Capitalists: How can you justify anybody earning over a million dollars a year? [Archive]

graffic

14th March 2010, 17:07

It can, however, be controlled (there are many regulations in Western democracies controlling work place safety, child labor, and workplace safety) and it can be limited through graduated income taxation.

I actually think that income taxation is the second round of "legalised" theft. Millionaires are not creating most of their wealth. They are collecting wealth created by other people. It is economic rent of land and is available because governments don't bother to collect the value they are entitled to. Land value is the value of natural and locational advantages, the private appropriation of this "value" is legalised theft. I think that because governments don't collect this, they tax earnings.

It goes to a bureaucracy that cranks out more and more regulations until society (including you) gets disgusted by its suffocating effect.

I agree with what you say, i think that the problem is with the operation of the "bureaucracy". It's like saying, for example, that an organisation that provides relief to slaves is so suffocating and disorganised that it is better that the slave owner has complete control over his slaves.

I say he has earned all of his 53 billion dollars. I don't know much about the new top guy other than that he is a mexican telecom giant, but if he has earned that money then he deserves it.

I think Gates earned his money by using Microsoft's monopolistic position as leverage. He got his products bundled with almost every PC, while buying or copying products from other companies. The unique position in the industry came about through his connections at IBM, not through innovative or high quality products. I read that Microsoft actually held back computer software for a decade, churning out highly conservative and generally inferior products, whilst genuinely innovative companies fell by the wayside. Bill Gates has been able to destroy nearly all his competitors.

I don't think he deserves anywhere near $53 billion.

los.barbaros.ganan

14th March 2010, 17:38

I what way is say Bill Gates working harder then say a miner? (who's actually risking his life)

Kingpin

14th March 2010, 17:44

Does anyone really think that Bill Gate's children and a starving child in capitalist sub-saharan Africa have the "same opportunity" to make millions of dollars?

Does the starving child and Microsoft have equality? Or can Microsoft influence politics on a scale much larger?

SandiNeesta

14th March 2010, 17:51

With that much money comes an almost unlimited amount of power and influence over politics,the media, etc....in my opinion way more dangerous than the actual 53 billion dollars itself...and grossly unfair. Why should Bill Gates' opinions be more important and influential than anyone else's just because he's filthy rich?

Bud Struggle

14th March 2010, 19:11

Interesting article. It makes a good point that some billionaires like Gates have made plenty, but also have created plenty of opportunities for others to make money and have brought some prosperity and inovation to the world. Other people (like Slim) are leaches. But those things are less a factor of business than of politics. Slim never would be able to control 90% of the US telephone market--the courts would break up his monopoly just as they did with ATT. The problem isn't that Mexico has Capitalism--it just has BAD Capitalism. In the same way (while not perfect by any streach) the USA has a better regulated Capitalism.

Maybe Gates didn't earn every penny of his 53 billion--but he did earn a lot of it and he created an enviornment where lots of other people can and do make plenty of money. So I don't begrudge him anything. And for the most part the USA is a pretty decent place to be an entrepreneaur. Competition is tough, but the government doesn't bother you and you can usually succeed if you keep trying.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

14th March 2010, 22:11

You might argue the following. A person should be paid proportionally to how much their contributions improved utility. It's conceivable that someone could justify earning over a million (I think). A billion is probably unrealistic.

I don't think it matters how much a person earns. If someone is a millionaire while people are starving, I could care less if they worked hard for their money. There are more important things in life.

Bud Struggle

14th March 2010, 22:23

You might argue the following. A person should be paid proportionally to how much their contributions improved utility. They are a lot of the time. And a lot of the time they are payed WAY over their utility. And who is to judge? If it isn't the market then it's got to be some guy sitting in a room. The Capitalist system in this respect is as fair as any other system.

It's conceivable that someone could justify earning over a million (I think). A billion is probably unrealistic. But dollars are just numbers after a point. And no one is "paying" these guys at all. They don't have jobs--they generate income for products and services they give.

I don't think it matters how much a person earns. If someone is a millionaire while people are starving, I could care less if they worked hard for their money. There are more important things in life.That's focusing things at the wrong end of the problem. It should NEVER be about punishing people for making money--it ALWAYS should be about giving the most opportunity to the most people. China is doing that these days--their students are fludding American universities. Hopefully they will take their lessons back home and build a free and democratic China. That's the future of the world.

Dean

14th March 2010, 22:43

That's focusing things at the wrong end of the problem. It should NEVER be about punishing people for making money--it ALWAYS should be about giving the most opportunity to the most people. China is doing that these days--their students are fludding American universities. Hopefully they will take their lessons back home and build a free and democratic China. That's the future of the world.

The introduction of neoliberal reforms in China and Russia have led to acutely (and increasingly) undemocratic systems. Capital is a distinctly hegemonic, un-democratic system, so its incredibly defeatist to point to these kinds of ideas as "free, democratic" ones.

Even if you were talking about other academic tendencies in the US (the abhorrent state of representative gov't or other privacy & social concerns) the only characteristics that we have going for us are:
-privacy concerns which are being eroded
-gun rights
-de jure (if not de facto) freedom of expression

But in other fields, especially concerning democracy, the US is really struggling. By having such a negligible, impotent expression of spontaneous mass action, the US has proven that it is decidedly un-democratic. Nations like Iran, France, Greece and China, with their own struggles in terms of political and economic freedom, have an incredibly higher degree of democratic character simply by nature of the fact that people express their political and economic agenda via mass action.

It is the question of idealist versus materialist analysis of society and its tendencies which leads us down either path - that is, whether or not the US and other such states are democratic. But it is incredibly clear that whatever democracy is manifested is much more important to discuss than whatever ideals of democracy a state is said to respect. Democracy is, after all, a people-driven, not state-driven state of things.

Bud Struggle

14th March 2010, 23:10

The introduction of neoliberal reforms in China and Russia have led to acutely (and increasingly) undemocratic systems. Capital is a distinctly hegemonic, un-democratic system, so its incredibly defeatist to point to these kinds of ideas as "free, democratic" ones. I agree that both China and Russia are undemocratic--but they never were anythng close to that to begin with. Both started Cpaitalism as being totalitarian states--now 20 years into Capitalism I agree things aren't much better--but where were eithere of these countries 20 years into Communism? Give them some time, things will come around.

Even if you were talking about other academic tendencies in the US (the abhorrent state of representative gov't or other privacy & social concerns) the only characteristics that we have going for us are:
-privacy concerns which are being eroded
-gun rights
-de jure (if not de facto) freedom of expression Privacy is an issue--and that is an issue that needs to be addressed--I'll grant you that. But you must admit the US is MUCH better than the USSR or Communist China (in the day)or even Cuba. But it is an issue.

Gun rights--well that's the liberals curtailing that one--but for better or worse it's in the Constitution and the SCOTUS is on the side of the gun people.

And I see no problem with freedom of expression listen: FUCK THE UNITED STATES, FUCK CAPITALISM, FUCK OBAMA. No problem there. Let's see you say, FUCK CUBA, FUCK COMMUNISM, FUCK FIDEL in Cuba.

But in other fields, especially concerning democracy, the US is really struggling. By having such a negligible, impotent expression of spontaneous mass action, the US has proven that it is decidedly un-democratic. Nations like Iran, France, Greece and China, with their own struggles in terms of political and economic freedom, have an incredibly higher degree of democratic character simply by nature of the fact that people express their political and economic agenda via mass action. I see it differently: you can protest all you want if you want--but people don't seem to want. We aren't a "mass action" country. For that matter we have been having "Tea Parties" and those promise to Conservatize the Republican party a good deal. There's mass action--just not the kind you want.

It is the question of idealist versus materialist analysis of society and its tendencies which leads us down either path - that is, whether or not the US and other such states are democratic. But it is incredibly clear that whatever democracy is manifested is much more important to discuss than whatever ideals of democracy a state is said to respect. Democracy is, after all, a people-driven, not state-driven state of things. I agee there. I'm an idealist but we do have to work to keep America democratic. Bush led America down the path of totalitalitarianism, but those days are gone--I think all this fighting and wrangling about healthcare (while not good for healthcare, per se) is good for the opening up of American debate on central issues. We are comming back around.

los.barbaros.ganan

15th March 2010, 00:14

Why is Bill Gates working harder then a coalminer?

Simple question

Bud Struggle

15th March 2010, 00:30

Why is Bill Gates working harder then a coalminer?

Simple question

Because he creates more wealth (for himself and others) that a coal miner does. Gates not only creates wealth for himeself but he creats it for his employees and for his stockholders. A miner only makes money for himself and a small % for the business he works for.

Scary Monster

15th March 2010, 00:36

I see it differently: you can protest all you want if you want--but people don't seem to want. We aren't a "mass action" country. For that matter we have been having "Tea Parties" and those promise to Conservatize the Republican party a good deal. There's mass action--just not the kind you want.

:lol: DUde, you know just as well as I do that those "Tea Parties" only have a well known name because of corporate sponsorship and biased coverage of the mainstream media, painting them as a grass-roots organization. No one takes those racist retards seriously.

CartCollector

15th March 2010, 02:43

Gun rights--well that's the liberals curtailing that one
We're not a bunch of namby pamby reformist "liberals." We call ourselves "revolutionary" for a reason.

OK here's a logical argument for everyone:
Socialists believe everyone should have an equal amount of political power.
"Political power comes from the barrel of a gun" -Mao
Therefore socialists believe everyone should have an equal amount of guns.
What does everyone think? I'd like to hear your thoughts, especially if you're a socialist. Fun fact: Marx supported this.

4. Universal arming of the people. In future the armies shall be simultaneously labour armies, so that the troops shall not, as formerly, merely consume, but shall produce more than is necessary for their upkeep.
This will moreover be conducive to the organisation of labour.

In before "yeah everyone should have guns but we need to stop the counterrevolutionaries from taking over so we need to take their guns."

mikelepore

15th March 2010, 03:35

Supporters of capitalism have always generated confusion around the concept of "creating" wealth. They argue that any time a crew of workers produces something that gets sold for five dollars, but their boss has paid them one dollar to do it, then "the fact that the capitalist is a genius" has created four dollars worth of wealth. The activity of shuffling money around from one pocket to another gets extolled as the activity that brought the wealth into the world.

LeftSideDown

15th March 2010, 04:44

You are not actually rejecting my point that the 53 billion dollars were not exactly obtained through hard work. He does not really "deserve" that 53 billion dollars because he has not really worked much harder than many people who have not received 53 billion dollars for their work. It's all a big lottery bro. Some people that work hard get billions, others get nothing, but in the vain hope that they might end up as one of the fortunate they continue supporting the system.

Also, what does someone being Costa Rican have to do with it? I only used that country to show the ridiculous amount of wealth Bill Gates has.

Who decides what people deserve? Lets say someone is a prospector for oil and he thinks this one place has lots of oil. He starts digging by himself hoping to strike oil, and works for a year like this, digging deeper and deeper. Eventually he realized there is no oil, but he "worked" hard. Well, he certainly worked hard enough, shouldn't he be rewarded even though he accomplished nothing but a safety hazard? Do you see the flaw with rewarding based on merit and not results?

The results of Microsoft's (and to some extent apple) efforts is 62 million (or 55% of the population) households have web connected computers. Is this not worth 53 billion dollars? If you don't think so, than you should disconnect your computer and stop supporting this evil capitalist corporation, I however think it is worth 53 billion dollars to give people the ability to browse new ideas/learn new information/watch pron.

Honestly, if you're so upset with the state of the poor why don't you sell all your stuff and donate it to charity? You live so far above the standard of most people in the world that you preaching about the evils of capitalism when you have benefited so much borders on shear hypocrisy.

Drace

15th March 2010, 05:08

Who decides what people deserve? Lets say someone is a prospector for oil and he thinks this one place has lots of oil. He starts digging by himself hoping to strike oil, and works for a year like this, digging deeper and deeper. Eventually he realized there is no oil, but he "worked" hard. Well, he certainly worked hard enough, shouldn't he be rewarded even though he accomplished nothing but a safety hazard? Do you see the flaw with rewarding based on merit and not results?That's a completely ridiculous situation that does not at all reflect the wide majority of labor. If workers are producing clothes in a factory, the result of it is obvious.
Speculating on oil is the job of the rich upper class. But even in a capitalist economy, if you speculated on oil and hired people to dig it for you, you'd still have to pay them for their labor no matter the result.

Labor itself has a value and needs to be paid for. And I don't see how your situation at all applies to reality. If you want to dig a hole yourself, go for it. That doesn't even constitute anything meaningful on an economic level.

The results of Microsoft's (and to some extent apple) efforts is 62 million (or 55% of the population) households have web connected computers. Is this not worth 53 billion dollars? If you don't think so, than you should disconnect your computer and stop supporting this evil capitalist corporation, I however think it is worth 53 billion dollars to give people the ability to browse new ideas/learn new information/watch pron.Oh yes, hail Gates who without we would have nothing!
Should Benjamin Franklin be entitled to part of all the electrical devices because he discovered electricity?
He only merely contributed the idea of it, not the labor. Give him a science award, a prize, and a place in history, and let him fuck off.

Honestly, if you're so upset with the state of the poor why don't you sell all your stuff and donate it to charity? You live so far above the standard of most people in the world that you preaching about the evils of capitalism when you have benefited so much borders on shear hypocrisy.Oh no, we can't criticize capitalism and point out its the cause of much strife in the world because we aren't the worst victims of it.
"Hey you Brits, stop complaining about the exploitation of the Indian colonies, your living good and in fact are benefiting from it. If you really care about people dying, donate all your stuff!"

LeftSideDown

15th March 2010, 05:22

That's a completely ridiculous situation that does not at all reflect the wide majority of labor. If workers are producing clothes in a factory, the result of it is obvious.
Speculating on oil is the job of the rich upper class. But even in a capitalist economy, if you speculated on oil and hired people to dig it for you, you'd still have to pay them for their labor no matter the result.

