fine economical and logistics manipulation the price is so high they have a hard time getting it.

if ressources where allocated for the sake of it, it would be far more different. you could go after those who badlly manage and concentrate all the efforts that was made on the trickery to make profits on better allocation of ressources.

[Green Dragon]

watchdog exist even in cooperative where there is no boss and can be replaced if he do a crappy job. on the other hand, you cant replace your boss beccause he doing a crappy job, you just have to wait until he die.

You still cannot come to terms that there will be "bosses" even in a cooperative. That you have the ability to fire him makes no difference in what the function, role of that person.






the only difference is that capitalist use this structure in a much more greedy, selfish way. Logistics are neutral and could be use by any political structures.
the thing is, capitalist often try to cut down logistics beccause of cost or they manipulate it so they can make more money.


Then "logistics" are not "neutral."


The artificial scarcity of petrol is a great exemple. They could pump more

If they pumped 24 hrs per day and then used more labor, perhaps.



same goes for food, by promoting so called bio fuel, american farmer have created an artificial scarcity of ressources.

The quest for bio-fuels was an attempt the reduce the problems of burning fossil fuels. It created the expected problem (demand increased for corn, driving up the price of corn) such environmental utopia causes.There was nothing "artificial" about the scarcity; corn which would have gone to food went to fuel instead. The increased prices reflects that problem. It gives information which people can use in making decisions.




if ressources where allocated for the sake of it, it would be far more different. you could go after those who badlly manage and concentrate all the efforts that was made on the trickery to make profits on better allocation of ressources.


As above, resources were being allocated as demanded, without regard to the market. The market is what revealed the problem of using corn as a bio-fuel.

[danyboy27]

You still cannot come to terms that there will be "bosses" even in a cooperative. That you have the ability to fire him makes no difference in what the function, role of that person.

there is no boss in a cooperative mate. there is an elected manager but people of the cooperative can fire him if he do a verry bad job. They all cast a vote and could remove him from his function.




Then "logistics" are not "neutral."


they are neutral in the sense that they are not either pro capitalist or pro communism. i do believe communism is the best way to make logistics work beccause you wouldnt have to worry about profit or the cost of the logistic itself.




If they pumped 24 hrs per day and then used more labor, perhaps.
.
well, that mostly the case when they dont decide drive the price creazy bu cutting the production on purpose.



Y
The quest for bio-fuels was an attempt the reduce the problems of burning fossil fuels. It created the expected problem (demand increased for corn, driving up the price of corn) such environmental utopia causes.There was nothing "artificial" about the scarcity; corn which would have gone to food went to fuel instead. The increased prices reflects that problem. It gives information which people can use in making decisions.

there is right now enough and was enough corn to supply the middle east, but beccause of the high demand from us consumer for corn, the prices gones up.
then again its not supposed to matter beccause most of the corn in the middle east come from europe and china. during the food riot in the middle east a fews month ago there was food everywhere but it was just too expensive for normal people to buy.




Y

As above, resources were being allocated as demanded, without regard to the market. The market is what revealed the problem of using corn as a bio-fuel.
ressources where allocated without regard to the people who need that ressources. That the market who allowed such thing. The main idea was to produce cheap fuel.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=danyboy25;1638071]there is no boss in a cooperative mate. there is an elected manager but people of the cooperative can fire him if he do a verry bad job. They all cast a vote and could remove him from his function.


The job of the "watchdog" (boss) is tell the workers what to do, and what not to do. If he or she cannot do this, then he or she cannot be held responsible if he does "bad job."





they are neutral in the sense that they are not either pro capitalist or pro communism. i do believe communism is the best way to make logistics work beccause you wouldnt have to worry about profit or the cost of the logistic itself.


Well no. The logistics is how each goes about its business. Its not neutral in that regard. The communist community will also have to wory about the cost of logistics, since one of its costs cannot be used as an asset elsewhere.


well, that mostly the case when they dont decide drive the price creazy bu cutting the production on purpose.

Are you a slavedriver? You want people working 24 hrs a day?





there is right now enough and was enough corn to supply the middle east, but beccause of the high demand from us consumer for corn, the prices gones up.


OK. So we need corn also. Why are the folks in the mid-east more deserving of corn?



then again its not supposed to matter beccause most of the corn in the middle east come from europe and china. during the food riot in the middle east a fews month ago there was food everywhere but it was just too expensive for normal people to buy.


yes. there were riots in Mexico as well. The price of corn was high because corn was being allocated for the production of fuel as opposed for foof for people and animals.





ressources where allocated without regard to the people who need that ressources. That the market who allowed such thing. The main idea was to produce cheap fuel.