Okay, lets change the situation. Some guy is crafting a home-made car and he finishes it turns the key and the engine explodes and destroys what would be a "1 million dollar" car (any value really,doesn't matter). A mouse had snuck into the engine and sabotaged it, and he worked hard for many years making that car. He deserves 1 million dollars, because all of his labor should be compensated for, right?
I said the man dug the hole himself, and his intention was help make the world better by discovering another source of oil. Surely he deserves an award for trying? OR, may I ask you, its not what people "deserve" or what they "merit" but rather the consequences of the action that matter, not the action itself?

Labor itself has a value and needs to be paid for. And I don't see how your situation at all applies to reality. If you want to dig a hole yourself, go for it. That doesn't even constitute anything meaningful on an economic level.

The point is not the hole, but the whole principle. If someone labors for something, long and hard, but in the end produces nothing, doesn't he deserve a reward? Look at all the labor he did! Labor has value, doesn't matter where the labor is applied.

Oh yes, hail Gates who without we would have nothing!
Should Benjamin Franklin be entitled to part of all the electrical devices because he invented electricity?
He only merely contributed the idea of it, not the labor. Give him a science award, a prize, and a place in history, and let him fuck off.
Oh no, we can't criticize capitalism and point out its the cause of much strife in the world because we aren't the worst victims of it.
"Hey you Brits, stop complaining about the exploitation of the Indian colonies, your living good and in fact are benefiting from it. If you really care about people dying, donate all your stuff!"

I didn't say nothing, I said computers.
Your point about Benjamin Franklin involves intellectual property, something I don't believe is covered by general property rights.
Your final example isn't capitalism, its mercantilism and imperialism. I don't care if you associate the words, they aren't, by definition, linked, and any connection you draw between them is the result of your own biases and not any kind of fact.

Drace

15th March 2010, 06:13

Okay, lets change the situation. Some guy is crafting a home-made car and he finishes it turns the key and the engine explodes and destroys what would be a "1 million dollar" car (any value really,doesn't matter). A mouse had snuck into the engine and sabotaged it, and he worked hard for many years making that car. He deserves 1 million dollars, because all of his labor should be compensated for, right?
I said the man dug the hole himself, and his intention was help make the world better by discovering another source of oil. Surely he deserves an award for trying? OR, may I ask you, its not what people "deserve" or what they "merit" but rather the consequences of the action that matter, not the action itself?

I don't even see how this relates to a socialist or capitalist organization. But no, it all depends on whether whoever decides whether the risk of that labor is worth taking.
The labor needs to be paid for.
And again since the guy is self employed, it really doesn't portray a capitalist or a socialist economy.

The point is not the hole, but the whole principle. If someone labors for something, long and hard, but in the end produces nothing, doesn't he deserve a reward? Look at all the labor he did! Labor has value, doesn't matter where the labor is applied.

Oh look, you made a pun!

Your point about Benjamin Franklin involves intellectual property, something I don't believe is covered by general property rights.

The design of a computer is intellectual property. The creation of it is purely material and something Bill Gates does not get his hands on.

Your final example isn't capitalism, its mercantilism and imperialism. I don't care if you associate the words, they aren't, by definition, linked, and any connection you draw between them is the result of your own biases and not any kind of fact.

Well you said I shouldn't complain about capitalism because I'm better off than those who have nothing to eat.
Its completely relevant.

Physicist

15th March 2010, 07:09

As long as someone earns it they can have it. For example bill gates created microsoft and earned billions in profit and created one of the largest tech companies in the world. I say he has earned all of his 53 billion dollars. I don't know much about the new top guy other than that he is a mexican telecom giant, but if he has earned that money then he deserves it.

Bill Gates credits his success to being born in the United States, to a family of lawyers and bankers who afforded him a private education in not only one of the few high schools that had a computer, but also the king of Ivy leagues, Harvard. Despite 'dropping' out of his initial baccalaureate pursuits, simply entering Harvard offered him the opportunity to expand into the business world and make important contacts that otherwise would have been unavailable to someone with less money. (Let's not forget even Richard Nixon had to forgo Harvard because he couldn't afford the living expenses) We'll not even go into how he used dubious copyright measures to stifle competition. Needless to say, you are desperately grasping at straws by trying to argue that luck was not one of the largest factors in his rise to prominence - especially when the man himself has admitted as much.

Physicist

15th March 2010, 07:12

Because he creates more wealth (for himself and others) that a coal miner does.

You're sprinting in a circle. He creates more wealth because he owns wealth. Where did he get this first stage of wealth? Predominantly from... owning wealth.

Physicist

15th March 2010, 07:15

#FF0000

15th March 2010, 09:23

If someone in costa rica wanted to create a company with revolutionary ideas without state intervention, then they have a chance to earn 53 billion dollars. Gates taught himself basic and dropped out of college b/c it couldn't benefit him any more. He created one of the most successful companies in the world and has now earned the money he now has. Look at steve jobs and steve wozniak. they created a computer in their garage and got it out to the public and now apple is one of the most successful companies in the world. If you work hard then yes you can succeed and even become worth 53 billion dollars.

Except Bill Gates started off incredibly fuck-off wealthy and dropped out of fucking Harvard, not because he had to but because he wanted to, and with his parents money, he could afford to. Not to mention the dude had a computer in the fucking 70s, which means you have money off the bat.

EDIT: Oh look, Physicist beat me to it.

TiberiusGracchus

15th March 2010, 10:30

The answer to that from the other side is that when millionaire gives the 95 cents on every subsequent dollar, the 95 cents doesn't go to buy products or consume services, like that whisky you mentioned. It goes to a bureaucracy that cranks out more and more regulations until society (including you) gets disgusted by its suffocating effect.

How about if we would use the money for investments in infrastructure, schools, health care, welfare etc?

Would not that be a better than to waste the money on luxury consumtion for the elite?

los.barbaros.ganan

15th March 2010, 12:43

Because he creates more wealth (for himself and others) that a coal miner does. Gates not only creates wealth for himeself but he creats it for his employees and for his stockholders. A miner only makes money for himself and a small % for the business he works for.

and so he's working harder?
read the question as simple as it is

RGacky3

15th March 2010, 13:33

Why earn more than say ... a million a yaer? Its power, money is the new crown or power.

Bud Struggle

15th March 2010, 13:37

and so he's working harder?
read the question as simple as it is

I guess I don't know what "hard" means. But it really doesn' matter how hard you work--it only matters how much you produce.

Why earn more than say ... a million a yaer? Its power, money is the new crown or power. You are right, there.

RGacky3

15th March 2010, 13:42

I guess I don't know what "hard" means. But it really doesn' matter how hard you work--it only matters how much you produce.

Yes, because the incredibly wealthy bankers, and other super capitalists in the (literally) globabl rulign class are so productive, right?

You are right, there.

And yet you support it :)

LeftSideDown

15th March 2010, 16:43

and so he's working harder?
read the question as simple as it is

Its so silly that just because someone is doing back-breaking labor that he should be paid more than someone who brought society forward as much as computers did.

LeftSideDown

15th March 2010, 16:44

Yes, because the incredibly wealthy bankers, and other super capitalists in the (literally) globabl rulign class are so productive, right?

And yet you support it :)

They create more wealth than a coal-miner by investing in businesses that meet consumer demand better than other businesses.

Listen, everytime a consumer buys something new instead of something old value is created. The consumer values the new thing more than his money more than the old thing. This is how wealth is created.

LeftSideDown

15th March 2010, 16:47

Bill Gates credits his success to being born in the United States, to a family of lawyers and bankers who afforded him a private education in not only one of the few high schools that had a computer, but also the king of Ivy leagues, Harvard. Despite 'dropping' out of his initial baccalaureate pursuits, simply entering Harvard offered him the opportunity to expand into the business world and make important contacts that otherwise would have been unavailable to someone with less money. (Let's not forget even Richard Nixon had to forgo Harvard because he couldn't afford the living expenses) We'll not even go into how he used dubious copyright measures to stifle competition. Needless to say, you are desperately grasping at straws by trying to argue that luck was not one of the largest factors in his rise to prominence - especially when the man himself has admitted as much.

So your point is people are born into different situations and its up to the individual to make the best of it? Yeah, I agree. I'm sorry but people are not equal; maybe when they're small children they are, but not as they grow up. So Bill Gates grew up in a wealthy family, so what? He still contributed to society in a real way. Would you punish a model who was born beautiful? Or a pianist who was born with a "good ear"? Why punish someone lucky enough to be born into a rich family? Its essentially the same as being born with a natural attribute. By saying you'd punish someone for conditions they can't control (in this case what kind of family they are born into) you open up the door for punishing people for any condition they can't control (beauty, athleticism, thinking ability, etc etc).

Dean

15th March 2010, 16:48

I agree that both China and Russia are undemocratic--but they never were anythng close to that to begin with. Both started Cpaitalism as being totalitarian states--now 20 years into Capitalism I agree things aren't much better--but where were eithere of these countries 20 years into Communism? Give them some time, things will come around.

Privacy is an issue--and that is an issue that needs to be addressed--I'll grant you that. But you must admit the US is MUCH better than the USSR or Communist China (in the day)or even Cuba. But it is an issue.

This is why I brought it up. The US people have historically been very steadfast in their support of their privacy rights and other personal liberties. This is clearly waning, but that - along with de jure freedom of expression - are things the US has going for it in terms of freedoms.

As for "20 years into communism," we all know that economic centralisation - that is to say a system of private property - was firmly established and maintained throughout the "communist" regimes in those states.

Gun rights--well that's the liberals curtailing that one--but for better or worse it's in the Constitution and the SCOTUS is on the side of the gun people.

And I see no problem with freedom of expression listen: FUCK THE UNITED STATES, FUCK CAPITALISM, FUCK OBAMA. No problem there. Let's see you say, FUCK CUBA, FUCK COMMUNISM, FUCK FIDEL in Cuba.
You're right, and that's why I reject US liberalism (which also is quite pro-capitalist and centralization). for Cuba, see above.

I see it differently: you can protest all you want if you want--but people don't seem to want. We aren't a "mass action" country. For that matter we have been having "Tea Parties" and those promise to Conservatize the Republican party a good deal. There's mass action--just not the kind you want.

I agee there. I'm an idealist but we do have to work to keep America democratic. Bush led America down the path of totalitalitarianism, but those days are gone--I think all this fighting and wrangling about healthcare (while not good for healthcare, per se) is good for the opening up of American debate on central issues. We are comming back around.

Firstly, Obama has maintained Bush's programs and policies, particularly the assaults on privacy and freedom both for US citizens and foreign nationals. This is well documented, just check out Amnesty.org -> Issues by nation -> USA

Secondly, idealism is precisely the problem with the US, and with your approach. If people are not massively standing up for their interests in the US, which they are not, we do not have a democratic system. Its very simple. The "possibility" to stand up by way of legal right is not very meaningful. What is meaningful is what social, political and economic actions are led by the interests and actions of popular, widespread and people-based movements. It's idealist and meaningless to talk about the "right" to do such things, when democratic action is clearly defined by democratic systems. A "democratic" system which merely allows, but does not manifest popular action (be it protest or active involvement in political systems) is only democratic in name and ideals, not in fact.

Physicist

15th March 2010, 17:57

So your point is people are born into different situations and its up to the individual to make the best of it? Yeah, I agree. I'm sorry but people are not equal; maybe when they're small children they are, but not as they grow up. So Bill Gates grew up in a wealthy family, so what? He still contributed to society in a real way. Would you punish a model who was born beautiful? Or a pianist who was born with a "good ear"? Why punish someone lucky enough to be born into a rich family? Its essentially the same as being born with a natural attribute. By saying you'd punish someone for conditions they can't control (in this case what kind of family they are born into) you open up the door for punishing people for any condition they can't control (beauty, athleticism, thinking ability, etc etc).

Is removing a monarch from the seat of authority 'punishing' him, too? You seem to be caught up comparing intrinsic traits like one's looks with societal conditions like wealth. If you're going to cross that line we may as well shrug our shoulders at job discrimination against women and remark about something intangible like 'people with down syndrome can't become mathematicians, either!'

There's no slippery slope to be had. I'm talking about restructuring societal connections, not personal attributes.

I have no personal distaste for Bill Gates. I don't wish him ill. If I was in his situation, I would probably turn out with a similar mindset.

CartCollector

15th March 2010, 18:28

Listen, everytime a consumer buys something new instead of something old value is created. The consumer values the new thing more than his money more than the old thing. This is how wealth is created.
This is one of the stupidest things, in my mind, in capitalism. What happens when people consume less in a year? Do people go "yay I don't have to work as much because I have to produce less?" No, they get paid less (in income or in benefits) or they get laid off, and then everything goes in a neverending downward spiral just because some people didn't buy enough. It's truly a system where (as I said in another thread) thrift creates catastrophe.
People with this mindset- you wonder why America is up to its ears in debt (both its people and the government)? It's this argument, that consumption creates wealth. The more stitches, the less riches. Spending is better than mending.
Huxley was an idiot. You don't need fancy hypnopaedic sleep teaching to control people. Advertisements work just fine.

LeftSideDown

15th March 2010, 19:15

This is one of the stupidest things, in my mind, in capitalism. What happens when people consume less in a year? Do people go "yay I don't have to work as much because I have to produce less?" No, they get paid less (in income or in benefits) or they get laid off, and then everything goes in a neverending downward spiral just because some people didn't buy enough. It's truly a system where (as I said in another thread) thrift creates catastrophe.
People with this mindset- you wonder why America is up to its ears in debt (both its people and the government)? It's this argument, that consumption creates wealth. The more stitches, the less riches. Spending is better than mending.
Huxley was an idiot. You don't need fancy hypnopaedic sleep teaching to control people. Advertisements work just fine.

This is not true in the least, and is a myth of of Keynesianism, not of the free-market. It would take forever to explain why it isn't true, but I can provide a recording that does it pretty concisely if you have willingness to learn: http://mises.org/media/3981?silverlight=0

Once you get past the guys accent and his lame sense of humor its very informative and pretty well dispels your myth about "Spiraling deflation".

And the reason why America is up to its ears in debt is because of government interference and Keynsianism... not capitalism.

Well, the point isn't how you control people, but that under communism people need to be controlled.

Dean

15th March 2010, 19:29

They create more wealth than a coal-miner by investing in businesses that meet consumer demand better than other businesses.

Listen, everytime a consumer buys something new instead of something old value is created. The consumer values the new thing more than his money more than the old thing. This is how wealth is created.

This is precisely how the ideology behind capitalist economy forms an immaterial, idealist milieu. If the fundamental characteristic of your value-creation theory is based on human emotion, you have a long way to go before you reach a serious, analytical approach to real-world economic systems.

What you have indicated with this approach is that consumer goods are valuable not for their use-value, but for the emotion they can invoke in the consumer. That very succinctly describes how the supply-side of consumerism manipulates and exploits the human animal to their own economic end.

LeftSideDown

15th March 2010, 19:30

Is removing a monarch from the seat of authority 'punishing' him, too? You seem to be caught up comparing intrinsic traits like one's looks with societal conditions like wealth. If you're going to cross that line we may as well shrug our shoulders at job discrimination against women and remark about something intangible like 'people with down syndrome can't become mathematicians, either!'

There's no slippery slope to be had. I'm talking about restructuring societal connections, not personal attributes.

I have no personal distaste for Bill Gates. I don't wish him ill. If I was in his situation, I would probably turn out with a similar mindset.

It depends on why he is being removed. If he is being removed simply because he is a monarch, than it is punishment. They (the people) conferred there power into the monarchy (at least at one point they did). Now, if he, or a long line of monarchs had been "bad monarchs" than they are not meeting consumer demand in whatever field they are lacking, and sense the people cannot vote with their dollars they vote with their fists. If a capitalist, or lets just call him a rich guy, without inquiring into the roots of his richness, invests in something doesn't meet consumer demand he is loses that wealth. This isn't punishment.

IF however some group of people envy a rich person, and decide to take his wealth through taxation, than he is being punished. Just like if there is a group of people who envy a beautiful person and decide to make them wear a mask, that person is being punished. People should be punished for actions, not by conditions of their birth (that can include beauty, skin color, and wealth).

LeftSideDown

15th March 2010, 19:47

This is precisely how the ideology behind capitalist economy forms an immaterial, idealist milieu. If the fundamental characteristic of your value-creation theory is based on human emotion, you have a long way to go before you reach a serious, analytical approach to real-world economic systems.

What you have indicated with this approach is that consumer goods are valuable not for their use-value, but for the emotion they can invoke in the consumer. That very succinctly describes how the supply-side of consumerism manipulates and exploits the human animal to their own economic end.

Value has nothing to do with use-value or emotion but subjective valuations made by consumers. Nothing more, nothing less.

Dean

15th March 2010, 19:49

Value has nothing to do with use-value or emotion but subjective valuations made by consumers. Nothing more, nothing less.

So it has nothing to do with the creation of wealth, then? In your snide minimalism, you've contradicted your own statements in addition to maintaining an immaterial, idealist viewpoint.

LeftSideDown

15th March 2010, 20:03

So it has nothing to do with the creation of wealth, then? In your snide minimalism, you've contradicted your own statements in addition to maintaining an immaterial, idealist viewpoint.

It has everything to do with the creation of wealth, and I didn't contradict what I said earlier I restated it in different terms.

"Listen, everytime a consumer buys something new instead of something old value is created. The consumer values the new thing more than his money more than the old thing. This is how wealth is created."

I meant something new by a new creation/invention not just new car vs used car. They subjectively valued something (like a computer) more than the (say 500 dollars) money they shelled out to buy it. If they did NOT value the computer more than the 500 dollars, than they would not buy it, and no wealth would be created.

CartCollector

16th March 2010, 00:29

And the reason why America is up to its ears in debt is because of government interference and Keynsianism... not capitalism.
Government interference and Keynesianism are capitalism. When the government interferes to make sure that the means of production is privately owned and can't be expropriated, that is capitalism. Also, here's what Keynes has to say about communism:

How can I accept the Communist doctrine, which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete textbook which I know not only to be scientifically erroneous but without interest or application to the modern world? How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia, who with all their faults, are the quality of life and surely carry the seeds of all human achievement? Even if we need a religion, how can we find it in the turbid rubbish of the red bookshop? It is hard for an educated, decent, intelligent son of Western Europe to find his ideals here, unless he has first suffered some strange and horrid process of conversion which has changed all his values.
Source: Essays in Persuasion

Sounds like someone who really hates capitalism, doesn't he? Because most people who hate capitalism say that capitalists "carry the seeds of all human achievement." Yeah.

Ele'ill

16th March 2010, 00:56

I would really like to comment on this thread but I'm going to be traveling across North America for the next couple weeks to a month and wouldn't want to get involved in a debate on here and not be able to respond because it would kill me.

But I just wanted to let it be known that I would have responded. I would probably have said something really important and cutting so just imagine that. Thanks guys.

LeftSideDown

16th March 2010, 00:58

Government interference and Keynesianism are capitalism. When the government interferes to make sure that the means of production is privately owned and can't be expropriated, that is capitalism. Also, here's what Keynes has to say about communism:

Source: Essays in Persuasion

Sounds like someone who really hates capitalism, doesn't he? Because most people who hate capitalism say that capitalists "carry the seeds of all human achievement." Yeah.

[/INDENT]

I was wrong to use "capitalist" in that case, and I should've used free-market. I apologize for making you make this point. What I meant was that Keynes was not completely free-market, he thought that it was okay for the government to interfere, because there exists, in the free-market, "failings" (he believes that, not I). Yes, Keynes was a snob, as well as anti-semite, I don't subscribe to anything he says and he wanted government interference to enforce the current hierarchy, with himself on top, of course. If government does exist it should only enforce contracts, property rights, and security, not any existing institution. He may have held some correct opinions of the free-market and capitalism, but his views on how to improve the free-market/capitalism are erroneous.

Dean

16th March 2010, 03:24

It has everything to do with the creation of wealth, and I didn't contradict what I said earlier I restated it in different terms.

"Listen, everytime a consumer buys something new instead of something old value is created. The consumer values the new thing more than his money more than the old thing. This is how wealth is created."

I meant something new by a new creation/invention not just new car vs used car. They subjectively valued something (like a computer) more than the (say 500 dollars) money they shelled out to buy it. If they did NOT value the computer more than the 500 dollars, than they would not buy it, and no wealth would be created.

So the wealth-creation you believe in is subjective, rather than an objective material phenomenon. How does that make your value-theory any more relevant to extant economic structures, besides providing a convenient ideological edifice for capital?

LeftSideDown

16th March 2010, 04:32

So the wealth-creation you believe in is subjective, rather than an objective material phenomenon. How does that make your value-theory any more relevant to extant economic structures, besides providing a convenient ideological edifice for capital?

It is not objective material phenomena. Its not just how much "stuff" you make, but how much people value it. If it was just how much stuff you make that determines value, than why wouldn't we just start manufacturing giant cubes of metal, each weigh several tons. How much do people (consumers, not manufactures) value giant cubes of stuff? They don't.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

16th March 2010, 05:32

LeftSideDown

16th March 2010, 05:51

You know, not to get on a tangent here, but I sometimes wonder if people back in the day had similar discussions under different circumstances, you know:

"Why the fuck does he get to live in that castle his whole life?"

"Because he's a lord yo"

"Why can't we live in a castle"

"You dumb motherfucker, we're shit heapers. We heap shit while he's killing moors for jesus"

"I hear you, but shit heaping is important to"

"Fo sho, but look serf the economic impact of his protection with his horses and lances and shit is way more important than some measly shit heapers like our distinguished selves"

"Yeah, give me and you and every other serf on this here block and we don't need his ass no more"

"Where tha fuck you gonna get a horse clown? They ain't never gonna give you a loan with the daddy you have"

"Yeah but we could get together and become lords ourselves right?"

"Hell yeah, fuck where the hell you think his dads dads dads dads noble ass started off yo?"

"Heapin shit"

"Hell yeah mo fucka"

Whats funny is the kings standard of living wasn't much better than the serfs (compare wal-mart employee to someone who lives solely off government welfare), so there really was no incentive. Everyone lived in abject poverty, no one ever petitioned it because it was deemed to be a fact of life. Only when capitalism arrived and poverty could be eliminated to people start to become impatient and demand that things go back to the point where everyone lived at the poverty level (they actually demanded redistribution of wealth, but this is ultimately what distribution leads to, so I just skipped that for simplicity).

Drace

16th March 2010, 05:58

Whats funny is the kings standard of living wasn't much better than the serfsLmao...

(compare wal-mart employee to someone who lives solely off government welfare)What relation does a wal-mart employee and someone who lives off welfare have to do with the relation with a king and serf?

so there really was no incentive.
:confused::confused:

Only when capitalism arrived and poverty could be eliminated to people start to become impatient and demand that things go back to the point where everyone lived at the poverty level (they actually demanded redistribution of wealth, but this is ultimately what distribution leads to, so I just skipped that for simplicity).:confused: :lol::laugh: :rolleyes:
People don't live for centuries.

Your post made ZERO sense.

LeftSideDown

16th March 2010, 06:39

Lmao...
What relation does a wal-mart employee and someone who lives off welfare have to do with the relation with a king and serf?

Not a lot, I was trying to think of an example where real income between two people isn't much different. Here, sometimes kings could eat meat, and they rode horses/carriages. Other than that their beds were a bit comfier but they didn't generally have running water, they all had to piss in buckets and throw it out the window, doctors probably harmed more than helped when it came to curing illnesses.

I'd much rather be working minimum wage today than be a king half a century ago.

GatesofLenin

16th March 2010, 07:47

LeftSideDown

16th March 2010, 07:54

Money is a finite commodity, there's only so much available at any one time. If I hold onto 25 billion dollars for example, that's way too much money for me and I'm right away hurting others because there's less money to be made now for them. Does one person really need multi-millions or billions of $? I say no!

Money is not a commodity. Commodity: A raw material, such as wheat, corn, gold or oil, that can be sold.

You are hurting others if you stole it from them, if they exchanged it for a good or service you provided than you are hurting no one.

Outinleftfield

16th March 2010, 08:30

The answer I always get when I ask that same question is that everyone has the opportunity to earn that much so it's fair that some people do. Explaining to them that that is just not true and that in order for one person to earn that much there has to be a lot more who earn much much less is useless. Just the possibility that they might one day be in that group of millionaires, however improbable, is enough to keep most people thinking it's completely fair and acceptable.

I always rebut with "and in communist countries anyone can join the Communist Party and climb through the ranks to become the chairman" or "anyone in the middle ages could become a lord if he kissed up to the King enough."

RGacky3

16th March 2010, 11:29

Outinleftfield

16th March 2010, 13:22

Whats funny is the kings standard of living wasn't much better than the serfs (compare wal-mart employee to someone who lives solely off government welfare), so there really was no incentive. Everyone lived in abject poverty, no one ever petitioned it because it was deemed to be a fact of life. Only when capitalism arrived and poverty could be eliminated to people start to become impatient and demand that things go back to the point where everyone lived at the poverty level (they actually demanded redistribution of wealth, but this is ultimately what distribution leads to, so I just skipped that for simplicity).

This has got to be the most ridiculous post I've ever seen.

The King wasn't better off compared to the serfs? The King lived in poverty? Then why did he care that he was King? Why not just let any usurper take the throne so you wouldn't have to be bothered with the responsibility? Why did Kings fight so hard to expand their domain?

Probably because kings were doing way better than serfs.

Kings had... Huge Castles> Serfs had... Huts
Stable of Horse to ride for pleasure> An Ox for work(if you're lucky)
Actually bedsheets> Straw
Personal Jester> Entertain Yourself
Servants Do Everything For You> Do Everything Yourself
Bright, Flamboyant Clothing, Jewels, A Crown> Dirty Animal Skins
All the women(or even men) you want and if people start rumors OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!> Get Executed If Caught Having Sex Outside of Marriage

Bud Struggle

16th March 2010, 13:30

Dean

16th March 2010, 16:05

LeftSideDown

16th March 2010, 16:23

Use value and emotional human values are not the same thing. If we were to take your argument seriously, powerful psychoactive narcotics would be considered the best economic investment for society. I don't think that bodes well for the objective health of human society.

No? Because most people don't try and have negative values attached to drugs/narcotics. Maybe addicts view it this way, and if you look at their lifestyle choices it seems to confirm this, but use-value is not the sole determinant, or even a large determinant, of subjective value. I don't know why you keep calling subjective emotional, I don't think I've ever called it that or heard anyone call it that. If use-value was the only thing that mattered then we'd still be scratching our heads at the diamond-water paradox.

LeftSideDown

16th March 2010, 16:25

Investing is'nt creating wealth, its just moving it around.

I disagree. Do communists really see the economy as a zero-sum game? How do they explain the massive increase in standard of living in just the past 100 years?

LeftSideDown

16th March 2010, 16:44

This has got to be the most ridiculous post I've ever seen.

The King wasn't better off compared to the serfs? The King lived in poverty? Then why did he care that he was King? Why not just let any usurper take the throne so you wouldn't have to be bothered with the responsibility? Why did Kings fight so hard to expand their domain?

Probably because kings were doing way better than serfs.

Kings had... Huge Castles> Serfs had... Huts
Stable of Horse to ride for pleasure> An Ox for work(if you're lucky)
Actually bedsheets> Straw
Personal Jester> Entertain Yourself
Servants Do Everything For You> Do Everything Yourself
Bright, Flamboyant Clothing, Jewels, A Crown> Dirty Animal Skins
All the women(or even men) you want and if people start rumors OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!> Get Executed If Caught Having Sex Outside of Marriage

I'm not arguing that it wasn't preferable to be kings, but most of the benefits were the power conveyed, not the standard of living. Honestly, I'd much rather live in a modern house, or a house made 50 years ago than a kings castle

Air Conditioning/Central heat > fireplaces
Cars > Horses
Tempurpedic (yummmm)> feathers
TV > jester
Jewels are pretty cool, but would you honestly want to wear all that stuff around today? You'd look crazy
IT seems your point about men/women/sex has more to do with the Church at the time, and not the King.