Well gee whiz. The folks in the mideast have cheap fuel since that is where the oil is at. Now you are complaining its a problem if Americans want cheap fuel.
I will agree its ridiculous to use corn for fuel. Drill for oil (drill baby drill). But that is certainly not a popular sentiment- on these boards at least. And the use of corn was not the result of the market- it was a result of the government mandating the use of corn.

[danyboy27]

[QUOTE]


The job of the "watchdog" (boss) is tell the workers what to do, and what not to do. If he or she cannot do this, then he or she cannot be held responsible if he does "bad job."
.
a watchdog is not a boss. a watchdog is impartial and verify if everything is ok, make recomendation, looking for potential abuse.
he dosnt need to give order, only to inform the workers of what going on. Worker can for exemple destitute an elected superior themselves. If the watchdog bring the evidence that the guy x is making shit work, nothing stop the worker to destitute him by vote.




[QUOTE]

Well no. The logistics is how each goes about its business. Its not neutral in that regard. The communist community will also have to wory about the cost of logistics, since one of its costs cannot be used as an asset elsewhere.

then again its not beccause it cost a lot now that its gonna cost a lot later. I am not talking about hiring more people to manage the stuff but to rely more on barecode, computer and automations. IF we need more barecode machine we will build more barcode machine.


[QUOTE]

Are you a slavedriver? You want people working 24 hrs a day?
.
you misinterpreted what i said. I dont want people working 24 hour shift. Multiple team relay themselves for various shifts. Its nothing new, Many industries do that. Then again its all about the need of the ressources. IF people develop alternative methods then there is no need to have multiple team and night shift.



[QUOTE]
OK. So we need corn also. Why are the folks in the mid-east more deserving of corn?

I mentionned earlier that the middle east wasnt in a real shortage of corn, but that the artificial scarcity caused the price of the corn to go up.
Anyway, i can imagines that certain places on earth deserve more food beccause of the lack of both arable land and technology to exploit it. we should help those folks until they can walk on their feets, that perfectly fine.



[QUOTE]

yes. there were riots in Mexico as well. The price of corn was high because corn was being allocated for the production of fuel as opposed for foof for people and animals.
.
and that another proof that market economy fail. That bio fuel thing was an insane money driven green marketing idea. and beccause those industries can do such things without accountability this kind of shit is bound to happen forever.



[QUOTE]

Well gee whiz. The folks in the mideast have cheap fuel since that is where the oil is at. Now you are complaining its a problem if Americans want cheap fuel.

again, another bright exemple of the fail of market economy. Beccause some saudi bozo play with the scarcity of the petrol, prices goes up, creating a demand in the us for cheap fuel. A big corporation discover that you can manufacture fuel with corn, and seize the opportunity to reap that ressources in order to give cheap fuel to the americans. The whole process create a false scarcity of the ressources, making corn price goes up to 100% in the developed countries for the corn, causing civil unrest, riot and hunger.



[QUOTE]

I will agree its ridiculous to use corn for fuel. Drill for oil (drill baby drill). But that is certainly not a popular sentiment- on these boards at least.
i dont see anything wrong with using a ressource that is at our disposal if its done correctly.


[QUOTE]
And the use of corn was not the result of the market- it was a result of the government mandating the use of corn.
Bullshit. I never heard of big corporation being financed to develop biofuel, they did it all by themselves.
The governement invested in those industries after a while beccause it was deemed profitable.

And seriously, i dont have the shadow of a doubt that it is profitable for the buisness that is making it.

But it was a verry irresponsable move. Any chemists knews that the biofuel was increasing air polution when it was first developed.

Profit over reason.

[graffic]

I'm saying that it's not a closed system.

But it is. Studies repeatedly show that the overwhelming majority of people stay within a certain income bracket through out life.

The "ruling" class is the biggest closed shop anyone has ever seen. The rich person born into a rich family is ALWAYS going to be ahead of the poor person, no matter how dumb or clever he/she is. That's the problem with the rich. "Free-market" rhetoric spouted by the wealthy would at least have some form of credibility if they actually gave people a fair chance. But they don't, because they hate the poor, they hate the poor because they haven't "made it". They send their kids to elite schools, separated from the rest, to ensure they grow up to take on "respectable" roles in society so that daddy's wealth and status is preserved. The system is rigged from the start, there is nothing meritocratic about it whatsoever, every study shows this to be the case.


The amount of wealth in the world isn't static--if you want wealth you can create it over and above the amount that is owned by the rich and the poor and the inbetween of the world.

In western capitalism there is a cartel on economic opportunity, an insidious monopoly with no social conscience. Private education, corporate media and reactionary politicians and many other factors, kept afloat by capital, propagate the myth that people deserve to have less and that the "poor" are to blame only themselves. The myth serves to maintain raging in-equalities so that the ruling class can hold on to privilege to the detriment of the innocent majority.