The fact is, even our poorest (in america at least) today have a much higher standard of living, comparably, to the richest kings of yore.

Ryke

17th March 2010, 03:18

I disagree. Do communists really see the economy as a zero-sum game? How do they explain the massive increase in standard of living in just the past 100 years?

Technology.

The economy is certainly not a zero-sum game, either, but the financial sector pretty much is.

As for the standard of living of kings, even if we grant that you're right about that last post, it remains that if we're looking at the satisfaction of people back then, today's standards of living are irrelevant, as they were a complete non-issue at the time for obvious reasons.

Drace

17th March 2010, 03:47

I disagree. Do communists really see the economy as a zero-sum game? How do they explain the massive increase in standard of living in just the past 100 years?

Creating wealth?

LeftSideDown

17th March 2010, 05:07

Technology.

The economy is certainly not a zero-sum game, either, but the financial sector pretty much is.

As for the standard of living of kings, even if we grant that you're right about that last post, it remains that if we're looking at the satisfaction of people back then, today's standards of living are irrelevant, as they were a complete non-issue at the time for obvious reasons.

And technology was just hiding behind a curtain for the thousand years proceeding the rise of free-market capitalism and it suddenly decided to jump out and say boo... for no reason? Why did this technology not become available until this time?

LeftSideDown

17th March 2010, 05:08

Creating wealth?

Why was wealth created? Who created it, and through what processes?

Ryke

17th March 2010, 05:26

And technology was just hiding behind a curtain for the thousand years proceeding the rise of free-market capitalism and it suddenly decided to jump out and say boo... for no reason? Why did this technology not become available until this time?

No, capitalism is, in fact, vastly superior to feudalism as far as precipitating invention and creating wealth goes. Should be noted, though, that the rapid increase in technology started a little while before a form of capitalism remotely like what we know today arose. As for "free-market", your definition of "free-market" has never actually existed at any point in history, and most libertarians will use this as an emergency exit at some point. But yes, capitalism does lead to massively larger creation of wealth and increased productivity. Capitalism itself, however, doesn't account for the spread of wealth we see today in developed countries. The labour history of the United States and Europe is particularly bloody and has directly led to the situation we had today, rather than the one of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. You might see the same happen in China and India soon, provided corporations find somewhere else to outsource to.

The increase in quality of life afforded by capitalism are, on their own, not very large. This is evident by the numerous movements opposing capitalism at the time, and indeed by the climate that led to the rise of socialism and communism as political forces. It's precisely this opposition to capitalism that made labour relations and the quality of life of the majority of people here and in most of Europe what they are today. The week-end, minimum wages, and most workplace regulations, were fought for largely by worker's movements consisting of socialists, communists and anarchists.

And regardless, the question remains, is capitalism magical in being capable of bringing this about? If not, now that the means of production are present, and now that we have what we could hardly dream of 250 years ago, what new possibilities do we have?

Physicist

17th March 2010, 05:28

It depends on why he is being removed. If he is being removed simply because he is a monarch, than it is punishment. They (the people) conferred there power into the monarchy (at least at one point they did).So your favor rule by the dead and rule by convenience. Gotcha. I don't.

Srsly stop defending monarchies just to make my remark incompatible with your preset ideology.

Drace

17th March 2010, 06:30

Why was wealth created? Who created it, and through what processes? Profit, the workers, through wage-slavery.

And technology was just hiding behind a curtain for the thousand years proceeding the rise of free-market capitalism and it suddenly decided to jump out and say boo... for no reason? Why did this technology not become available until this time?What a ridiculous analysis.

No, it was you know, just not invented?
Capitalism was mostly a result of the Industrial Revolution rather than the opposite.

LeftSideDown

17th March 2010, 07:33

No, capitalism is, in fact, vastly superior to feudalism as far as precipitating invention and creating wealth goes. Should be noted, though, that the rapid increase in technology started a little while before a form of capitalism remotely like what we know today arose. As for "free-market", your definition of "free-market" has never actually existed at any point in history, and most libertarians will use this as an emergency exit at some point. But yes, capitalism does lead to massively larger creation of wealth and increased productivity. Capitalism itself, however, doesn't account for the spread of wealth we see today in developed countries. The labour history of the United States and Europe is particularly bloody and has directly led to the situation we had today, rather than the one of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. You might see the same happen in China and India soon, provided corporations find somewhere else to outsource to.

Yeah, because the Capitalism we know today is riddled with government interventions that hamper natural market processes. And yes a true "free-market" has never emerged; there has always been government to get in the way. However, has there ever been a true "communist" society in an industrialized nation? Just because there hasn't been something is that enough reason to give up that it will ever exist? Yes the labor history has been bloody, but most of the blood was spilled by the labor unions, killing, beating, and threatening "union breakers" or people who were willing to work in conditions the unions were not. THe fact is you can't pay a worker more than his marginal productivity without going out of business. The reason we have the "rust-belt" in the United States is because of Unions.

The increase in quality of life afforded by capitalism are, on their own, not very large. This is evident by the numerous movements opposing capitalism at the time, and indeed by the climate that led to the rise of socialism and communism as political forces. It's precisely this opposition to capitalism that made labour relations and the quality of life of the majority of people here and in most of Europe what they are today. The week-end, minimum wages, and most workplace regulations, were fought for largely by worker's movements consisting of socialists, communists and anarchists.

Can you get a better quality of life if the resources, or the materials available for converting those resources to consumer goods, is not available? It doesn't matter how many laws you pass or how many labor unions you have. They do not create wealth. Do you see anyone 500, 600, 700 years ago protesting poverty? No, it was universal. People were born into abject poverty, labored for feudal lords, and died young. No one questioned this. IF people had started a labor union back when there were only farms, what would've happened? Would they suddenly have cars, air conditioning, and running water? They only work if the resources are already there, and the resources cannot get there without wise capital investment made by people who are predicting human needs and desires. I don't oppose labor unions, if people think their wages are unfair and they band together to protest it they are free to do that. If their wages are really unfair, than the manager will raise their wages. If they aren't as productive as they think he will hire new workers.
As for labor unions, and legislation raising standard of living I'll just refer you to Bangladesh. IN Bangladesh, the British Charity OxFam observed that when American and Europeans were griping about child labor and campaigned against it. When the Bangladesh government out lawed it, what happened to the children? Well magically they all got porches... wait no they either went into prostitution or starved. Its not because that society doesn't have enough labor unions or legislation its because they are not capital intensive enough to have only a mother and father support the rest of the family.

And regardless, the question remains, is capitalism magical in being capable of bringing this about? If not, now that the means of production are present, and now that we have what we could hardly dream of 250 years ago, what new possibilities do we have?

If you're saying we've reached the peak of human progress, I'm afraid you're wrong and you will almost always be wrong. Forever. There is no limit to human progress in my mind, so the fact is we have an infinite number of possibilities ahead of us. I think capitalism/the free-market is the best means of achieving these possibilities.

mikelepore

17th March 2010, 07:34

Why was wealth created? Who created it, and through what processes?

Wealth is created when the raw materials provided by nature are modified purposefully by human labor.

LeftSideDown

17th March 2010, 07:38

Profit, the workers, through wage-slavery.

Really? Because there have always been workers throughout history, and they have always lived under what you call "wage-slavery". So what changed?

No, it was you know, just not invented?
Capitalism was mostly a result of the Industrial Revolution rather than the opposite.

That is impossible. The industrial revolution was EXTREMELY capital intensive. Who allocated this capital into productive enterprises?

It does not matter if I invented a jetpack tomorrow if there is no capital to invest in it. It does not matter in the least. You need capital to make inventions a reality, and you need capitalists or entrepreneurs to try and best guess consumer demand.

LeftSideDown

17th March 2010, 07:40

Wealth is created when the raw materials provided by nature are modified purposefully by human labor.

So a diamond found on the ground has no value? And why is it, that suddenly, out of nowhere, massive quantities of wealth were able to be manufactured so that you can have your stereotype of rich white men holding bags of money could come about? Why did it suddenly become easier/more productive to create wealth?

LeftSideDown

17th March 2010, 07:47

So your favor rule by the dead and rule by convenience. Gotcha. I don't.

Srsly stop defending monarchies just to make my remark incompatible with your preset ideology.

No, but if you conferred this power to a man, and then kill him for having it, I think thats wrong. If people no longer favor a monarchy than they can stop supporting it. If the monarch than uses force to try and make them support him, than they have a right to self defense. But libertarians subscribe to the "non-aggression" principle. I don't necessarily a monarchy, but if those people did, whose to say that they are inferior to us, or that they are not entitled to having a man with sole power of governance?

If I hired you to run a cash register and then killed you for running my cash register, would I not be in the wrong? Monarchy, and especially hereditary monarchy has an incredible number of flaws, not the least of which somebody's son isn't guaranteed or even have a good chance of having the attributes of the father, and so people get more than they bargained for (so to speak). Whether monarchy was the best means of achieving stability or a sound government is irrelevant. All that matters is forces were in place to make this occur.

mikelepore

17th March 2010, 07:49

It is not objective material phenomena. Its not just how much "stuff" you make, but how much people value it. If it was just how much stuff you make that determines value, than why wouldn't we just start manufacturing giant cubes of metal, each weigh several tons. How much do people (consumers, not manufactures) value giant cubes of stuff? They don't.

Just because the consumer must "value" the product before it can have any economic value, that doesn't mean that the extent to which the consumer "values" the product *quantitatively* determines the economic value of the product. The fact that some consumers "value" the product is a necessary condition for the article to have economic value. The fact that there exists a market for the product is a binary condition, like a closed switch in series with an electrical circuit. Quantitatively, the economic value of the product is determined by the facts of the manufacturing process.

mikelepore

17th March 2010, 08:19

So a diamond found on the ground has no value?

If anyone could look on the ground at any time and then assuredly find a diamond, then a diamond would have no value.

If it only happens once, then it has a negligible effect on the world's average rate for the labor time required to extract a unit mass of diamonds, and that found diamond acquires the world's average value.

And why is it, that suddenly, out of nowhere, massive quantities of wealth were able to be manufactured so that you can have your stereotype of rich white men holding bags of money could come about? Why did it suddenly become easier/more productive to create wealth?

I don't know how that question got into a reply to my post. I can't recognize anything in your question.

It didn't suddenly become easy to produce wealth. Workers have been improving tools, chemistry, etc., continuously since ancient times.

The industrial revolution and the recent acceleration of technology have occurred because the nature of production techniques is that the more you already know the faster you learn, that is, the rate of making further improvements is roughly proportional to the present level of achievement. The solution to the differential equation x = k dx/dt is an exponential.

SocialismOrBarbarism

17th March 2010, 08:36

Really? Because there have always been workers throughout history, and they have always lived under what you call "wage-slavery". So what changed?

"There have always been poor and working classes; and the working class have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians, any more than there has always been free unbridled competitions. "

That is impossible. The industrial revolution was EXTREMELY capital intensive. Who allocated this capital into productive enterprises?Usurers and merchants existed before capitalism became the dominant mode of production. Oh, and this:

"Many moralists and politicians tell an edifying story designed to enlighten us about the happy origins of wealth and poverty. ‘Long, long ago,’ they say, ‘there were two sorts of people: one, the diligent, intelligent, and above all frugal elite; the other, lazy rascals, spending their wealth, and more, in riotous living. Thus it came to pass that the latter sort finally had nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority (who, despite all their labour, have up to now nothing to sell but themselves), and the wealth of the few (that increases constantly, although they long ago ceased to work).’ In real history, conquest, enslavement, robbery and murder play the greatest part. Not only the working class, but poverty, welfare, colonialism and all the rest are the result not of frail ‘human nature’, but of an epic assault on the common people by bosses and aristocrats of every type."

RGacky3

17th March 2010, 09:09

I disagree. Do communists really see the economy as a zero-sum game? How do they explain the massive increase in standard of living in just the past 100 years?

I did'nt say it was a zero-sum game, I said investing IS'NT creating wealth, neither is buying something, production creates wealth, investing is just moving it around, or choosing what wealth gets produced, who gets it, and so on, its controlling wealth, not creating it.

LeftSideDown

17th March 2010, 18:56

"There have always been poor and working classes; and the working class have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians, any more than there has always been free unbridled competitions. "

There has never been "free unbridled competitions", there have always been tariffs, duties, subsidies, grants, embargos, boycotts, and Government. So whats your point? And workers have never lived under conditions exactly the same as the conditions today, and they'll never live under conditions exactly the same as tomorrow, so what is your point? Are you claiming that standard of living hasn't increased for the average worker in industrialized capitalistic nations? Because if that is your contention than you'll have to provide me with a lot more proof than an unsourced quote.

Usurers and merchants existed before capitalism became the dominant mode of production. Oh, and this:

"Many moralists and politicians tell an edifying story designed to enlighten us about the happy origins of wealth and poverty. ‘Long, long ago,’ they say, ‘there were two sorts of people: one, the diligent, intelligent, and above all frugal elite; the other, lazy rascals, spending their wealth, and more, in riotous living. Thus it came to pass that the latter sort finally had nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority (who, despite all their labour, have up to now nothing to sell but themselves), and the wealth of the few (that increases constantly, although they long ago ceased to work).’ In real history, conquest, enslavement, robbery and murder play the greatest part. Not only the working class, but poverty, welfare, colonialism and all the rest are the result not of frail ‘human nature’, but of an epic assault on the common people by bosses and aristocrats of every type."

Have I ever spoken of the workers or capitalists in this way? If a capitalist became rich quickly only through extreme luck (the risks were large, and the chance of success slim) I think hes just as entitled to his wealth as one who acquired it slowly through a series of safe investments that paid off. If someone is lazy, not thrifty, lives "riotously" do I think that they should take responsibility for their actions? Of course. I don't care whether they are a worker or not. If you look at the Forbes 400, only 19% of them inherited their wealth, so your point about "the wealth of the few (that increases constantly though they have long ago ceased to work)" seems pretty false just from that one indicator. Just because someone has more than you does not mean they took it from you.

mikelepore

17th March 2010, 19:00

I did'nt say it was a zero-sum game, I said investing IS'NT creating wealth, neither is buying something, production creates wealth, investing is just moving it around, or choosing what wealth gets produced, who gets it, and so on, its controlling wealth, not creating it.

Very well said. True, and also clearly expressed. I would only add one related point.

The artificial "need" for investments in industry is present only because some private owners already control the resources. It's like the way a Roman emperor gets the credit for building an aqueduct, or a king of England gets the credit for building a university. A person who already controls resources is "needed" to give the order or to give the permission. This is the artificial nature of the capitalist's investment. There must already be a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few before we could seem to "need" the capitalist's investments, philanthropy, leadership, ideas, or anything else. Likewise, I could "single-handedly make it possible" for there to exist shipping on the seas -- all you'd have to do is make me the legal owner of the seas and then let me sign a paper authoring subsequent use. The capitalist's supposed contribution to the production process is exposed as an institutional artificiality.

LeftSideDown

17th March 2010, 20:15

Very well said. True, and also clearly expressed. I would only add one related point.

The artificial "need" for investments in industry is present only because some private owners already control the resources. It's like the way a Roman emperor gets the credit for building an aqueduct, or a king of England gets the credit for building a university. A person who already controls resources is "needed" to give the order or to give the permission. This is the artificial nature of the capitalist's investment. There must already be a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few before we could seem to "need" the capitalist's investments, philanthropy, leadership, ideas, or anything else. Likewise, I could "single-handedly make it possible" for there to exist shipping on the seas -- all you'd have to do is make me the legal owner of the seas and then let me sign a paper authoring subsequent use. The capitalist's supposed contribution to the production process is exposed as an institutional artificiality.

It is not true, no matter how clearly it is expressed.
The need for investment is needed because there is a scarcity of resources (no matter what you believe, you must admit this is true) and there is a need to allocate these resources efficiently (i.e. so they meet the most urgent need of consumers). Your example is absurd and is not reflective of reality. If, however, you had invented like a "super-sonic" ship that made shipping across the oceans incredibly fast (and lets say efficient because you also designed it to use solar energy) would you not say that you've contributed enough to society to warrant millions of dollars? You've reduced costs of shipping, expedited the process (don't have to worry about food spoiling, etc) and overall improved the condition of humanity.

Bud Struggle

17th March 2010, 20:52

I said investing IS'NT creating wealth.

Of course investing creates wealth. It's the lack of investment that creates unemployment. There are millions of people in Africa with nothing to do--no jobs, because investors don't feel those people are trained well enough to do the jobs needed--so they don't invest.

Investment creates wealth--workers and/or technology fills in the blanks.

mikelepore

17th March 2010, 22:20

It is not true, no matter how clearly it is expressed.
The need for investment is needed because there is a scarcity of resources (no matter what you believe, you must admit this is true) and there is a need to allocate these resources efficiently (i.e. so they meet the most urgent need of consumers).

So now you want to use the word "investors" to mean whomever has the job description of sitting down at a desk or conference table and figuring out how to allocate scarce resources efficiently?

If so, then that leads back to the fact that capitalists, _as capitalists_, a class of shareholders who drain dividends out of the production process, are socially useless and parasitical. All industry really needs is some specialists who have studied the various management sciences -- statistics, time and motion study, the particular tooling, etc. -- to allocate the scarce resources efficiently. Words like "owner" and "profit" don't ever have to be mentioned in the process.

Your example is absurd and is not reflective of reality. If, however, you had invented like a "super-sonic" ship that made shipping across the oceans incredibly fast (and lets say efficient because you also designed it to use solar energy) would you not say that you've contributed enough to society to warrant millions of dollars? You've reduced costs of shipping, expedited the process (don't have to worry about food spoiling, etc) and overall improved the condition of humanity.

Industry today isn't like the 19th century, when one inventor came up with a whole project, like the way Thomas Edison invented not only the products but also all of the machines in his factory. The way inventions are made today is by combining the ideas of thousands or even millions of people. You may have a department of twenty people who spend a month to design a better switch, and a department of fifteen people who spend a month to design a better connector, etc. You take many modular assemblies that were previously invented in other places and you change the particular combination of them. The distributed creativity of the entire working class converges into the appearance of new inventions.

Meanwhile, the typical capitalist is an absentee owner who lives anywhere in the world, has never visited the plant that he legally owns, doesn't know what goes on in the plant except for the most general notion that "I hear that they make some sort of gizmo called a supersonic engine", has never contributed an "idea" either good or bad, knows nothing about industry or business except for the phone number of his stockbroker, and has no involvement with the industry except to check his mailbox every quarter for a dividend check.

*******

""It is not because he is a leader of industry that a man is a capitalist; on the contrary, he is a leader of industry because he is a capitalist. The leadership of industry is an attribute of capital, just as, in feudal times, the function of general and judge were attributes of landed property." -- Karl Marx, _Capital_, chapter 13

Bud Struggle

17th March 2010, 23:09

Meanwhile, the typical capitalist is an absentee owner who lives anywhere in the world, has never visited the plant that he legally owns, doesn't know what goes on in the plant except for the most general notion that "I hear that they make some sort of gizmo called a supersonic engine", has never contributed an "idea" either good or bad, knows nothing about industry or business except for the phone number of his stockbroker, and has no involvement with the industry except to check his mailbox every quarter for a dividend check.

And very often these people are (former) Proletarian Union pensioners. :)

SocialismOrBarbarism

18th March 2010, 02:51

There has never been "free unbridled competitions", there have always been tariffs, duties, subsidies, grants, embargos, boycotts, and Government. So whats your point? And workers have never lived under conditions exactly the same as the conditions today, and they'll never live under conditions exactly the same as tomorrow, so what is your point? Are you claiming that standard of living hasn't increased for the average worker in industrialized capitalistic nations? Because if that is your contention than you'll have to provide me with a lot more proof than an unsourced quote.

The point is that the modern working class, wage laborers, are far different from serfs and slaves, the "working classes" of earlier periods of history. Your comment indicated an extreme ignorance of history.

Have I ever spoken of the workers or capitalists in this way? If a capitalist became rich quickly only through extreme luck (the risks were large, and the chance of success slim) I think hes just as entitled to his wealth as one who acquired it slowly through a series of safe investments that paid off. If someone is lazy, not thrifty, lives "riotously" do I think that they should take responsibility for their actions? Of course. I don't care whether they are a worker or not. If you look at the Forbes 400, only 19% of them inherited their wealth, so your point about "the wealth of the few (that increases constantly though they have long ago ceased to work)" seems pretty false just from that one indicator. Just because someone has more than you does not mean they took it from you.
I have no idea what this has to do with anything. You pointed out that the industrial revolution pre-supposed large amounts of capital and I pointed out that in addition to usurers and merchants capital which preceded the domination of the capitalist mode of production, "conquest, enslavement, robbery and murder play[ed] the greatest part."

RGacky3

18th March 2010, 09:13

The need for investment is needed because there is a scarcity of resources (no matter what you believe, you must admit this is true) and there is a need to allocate these resources efficiently (i.e. so they meet the most urgent need of consumers). Your example is absurd and is not reflective of reality. If, however, you had invented like a "super-sonic" ship that made shipping across the oceans incredibly fast (and lets say efficient because you also designed it to use solar energy) would you not say that you've contributed enough to society to warrant millions of dollars? You've reduced costs of shipping, expedited the process (don't have to worry about food spoiling, etc) and overall improved the condition of humanity.

Whether there is scarcity or not is not the issue here, no one is debating about that.

Its WHO allocates these resources. His example about the king, or Roman Emperor, is EXACTLT accurate, the Roman emperor is not creating wealth, by funding aqueducts.

Also Inventing stuff is not investing idiot.

Of course investing creates wealth. It's the lack of investment that creates unemployment. There are millions of people in Africa with nothing to do--no jobs, because investors don't feel those people are trained well enough to do the jobs needed--so they don't invest.

Investment creates wealth--workers and/or technology fills in the blanks.

Did you read my post? Do it again, then read mikelepore's, and do it at least twice before you post again, and think about it first.

And very often these people are (former) Proletarian Union pensioners.

Proletarian Union pensioners don't control the wealth, having money in a bank or a mutual fund does'nt mean you control it.

Is it just me, or do the Capitalists on this board not know how to read the goddamn posts before responding

Sendo

18th March 2010, 14:56

The problem isn't that Mexico has Capitalism--it just has BAD Capitalism. In the same way (while not perfect by any streach) the USA has a better regulated Capitalism.

This is known as the "No True Scotsman Fallacy".

Competition is tough, but [if] the government doesn't bother you and you can usually succeed if you keep trying.

Um, because the biggest obstacle in the way of young programmers is the government and not a Microsoft monopoly? I seem to recall an EU court ruling that said Microsoft cannot bundle IE anymore, but has to provide a download prompt for every available browser. This suit was also supported and demanded by many for-profit companies like Opera. In this case, the government intervened to help others succeed. IE instantly lost market share simply because it couldn't keep users ignorant anymore.

Sendo

18th March 2010, 14:59

Of course investing creates wealth. It's the lack of investment that creates unemployment. There are millions of people in Africa with nothing to do--no jobs, because investors don't feel those people are trained well enough to do the jobs needed--so they don't invest.

Investment creates wealth--workers and/or technology fills in the blanks.

Every capitalist superpower that has turned to financialization has fallen because people learn to live with different currencies. When you aren't making anything, there is no economy. Financial wealth can only be "created" because the economic might of the nation is leverage. See The Netherlands, the UK, the US. Minqi Li and Immanuel Wallerstein have discussed this issue on the international level with history, not rhetoric, to back them up.

It's who allocates these resources. His example about the king, or Roman Emperor, is exactly accurate, the Roman emperor is not creating wealth by funding aqueducts.

Dean

18th March 2010, 16:10

No? Because most people don't try and have negative values attached to drugs/narcotics. Maybe addicts view it this way, and if you look at their lifestyle choices it seems to confirm this, but use-value is not the sole determinant, or even a large determinant, of subjective value. I don't know why you keep calling subjective emotional, I don't think I've ever called it that or heard anyone call it that. If use-value was the only thing that mattered then we'd still be scratching our heads at the diamond-water paradox.

Human emotion can be manipulated to provide for the manipulator, against the interests of the consumer. There are few better examples than predatory lending and drugs, so that's why I mentioned the latter. Simply put, the emotions of the human animal can be manipulated in the furtherance of the interests of capital. This is why such value cannot be taken seriously in the context of a materialist analysis of economy.

Furthermore, the mere fact that your sole rationale for the "expansion of wealth" in capitalism is the emotional attachment to goods and services felt by humans provides two damning conclusions:
1. As per your example, the capitalist system "creates wealth" merely by emotionally manipulating the consumer
2. The material character of industrial production and distribution never enters the equation when you speak of "wealth creation" under capitalism, and therefore it is only financial arrangement that can be seen as "creating wealth."

In fact, the "creation of wealth," since it is consistently described as the emotive response of the consumer, always benefits capitalist producer and distributor firms, since they are the ones who receive payment against this "creation of wealth." So, sure, its not a "zero-sum" game, but when any substantial wealth is created, it is always in the possession of firms of capital, not individual laborers or consumers.

If capitalism was a zero-sum game, therefore, wage laborers would make out far better.

Bud Struggle

18th March 2010, 16:27

Every capitalist superpower that has turned to financialization has fallen because people learn to live with different currencies. When you aren't making anything, there is no economy. Financial wealth can only be "created" because the economic might of the nation is leverage. See The Netherlands, the UK, the US. Minqi Li and Immanuel Wallerstein have discussed this issue on the international level with history, not rhetoric, to back them up.

And that's something for the nations of the world to do for themselves. Unfortunally instead of making money they fight. With themselves, with their neighbors, with different religions. When all this gets straightened out there will be a lot more prosparity.

And how will that come about? Education. It will take time but it will happen.

RGacky3

19th March 2010, 09:09

And that's something for the nations of the world to do for themselves. Unfortunally instead of making money they fight. With themselves, with their neighbors, with different religions. When all this gets straightened out there will be a lot more prosparity.

And how will that come about? Education. It will take time but it will happen.

Nope, they fight TOO make money aka, the United States, England, Russia and so on, all have huge military industrail complexes and have imperial interests.

LeftSideDown

19th March 2010, 09:24

The point is that the modern working class, wage laborers, are far different from serfs and slaves, the "working classes" of earlier periods of history. Your comment indicated an extreme ignorance of history.

You're right, they're much better off.

I have no idea what this has to do with anything. You pointed out that the industrial revolution pre-supposed large amounts of capital and I pointed out that in addition to usurers and merchants capital which preceded the domination of the capitalist mode of production, "conquest, enslavement, robbery and murder play[ed] the greatest part."

I don't know what you mean by usurers. Banker, maybe? If someone is charging what you consider "usurious" rates, don't take a loan... seems pretty simple to me. I'll need more than a quote from an uncited source to believe you.

Robbery, conquest, enslavement, and murder do not create wealth and and destroy it in all but one case. It doesn't make sense that by stealing a chair I can suddenly make capital.

Outinleftfield

20th March 2010, 17:34

Yeah, because the Capitalism we know today is riddled with government interventions that hamper natural market processes. And yes a true "free-market" has never emerged; there has always been government to get in the way. However, has there ever been a true "communist" society in an industrialized nation? Just because there hasn't been something is that enough reason to give up that it will ever exist? Yes the labor history has been bloody, but most of the blood was spilled by the labor unions, killing, beating, and threatening "union breakers" or people who were willing to work in conditions the unions were not.

Nice piece of revisionist history. As if people weren't being killed by private and government thugs for striking? You know like the Pinckertons.

THe fact is you can't pay a worker more than his marginal productivity without going out of business.

The validity of "marginal productivity" aside even your own economists disagree. They say this is true ONLY in an economy with perfect competition. Guess what? NO economy has perfect competition. Even if you're not trying to make a monopoly perfect competition would mean that every good and service is equally accessible to everyone everywhere. Can't happen, can't be done. With perfect competition there would never be profits ever. Costs would always equal intake. So yes the employers do have leeway in how much they set wages, prices, etc. If they didn't then why didn't all those businesses go out of business during the Progressive Era when minimum wage laws were passed?

The reason we have the "rust-belt" in the United States is because of Unions.

The reason we have the rust-belt is because US corporations are looking for cheap labor overseas.

Do you see anyone 500, 600, 700 years ago protesting poverty?

Peasant's Revolt. Google it.

IF people had started a labor union back when there were only farms, what would've happened? Would they suddenly have cars, air conditioning, and running water? They only work if the resources are already there, and the resources cannot get there without wise capital investment made by people who are predicting human needs and desires.

So the resources just magically came out of nowhere in these past few centuries?

"Labor union" doesn't apply to that economic time period but yes if people had organized together maybe they would've had more running water, because that was already invented. Ever hear of an aqueduct? The only reason most people didn't have running water was the Kings and Lords didn't want to provide it. Of course trying to organize back then would've lead to being executed for treason against the king.

and the resources cannot get there without wise capital investment made by people who are predicting human needs and desires.

And workers can't do that? Why not? People know what they need and want. If people get together and figure out what everyone needs and wants and what resources are available that's a better way of deciding things than letting a small elite of rich people who base priority strictly on "money" do it.

As for labor unions, and legislation raising standard of living I'll just refer you to Bangladesh. IN Bangladesh, the British Charity OxFam observed that when American and Europeans were griping about child labor and campaigned against it. When the Bangladesh government out lawed it, what happened to the children? Well magically they all got porches... wait no they either went into prostitution or starved. Its not because that society doesn't have enough labor unions or legislation its because they are not capital intensive enough to have only a mother and father support the rest of the family.

If they had made them pay the parents who worked more then that wouldn't have happened. Why do you think the labor movement in the United States coupled its demand for an end to child labor with a demand for better pay, better conditions, and other reforms?

LeftSideDown

20th March 2010, 18:42

Nice piece of revisionist history. As if people weren't being killed by private and government thugs for striking? You know like the Pinckertons.

I won't deny this, but it hardly seems good business practice to kill workers you've already spent time/resources/money training. Much better to just bring new workers in

The validity of "marginal productivity" aside even your own economists disagree. They say this is true ONLY in an economy with perfect competition. Guess what? NO economy has perfect competition. Even if you're not trying to make a monopoly perfect competition would mean that every good and service is equally accessible to everyone everywhere. Can't happen, can't be done. With perfect competition there would never be profits ever. Costs would always equal intake. So yes the employers do have leeway in how much they set wages, prices, etc. If they didn't then why didn't all those businesses go out of business during the Progressive Era when minimum wage laws were passed?

That they will immediately go out of business? Yes, only in perfect competition. That they will lose a competitive edge? Fact. I'm sorry if I misrepresented it, but obviously a company that pays everybody 1000 dollars an hour will go out of business whereas one that pays based on productivity is less likely to.

As to your minimum wage question: because marginal productivity was higher than minimum wage. Seems pretty simple to me. Or employee's productivity was not above minimum wage were fired. Minimum wage is nothing but a hurdle set up by high skilled laborers/laborer unions to keep low skilled labor from competing.

The reason we have the rust-belt is because US corporations are looking for cheap labor overseas.

Go ahead... take the next step... why isn't labor cheap here...?

Peasant's Revolt. Google it.

I did, and they seemed pretty upset about "The poll tax" and "Statute of Labourers". Nothing about poverty, sadly. Even if their wages were higher they would STILL be living in abject poverty. This was not a revolt against poverty, thus my statement still holds true. Seems to be more of a revolt against government, to be honest.

So the resources just magically came out of nowhere in these past few centuries?

"Labor union" doesn't apply to that economic time period but yes if people had organized together maybe they would've had more running water, because that was already invented. Ever hear of an aqueduct? The only reason most people didn't have running water was the Kings and Lords didn't want to provide it. Of course trying to organize back then would've lead to being executed for treason against the king.

I didn't say that at all. I say they came out of capitalism and the free-market, but I doubt you agree with this. And no, if you think it was feasible, at all, no matter the pressure of laborers, to provide running water to every household during Roman times you are sadly, sadly mistaken.

And workers can't do that? Why not? People know what they need and want. If people get together and figure out what everyone needs and wants and what resources are available that's a better way of deciding things than letting a small elite of rich people who base priority strictly on "money" do it.

Its not just deciding what people need and want from what we already have, if it was we would 1) have a stagnant economy 2) have no innovation. How do you know what new inventions people want? Poll them? If the majority says yes, you still have to factor in cost. Most of the time a new inventions initial price will be so high that only the rich can afford it, which provides initial demand and allows production time to become more efficient so that a wider customer base could be reached.

If they had made them pay the parents who worked more then that wouldn't have happened. Why do you think the labor movement in the United States coupled its demand for an end to child labor with a demand for better pay, better conditions, and other reforms?

It doesn't matter, because the parents's productivity in Bangladesh, which is less because they are not as capital intensive, limits the wage you can pay the parents. So if you say "You must pay everyone at least 10 dollars an hour" all you would do is force these companies to relocate to a place where wage is reflected by productivity, not by legislation.

Child labor = unskilled labor
Unskilled labor = competition for skilled labor
competition for skilled labor = lower wages for skilled labor = "this atrocity needs to end!"
Obviously I don't think 4 year olds should be working in a coal mine, but to think it was only altruistic motives that motivated these groups is naive.

Klaatu

24th March 2010, 02:21

The answer I always get when I ask that same question is that everyone has the opportunity to earn that much so it's fair that some people do. Explaining to them that that is just not true and that in order for one person to earn that much there has to be a lot more who earn much much less is useless. Just the possibility that they might one day be in that group of millionaires, however improbable, is enough to keep most people thinking it's completely fair and acceptable.

I always go by the premise that there is not an infinite amount of wealth.
Therefore, there should be a limit on the amount of wealth that any single person can hold.

Klaatu

24th March 2010, 02:26

LeftSideDown

24th March 2010, 06:29

Question for you: have you ever worked in manufacturing, frat boy? Probably not. You have no idea.
So keep your "East Coast-Ivy League" opinions to yourself.

I'm not a frat boy, and I really find them to be quite loathsome in most cases. Your question as to whether or not I've ever worked in manufacturing is nothing but ad hominem (seems to me to be "Poisoning the Well"). Let me reverse it: Have you ever been extremely wealthy? Have you ever owned a factory? Than keep your silly proletarian opinions to yourself.

GatesofLenin

24th March 2010, 06:37

Money is not a commodity. Commodity: A raw material, such as wheat, corn, gold or oil, that can be sold.

You are hurting others if you stole it from them, if they exchanged it for a good or service you provided than you are hurting no one.
Money is a commodity like wheat, corn, oil or gold, etc... and it is finite. Money is sold everyday, check out the FOREX markets. You know why currencies rise and fall? Lots of traders deal in the FOREX commodity, read up on it.

Ryke

24th March 2010, 07:29

Go ahead... take the next step... why isn't labor cheap here...?

Because the same kind of labour movements which are currently sweeping India and Pakistan, and trying to make an entry into China (where workers have committed suicide as an act of protest on a few occasions), swept America and Europe when it was in the same situation.

This is perhaps the stupidest question I've seen you ask, since I usually see it asked rhetorically by people on the far-left, waiting for exactly the same answer you're waiting for: Workers did it, and now Indian and Pakistani workers are trying to do it. It is simply no longer socially acceptable for corporations to (openly) work people here like they do in India, but they used to. Would you like to take up a job at third-world (or second-world) wages? Would you accept it without protest if it were the only choice you could afford to make?

LeftSideDown

24th March 2010, 07:38

Because the same kind of labour movements which are currently sweeping India and Pakistan, and trying to make an entry into China (where workers have committed suicide as an act of protest on a few occasions), swept America and Europe when it was in the same situation.

This is perhaps the stupidest question I've seen you ask, since I usually see it asked rhetorically by people on the far-left, waiting for exactly the same answer you're waiting for: Workers did it, and now Indian and Pakistani workers are trying to do it. It is simply no longer socially acceptable for corporations to (openly) work people here like they do in India, but they used to. Would you like to take up a job at third-world (or second-world) wages? Would you accept it without protest if it were the only choice you could afford to make?

So how can workers complain about companies leaving? How can anyone complain? If you punch somebody in the face don't expect them to stick around or be your friend, especially if they're not allowed to punch back.

Bob George

24th March 2010, 09:38

Why is somebody else's wealth any of my concern? Them being rich doesn't make me poor. They created their wealth. It's not a fixed pie.

LeftSideDown

24th March 2010, 15:25

Money is a commodity like wheat, corn, oil or gold, etc... and it is finite. Money is sold everyday, check out the FOREX markets. You know why currencies rise and fall? Lots of traders deal in the FOREX commodity, read up on it.

"The simple statement, that money is a commodity whose economic function is to facilitate the interchange of goods and services, does not satisfy those writers who are interested rather in the accumulation of material than in the increase of knowledge...

Nevertheless, certain tendencies in recent literature on money make it appear advisable to examine briefly these secondary functions—some of them are coordinated with the basic function by many writers—and to show once more that all of them can be deduced from the function of money as a common medium of exchange...

This applies in the first place to the function fulfilled by money in facilitating credit transactions. It is simplest to regard this as part of its function as medium of exchange. Credit transactions are in fact nothing but the exchange of present goods against future goods. Frequent reference is made in English and American writings to a function of money as a standard of deferred payments. [5] But the original purpose of this expression was not to contrast a particular function of money with its ordinary economic function, but merely to simplify discussions about the influence of changes in the value of money upon the real amount of money debts...

The functions of money as a transmitter of value through time and space may also be directly traced back to its function as medium of exchange. Menger has pointed out that the special suitability of goods for hoarding, and their consequent widespread employment for this purpose, has been one of the most important causes of their increased marketability and therefore of their qualification as media of exchange. [6] As soon as the practice of employing a certain economic good as a medium of exchange becomes general, people begin to store up this good in preference to others. In fact, hoarding as a form of investment plays no great part in our present stage of economic development, its place having been taken by the purchase of interest-bearing property. [7] On the other hand, money still functions today as a means for transporting value through space. [8] This function again is nothing but a matter of facilitating the exchange of goods...

The root of this error (as of many other errors in economics) must be sought in the uncritical acceptance of juristical conceptions and habits of thought. From the point of view of the law, outstanding debt is a subject which can and must be considered in isolation and entirely (or at least to some extent) without reference to the origin of the obligation to pay. Of course, in law as well as in economics, money is only the common medium of exchange."

Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit

Outinleftfield

24th March 2010, 16:24

Outinleftfield

24th March 2010, 16:35

I won't deny this, but it hardly seems good business practice to kill workers you've already spent time/resources/money training. Much better to just bring new workers in

Sounds sensible in theory on the surface but the facts are that many workers were killed for daring to defy the authority of their capitalist masters. In many cases it wasn't just refusing to work. They picketed outside and that made them look bad. Or they even nonviolently occupied the factory.

That they will immediately go out of business? Yes, only in perfect competition. That they will lose a competitive edge? Fact. I'm sorry if I misrepresented it, but obviously a company that pays everybody 1000 dollars an hour will go out of business whereas one that pays based on productivity is less likely to.

How will it lose competitive edge? Higher wages, more workers want to work there, so you can hire better workers. Raising wages can only help a business compete. Only if it raises prices or cuts the quality of its product will that cause problems in competition. But there's one option you capitalists never think of, decreasing your own wages. The Board of Directors rarely ever does this in order to save money even though its the only option that doesn't sacrifice their competitive edge in cases where they are required to increase business costs by raising wages or cutting prices.

I didn't say that at all. I say they came out of capitalism and the free-market, but I doubt you agree with this. And no, if you think it was feasible, at all, no matter the pressure of laborers, to provide running water to every household during Roman times you are sadly, sadly mistaken.

Why not? If its feasible now then it was feasible then. Aliens didn't come and dump a bunch of extra resources on Earth in the last few centuries so any raw materials used now to build things were available back then. It couldn't have been done in just a year but if they committed to it they would've eventually gathered and processed all the resources they needed.

How do you know what new inventions people want?

Inventions will come up as people think of them not as they want them. If I want an invention that can create a planet efficiently for every single person to have their own planet Tough. Doesn't mean somebody is going to magically find out how to do that. Inventions can be directed as far as what people decide to research. This would largely depend on people's preferences. Do people want to research how to cure diseases? They'll communicate that desire and decide to send research to scientists working on that. Right now it doesn't matter what inventions people want just what inventions large corporations want. They want treatments not cures because you only get to sell a cure once to everyone instead of having a lifelong customer. How much and to what extent priority is given to different research goals could be discussed and figured out including whether the "costs" are worth it compared to what else resources could be spent on.

It doesn't matter, because the parents's productivity in Bangladesh, which is less because they are not as capital intensive

Not as capital intensive? It's very easy to transport any equipment, machinery, etc. any company needs anywhere in the world. If they're not as capital intensive its because the companies have decided its cheaper to just pay people low wages instead of investing in new machinery. Minimum wage would force them to invest in new machinery to save money over time instead of just saving money with cheap labor. They'd also have to invest in more education because of skilled labor. There comes public education.

LeftSideDown

24th March 2010, 18:38

LeftSideDown do you agree salt is a commodity?

Let's say we didn't have any money but salt was so scarce and valueable that people started trading it even if they already had enough of it because they knew for sure they'd run into somebody else who'd need it so over time it becomes the means of exchange. Is salt no longer a commodity?

And let's say the government even starts making it illegal for anyone but the government to mine salt(equivalent to laws against counterfeiting money) is the salt now not a commodity?

If the value of salt is as a means of exchange and not as a commodity, than it is only a commodity when it is used in consumption (when you use it to salt your food) and it is not a commodity when it is used as a means of exchange.

LeftSideDown

24th March 2010, 19:08

Sounds sensible in theory on the surface but the facts are that many workers were killed for daring to defy the authority of their capitalist masters. In many cases it wasn't just refusing to work. They picketed outside and that made them look bad. Or they even nonviolently occupied the factory.

And many workers were killed, beaten, and otherwise denied a living by picketers who viewed "scabs" as people without rights. Many times, the only reason the Pinkertons were used is because local authorities had already shown that they would not enforce the laws; that somehow because they were a union it was okay to beat other humans, to violently oppose workers entering the factory, to intimidate workers who wanted to work from doing such a thing. Yeah, but "non-violently" occupying someone else's property is illegal. Is it okay for you to "non-violently" occupy someone else's house if they eat meat and your vegetarian and you want them to stop? Of course not. I think you're underestimating how much pain and suffering unions caused (there was case where they threw nails and other sharp objects on a road leading to a factory to pop the tires of trucks bearing supplies for that factory). I don't mind people using group bargaining, but I do mind government interfering either in favor of this group or in favor of the employer. It should be settled like anything else between two groups.

How will it lose competitive edge? Higher wages, more workers want to work there, so you can hire better workers. Raising wages can only help a business compete. Only if it raises prices or cuts the quality of its product will that cause problems in competition. But there's one option you capitalists never think of, decreasing your own wages. The Board of Directors rarely ever does this in order to save money even though its the only option that doesn't sacrifice their competitive edge in cases where they are required to increase business costs by raising wages or cutting prices.

Because, if you're paying workers more than their marginal productivity you're losing money for every hour they work. If you're paying someone 3 shoes an hour when they only make 2 shoes in an hour, you lose 1 shoe an hour. Thats why they lose their competitive edge. Having more workers whom you're paying more than their marginal productivity just exacerbates the problem. The Board of Directors make their money through profit and if they're dumb enough to spend all their profit furnishing their own homes their business won't grow/expand/make new ideas and will lose a competitive edge. Capitalists do think of this, and if you believe otherwise I'd ask you to prove it.

Why not? If its feasible now then it was feasible then. Aliens didn't come and dump a bunch of extra resources on Earth in the last few centuries so any raw materials used now to build things were available back then. It couldn't have been done in just a year but if they committed to it they would've eventually gathered and processed all the resources they needed.

No, thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I apologize. But we can produce millions of cars now, could we do that then? Its not just the availability of resources, its the availability of technology to use/find these resources. Technically, it'd be feasible for us, right now, to give everybody in the world a car. But we'd have to redirect resources from things like food, houses, and other amenities so that you end up supply a less urgent need at the cost of a more urgent one.

Inventions will come up as people think of them not as they want them. If I want an invention that can create a planet efficiently for every single person to have their own planet Tough. Doesn't mean somebody is going to magically find out how to do that. Inventions can be directed as far as what people decide to research. This would largely depend on people's preferences. Do people want to research how to cure diseases? They'll communicate that desire and decide to send research to scientists working on that. Right now it doesn't matter what inventions people want just what inventions large corporations want. They want treatments not cures because you only get to sell a cure once to everyone instead of having a lifelong customer. How much and to what extent priority is given to different research goals could be discussed and figured out including whether the "costs" are worth it compared to what else resources could be spent on.

You can only direct resources to things you know about now. You can't, by the definition of it, direct resources to something you don't know about. Or, in different terms, you can't know that you don't know something. Even if you know vaguely about something, you know that you know about it. You're "disease curing" is a great use of resources, but if we only apply resources to things that we know about we can only expand so much. Real inventions create solutions to problems we don't know about. For instance, people know that they need to travel... from this horse-and-carriages came about. This seems to solve the problem of travel, and it solves (for all intents-and-purposes) the problem of land travel. However, the invention of the airplane solved the problem of how to travel through the air even though it really wasn't a problem. Do you see what I'm saying? People can't want something they don't know about, and true invention (something that is really novel) satisfies a want consumer's don't know about. You cannot calculate "costs" in a socialist community. There is no money, and there is no exchange on the means of production, so you cannot come up with a rational price system.

Not as capital intensive? It's very easy to transport any equipment, machinery, etc. any company needs anywhere in the world. If they're not as capital intensive its because the companies have decided its cheaper to just pay people low wages instead of investing in new machinery. Minimum wage would force them to invest in new machinery to save money over time instead of just saving money with cheap labor. They'd also have to invest in more education because of skilled labor. There comes public education.

There is NOT an infinite supply of capital in the world, despite what some people (I don't know who) may tell you. Would you be happy if they took the capital from the United States and moved it overseas? Now you'd be the sweatshop worker and they'd be the ones with the (comparatively) high wages. Transporting necessarily implies not creation, but distribution, so that by improving the standards of living in one country you diminish that of another country. Minimum wage would force them to relocated, not invest in new machinery. Did you look at what I posted regarding American Samoa? The minimum wage forced them to leave and cause unemployment to a significant percentage of the society. The companies didn't "decide" it was cheaper, it was cheaper... empirically. If producers/manufacturers could decide what prices of everything are, why aren't we all working for 0 dollars an hour, and why isn't steel, oil, iron, etc etc 0 dollars? Because competition between different companies establishes exchange values of certain goods, commodities, and, yes, labor. By your logic we should raise minimum wage to 1 million dollars an hour, and the only thing that will happen is suddenly people will think of a way to make everybody's productivity worth 1 million dollars an hour... it doesn't work that way.

Outinleftfield

24th March 2010, 19:47

Yeah, but "non-violently" occupying someone else's property is illegal.

Which proves nothing because anything can be illegal if the government decides it is. Furthermore, how did it become their property in the first place? In many cases they just inherited it from another person and if you go back far enough a lot of that wealth is based on slavery, conquest, and old noble landholdings. In some cases they made enough money working to buy it but only were able to get positions that paid that much by kissing a lot of ass(and often times these positions involve less labor than lower paid jobs not more).

Because, if you're paying workers more than their marginal productivity you're losing money for every hour they work. If you're paying someone 3 shoes an hour when they only make 2 shoes in an hour, you lose 1 shoe an hour. Thats why they lose their competitive edge. Having more workers whom you're paying more than their marginal productivity just exacerbates the problem. The Board of Directors make their money through profit and if they're dumb enough to spend all their profit furnishing their own homes their business won't grow/expand/make new ideas and will lose a competitive edge.

How do you measure their marginal productivity? What about the board of directors' marginal productivity? What if they pay themselves more than their marginal productivity? Then isn't the company losing money for every hour they "work"(and considering they are in charge they can just claim an hour at the bar or time spent at a resort or golfing as work as long as there's some talk about business or even just say there was talk of business)? Since they are the ones in control what's to stop them from paying workers way under their marginal productivity in order to pay themselves way over marginal productivity?

Capitalists do think of this, and if you believe otherwise I'd ask you to prove it.

Yes they think of this but in the end they still wind up paying themselves several million dollars, sometimes even billions. If they really want to keep their competitiveness there's plenty to cut from their own salaries.

No, thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I apologize. But we can produce millions of cars now, could we do that then? Its not just the availability of resources, its the availability of technology to use/find these resources. Technically, it'd be feasible for us, right now, to give everybody in the world a car. But we'd have to redirect resources from things like food, houses, and other amenities so that you end up supply a less urgent need at the cost of a more urgent one.

And back then they had the technology for aqueducts, meaning that yes it could have been done. They might have had to communalize a lot of water sources, take away a large amount of the military, and the rich would have to lose some of their luxury but it could've been done.

You can only direct resources to things you know about now. You can't, by the definition of it, direct resources to something you don't know about. Or, in different terms, you can't know that you don't know something. Even if you know vaguely about something, you know that you know about it. You're "disease curing" is a great use of resources, but if we only apply resources to things that we know about we can only expand so much. Real inventions create solutions to problems we don't know about. For instance, people know that they need to travel... from this horse-and-carriages came about. This seems to solve the problem of travel, and it solves (for all intents-and-purposes) the problem of land travel. However, the invention of the airplane solved the problem of how to travel through the air even though it really wasn't a problem. Do you see what I'm saying? People can't want something they don't know about, and true invention (something that is really novel) satisfies a want consumer's don't know about.

True inventions don't initially involve the economy beyond what one individual or a small group gets in resources themselves in order to test a theory. No reason why that wouldn't still happen in socialism. And once someone demonstrates an invention then people do know about it and more resources are directed towards perfecting and assembling the invention. Capitalists don't magically know whose about to invent something they don't know about either, but peopel still manage to do it.

You cannot calculate "costs" in a socialist community. There is no money, and there is no exchange on the means of production, so you cannot come up with a rational price system.

The price system is not rational, because there are too many people who have more money they deserve nad too many people who have less than they deserve based on their labor, skewing decision-making towards a small elite.

And you can calculate costs. In fact you can calculate costs better. There are different types of costs. Money only shows a narrow amount of the costs. Money can not measure costs such as pollution or other externalities. So power source A might really cost more than power source B but it gets used anyways because the narrow range of costs that money can measure still comes out behind power source B. In a socialist economy expected costs and benefits are discussed and weighed when debating what to produce. Instead of leaving it ot how money incentivizes things people actually talk about it and make smart decisions on how important different costs and benefits are. It's a smarter, more rational process than some "invisible hand".

There is NOT an infinite supply of capital in the world, despite what some people (I don't know who) may tell you. Would you be happy if they took the capital from the United States and moved it overseas? Now you'd be the sweatshop worker and they'd be the ones with the (comparatively) high wages. Transporting necessarily implies not creation, but distribution, so that by improving the standards of living in one country you diminish that of another country.

Transporting doesn't imply creation but it doesn't preclude it either. They have the technology if they step up production they can upgrade capital around the world, then they multiply production in the years ahead.

Minimum wage would force them to relocated, not invest in new machinery. Did you look at what I posted regarding American Samoa? The minimum wage forced them to leave and cause unemployment to a significant percentage of the society. The companies didn't "decide" it was cheaper, it was cheaper... empirically.

"Forced" is a word you capitalists love. You speak as though they really had no choice to make decisions based on what would maximize their profit, that these people have no free will to choose to be less greedy. But they could have chosen to accept less profits for the greater good. That's the main defect of capitalism, it encourages selfishness and ignores the greater good. If the workers of American Samoa ran the means of production they could have affoarded to buy the equipment they needed to increase productivity because the capitalists wouldn't be being paid several times above their marginal productivity.

LeftSideDown

24th March 2010, 20:57

Which proves nothing because anything can be illegal if the government decides it is. Furthermore, how did it become their property in the first place? In many cases they just inherited it from another person and if you go back far enough a lot of that wealth is based on slavery, conquest, and old noble landholdings. In some cases they made enough money working to buy it but only were able to get positions that paid that much by kissing a lot of ass(and often times these positions involve less labor than lower paid jobs not more).

Fine, it is immoral. The burden of proof is on you, and even if the owner of the factory isn't the legitimate owner, only the descendants of the "real" owner could occupy the factory without again being in contempt of natural law.

How do you measure their marginal productivity? What about the board of directors' marginal productivity? What if they pay themselves more than their marginal productivity? Then isn't the company losing money for every hour they "work"(and considering they are in charge they can just claim an hour at the bar or time spent at a resort or golfing as work as long as there's some talk about business or even just say there was talk of business)? Since they are the ones in control what's to stop them from paying workers way under their marginal productivity in order to pay themselves way over marginal productivity?

A lot of them time its hard to measure, I'm not going to deny this. But if you watch them, you can see they make X units of Y consumer good in a given time Z. From this you can deduce their marginal productivity. The board of directors marginal productivity = the profits of the company. They can't pay themselves more than the company makes. What stops them is they start paying too low for a resource (labor) than someone else will outbid them for the labor. You obviously don't understand the slightest fundamentals of business, and I'd recommend you take a class in Econ, even if its only micro. What stops them in all cases you listed is that they lose their competitive edge.

For Econ you can listen to these:
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=203
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=199 (Ignore the one on Mises/The Future of Austrian Economics)
http://jim.com/econ/ and you can read that.

Yes they think of this but in the end they still wind up paying themselves several million dollars, sometimes even billions. If they really want to keep their competitiveness there's plenty to cut from their own salaries.

Okay, but what does that say about their managerial skills, if after paying themselves millions of dollars they still manage to stay in business and compete at least adequately? You can't be a shitty manager and do this, I'm sorry.

And back then they had the technology for aqueducts, meaning that yes it could have been done. They might have had to communalize a lot of water sources, take away a large amount of the military, and the rich would have to lose some of their luxury but it could've been done.

Source(s). It doesn't matter that they have the technology for aqueducts, we have the technology for Airbuses, but does that mean we can give an airbus to everybody? Honestly you seem to confuse possibility and feasibility.

True inventions don't initially involve the economy beyond what one individual or a small group gets in resources themselves in order to test a theory. No reason why that wouldn't still happen in socialism. And once someone demonstrates an invention then people do know about it and more resources are directed towards perfecting and assembling the invention. Capitalists don't magically know whose about to invent something they don't know about either, but peopel still manage to do it.

There is a reason why. There are at least thousands of inventions floating around right now, there are probably many many more. How do you know which inventions are a worthwhile investment? In Socialism, since there are no prices on the means of production, not only could you not calculate the cost of reallocating resources, you couldn't even calculate whether or not its more beneficial than harmful (i.e. whether it makes a profit) because there exists no price structure.

The price system is not rational, because there are too many people who have more money they deserve nad too many people who have less than they deserve based on their labor, skewing decision-making towards a small elite.

Who decides what people "deserve"? You? That seems kind of egotistical. Democracy? Well they're just going to vote for the majority to have the most money. A group of experts? Come on, too easy. If I spend my life making 100 shoes, even though I toil day in and day out I don't deserve more than 100 shoes. You cannot decide how much people deserve, the market does that. If I invent the cure for AIDS how much money does that deserve? IF I invent a way to mass produce cars how much does that deserve? IF I work REALLY REALLY hard and put all my effort into trying to make a way for humans to live forever, but I fail, how much does that deserve?

And you can calculate costs. In fact you can calculate costs better. There are different types of costs. Money only shows a narrow amount of the costs. Money can not measure costs such as pollution or other externalities. So power source A might really cost more than power source B but it gets used anyways because the narrow range of costs that money can measure still comes out behind power source B. In a socialist economy expected costs and benefits are discussed and weighed when debating what to produce. Instead of leaving it ot how money incentivizes things people actually talk about it and make smart decisions on how important different costs and benefits are. It's a smarter, more rational process than some "invisible hand".

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/why-socialism-causes-pollution/

You're right, socialists care about externalities :laugh:.

But in all seriousness, you don't have money in socialism so how do you calculate costs? You don't have prices on the means of production so how do you know how much they are worth? Who decides what a smart decision is? What if someone says its a smart decision that all coal power plants should be shot down, regardless of how many people would lose power, so that we can avoid polluting the atmosphere? All the invisible hand does is set up a structure of production that meets the desires of consumers best. What if the smart decision is that video games, computers, alcohol, art, music, and theater are all wasteful because they don't produce things needed for sustenance? I have much more faith in the market providing what people want than a bureaucracy.

Transporting doesn't imply creation but it doesn't preclude it either. They have the technology if they step up production they can upgrade capital around the world, then they multiply production in the years ahead.

There are limited resources and infinite wants. Econ 101.

"Forced" is a word you capitalists love. You speak as though they really had no choice to make decisions based on what would maximize their profit, that these people have no free will to choose to be less greedy. But they could have chosen to accept less profits for the greater good. That's the main defect of capitalism, it encourages selfishness and ignores the greater good. If the workers of American Samoa ran the means of production they could have affoarded to buy the equipment they needed to increase productivity because the capitalists wouldn't be being paid several times above their marginal productivity.

You're so misguided. More good in the world has been done by selfishness in the world than has been done by altruism. The greater good comes to be met by a larger division of labor that capitalism encourages. SO, if workers ran the Samoa factory they could've given themselves any wage and they could just magically afford to buy any equipment they needed.

Prove that the capitalists are being paid more than their marginal productivity.

Outinleftfield

24th March 2010, 21:51

Fine, it is immoral. The burden of proof is on you, and even if the owner of the factory isn't the legitimate owner, only the descendants of the "real" owner could occupy the factory without again being in contempt of natural law.

Natural law? There are laws in nature. That's funny because I've never seen a "law", just representations of them on paper. Laws are human made constructs not natural.

A lot of them time its hard to measure, I'm not going to deny this. But if you watch them, you can see they make X units of Y consumer good in a given time Z. From this you can deduce their marginal productivity.

You do realize there are hardly any workers that actually make enough money to go and buy everything they ever produced?

The board of directors marginal productivity = the profits of the company. They can't pay themselves more than the company makes.

No, most companies are corporations and in corporations the profits go to the stockholders. Stocks another topic. The board of directors' salaries on the other hand tend to be enormous. If you're going to claim their salary as marginal productivity then we should see a clear correlation to the amount of work they put in and their salary. This doesn't always happen. Boards of directors can sit on their ass, hiring secretaries and planners to do everything for them and then just ratify their suggestions if those secretaries and planners are skilled enough. That takes hardly any work, but the board of directors in these cases does not lower their salaries down to practically nothing(which they would have to do if they followed marginal productivity) they raise their salaries as much as possible without the business going under(and in some cases if they're about to retire they might not even care about that).

What stops them is they start paying too low for a resource (labor) than someone else will outbid them for the labor.

Depends on location, and what the other companies are doing. It also depends on ties between companies. Hidden ties. Just because two companies are independent doesn't mean there aren't people who own stock in/help run both of them, tying their interests and creating a hidden monopoly.

You obviously don't understand the slightest fundamentals of business, and I'd recommend you take a class in Econ, even if its only micro. What stops them in all cases you listed is that they lose their competitive edge.

I have. Microecon/macroecon classes in this country are monopolized under the theories of a small clique and even though there economists who put forth great arguments to counter them they aren't even mentioned.

Okay, but what does that say about their managerial skills, if after paying themselves millions of dollars they still manage to stay in business and compete at least adequately? You can't be a shitty manager and do this, I'm sorry.

Doesn't mean their productivity is worth every penny they get, especially if they do like I said above.

There is a reason why. There are at least thousands of inventions floating around right now, there are probably many many more. How do you know which inventions are a worthwhile investment? In Socialism, since there are no prices on the means of production, not only could you not calculate the cost of reallocating resources, you couldn't even calculate whether or not its more beneficial than harmful (i.e. whether it makes a profit) because there exists no price structure.

People would get together and discuss whether they consider it more beneficial or harmless and would get reports on measures of "amount of polllutants likely to be produced", the amounts of resources that would go into one unit, what would come out of it, etc. Instead of using money as a cheap shortcut they would talk about and weigh all those factors.

Who decides what people "deserve"? You? That seems kind of egotistical. Democracy? Well they're just going to vote for the majority to have the most money. A group of experts? Come on, too easy. If I spend my life making 100 shoes, even though I toil day in and day out I don't deserve more than 100 shoes. You cannot decide how much people deserve, the market does that. If I invent the cure for AIDS how much money does that deserve? IF I invent a way to mass produce cars how much does that deserve? IF I work REALLY REALLY hard and put all my effort into trying to make a way for humans to live forever, but I fail, how much does that deserve?

What gives the market any objective right to decide what people deserve? What people "deserve", how much we should produce, where priorities should go are all very subjective. How this would be decided has wide disagreement even on this website. Personally I'm a libertarian socialist. I believe that a decentralized structure based on voluntary association would be the best safeguard against any decision-making being weighted too much in one group or another's favor at the expense of others. A sort of checks and balances with billions of interacting groups.

But in all seriousness, you don't have money in socialism so how do you calculate costs? You don't have prices on the means of production so how do you know how much they are worth? Who decides what a smart decision is? What if someone says its a smart decision that all coal power plants should be shot down, regardless of how many people would lose power, so that we can avoid polluting the atmosphere? All the invisible hand does is set up a structure of production that meets the desires of consumers best. What if the smart decision is that video games, computers, alcohol, art, music, and theater are all wasteful because they don't produce things needed for sustenance? I have much more faith in the market providing what people want than a bureaucracy.

What if Bill Gates decided it was a smart decision to shut down all coal plants right away and paid their owners a bunch of money to do it? See I can make silly arguments too.

In all seriousness people aren't that stupid, a few maybe but with deliberation and consensus we would not make that decision. People wouldn't be stupid enough to say "let's build new ones" but they would have new electric plants built before taking down the coal plants.

There are limited resources and infinite wants. Econ 101.

So I want everything? There are not limited resources and infinite wants. Even wants are limited. Every person has a limit of time and energy to spend. Nobody can do "everything". Hence there's a certain level of want fulfillment where a person couldn't get any better.

SO, if workers ran the Samoa factory they could've given themselves any wage and they could just magically afford to buy any equipment they needed.

They wouldn't be spending money giving profits to shareholders or megasalaries to board of directors and managers so they would have more money. How they would decide to prioritize, whether they wanted more wages now or equipment to get wages later would be their choice.

LeftSideDown

24th March 2010, 22:29

Natural law? There are laws in nature. That's funny because I've never seen a "law", just representations of them on paper. Laws are human made constructs not natural.

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. I have the right to be left alone, you do not have a right to subside off me. I have a right to control what my body does, I do not have a right to control what your body does. These are a few examples of natural laws.

You do realize there are hardly any workers that actually make enough money to go and buy everything they ever produced?

Examples please.

No, most companies are corporations and in corporations the profits go to the stockholders. Stocks another topic. The board of directors' salaries on the other hand tend to be enormous. If you're going to claim their salary as marginal productivity then we should see a clear correlation to the amount of work they put in and their salary. This doesn't always happen. Boards of directors can sit on their ass, hiring secretaries and planners to do everything for them and then just ratify their suggestions if those secretaries and planners are skilled enough. That takes hardly any work, but the board of directors in these cases does not lower their salaries down to practically nothing(which they would have to do if they followed marginal productivity) they raise their salaries as much as possible without the business going under(and in some cases if they're about to retire they might not even care about that).

Thats not true at all. Labor =\= wages. Only silly LTV adherents think that. IF they are hiring good secretaries and good planners that is a testament to their skill as a manager. TO say that people should not get millions of dollars is to say that no human can contribute millions of dollars worth to human society. This is wrong.

Depends on location, and what the other companies are doing. It also depends on ties between companies. Hidden ties. Just because two companies are independent doesn't mean there aren't people who own stock in/help run both of them, tying their interests and creating a hidden monopoly.

The profits in a cartel are less than the profit someone makes by undercutting the cartel. If people really are selfish, as you assert they are in capitalism, they will pursue the highest possible profit.

I have. Microecon/macroecon classes in this country are monopolized under the theories of a small clique and even though there economists who put forth great arguments to counter them they aren't even mentioned.

Mostly by keynesians who aren't really economists.

Doesn't mean their productivity is worth every penny they get, especially if they do like I said above.

The burden of proof is on you at this point.

People would get together and discuss whether they consider it more beneficial or harmless and would get reports on measures of "amount of polllutants likely to be produced", the amounts of resources that would go into one unit, what would come out of it, etc. Instead of using money as a cheap shortcut they would talk about and weigh all those factors.

Okay, but how would they measure how much people would value it? You could do all these things, and have a lump of coal come out that has no pollutants and costs virtually nothing. You still don't know the benefits or the costs since the resources that goes into something =\= the cost, especially if you don't know the cost of the resources.

What gives the market any objective right to decide what people deserve? What people "deserve", how much we should produce, where priorities should go are all very subjective. How this would be decided has wide disagreement even on this website. Personally I'm a libertarian socialist. I believe that a decentralized structure based on voluntary association would be the best safeguard against any decision-making being weighted too much in one group or another's favor at the expense of others. A sort of checks and balances with billions of interacting groups.

Market = The system by which consumer demands are met. Income = Proportional to the amount that someone contributes to consumer's demand. All individual valuations are subjective, so it seems if the market is subjective it is the best method of meeting subjective demands. I don't see where the checks and balances are against a tyranny of the majority.

What if Bill Gates decided it was a smart decision to shut down all coal plants right away and paid their owners a bunch of money to do it? See I can make silly arguments too.

He wouldn't do this if he cared about profit. In Socialism there is no profit motive, therefore no motive not to make dumb decisions on seemingly intelligent premises.

In all seriousness people aren't that stupid, a few maybe but with deliberation and consensus we would not make that decision. People wouldn't be stupid enough to say "let's build new ones" but they would have new electric plants built before taking down the coal plants.

Electric plants running on what? You don't seem to understand that just because someone votes for something doesn't make it the best choice. NO matter how many times you run a ballot 2+2 = 5.

So I want everything? There are not limited resources and infinite wants. Even wants are limited. Every person has a limit of time and energy to spend. Nobody can do "everything". Hence there's a certain level of want fulfillment where a person couldn't get any better.

I didn't say you can fulfill your infinite wants, but the market is force that intermediates infinite wants with limited supply. It allows you to fulfill your most urgent needs first, and less urgent ones later.

They wouldn't be spending money giving profits to shareholders or megasalaries to board of directors and managers so they would have more money. How they would decide to prioritize, whether they wanted more wages now or equipment to get wages later would be their choice.

Your "megasalaries" are completely subjective, and they imply that people can only benefit society to some amount X. This is wrong. Bill gates has benefited the world billions of dollars, therefore he deserves billions. But there is a choice that is right, in terms of money, and wrong, in terms of money. Voting one way doesn't negate this fact.

S.Artesian

24th March 2010, 23:37

Why would anyone waste time arguing with a snakeoil salesman about the curative properties of the snakeoil, in this case the snakeoil being the pseudo-economics, the free-market boosterism of von Mises, Hayek, Friedman?

There is no "economics" in their snakeoil, just ideology, just the ideological justification for maintaining private property.

Behind every free-market, there stands a death squad.

mikelepore

25th March 2010, 00:21

Why is somebody else's wealth any of my concern? Them being rich doesn't make me poor. They created their wealth. It's not a fixed pie.

How do you determine whether someone who is in possession of wealth created it? A pirate or pickpocket is also in creation of some wealth, so did they therefore create it?

If you would reply to my question by pointing out that they acquired their money without breaking the law, whereas the pirate and pickpocket did break the law, then my next question would be: What is the basis for the assertion that legality and morality are synonymous?

Mo212

25th March 2010, 00:45

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/14/will-hutton-economics-billionaires

How much high-class whiskey or fancy women can one man consume? Beyond £200,000 or £500,000 or whatever a year, the assets held by many individuals are really a bunch of stock which has value because it can be sold. How can this be justified when there are millions of people starving around the world?

I also think that the existence of these billionaires demonstrates the failure of capitalism because if capitalism was working properly the billionaires would not be able to gain such a sufficient advantage to cream off such huge amounts. There would always be someone to do it cheaper and better.

Capitalists confuse the laws of large numbers with success, take 2 dollars from 300 million people and you have 600 million dollars. Such wealth is an artifact of using money and large populations and little else, Bill gates in a tribal society is not going to create microsoft, capitalists act like bill did the whole thing himself, actually BILL needed those millions of people with disposable income to exist or he couldn't get anywhere without them.

It's a symbiotic effort, nothing exists in a vacuum, I've met bill gates and in his older age he's said a lot of wise things. He's not perfect but he's doing a lot with his wealth, you have to remember that people are products of their age.

Wealth wouldn't be a bad thing of wealthy people reinvested it back into society and weren't so attached to it. If people were more like Andrew Carnegie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie

Quote

"I propose to take an income no greater than $50,000 per annum! Beyond this I need ever earn, make no effort to increase my fortune, but spend the surplus each year for benevolent purposes! Let us cast aside business forever, except for others. Let us settle in Oxford and I shall get a thorough education, making the acquaintance of literary men. I figure that this will take three years active work. I shall pay especial attention to speaking in public. We can settle in London and I can purchase a controlling interest in some newspaper or live review and give the general management of it attention, taking part in public matters, especially those connected with education and improvement of the poorer classes. Man must have an idol and the amassing of wealth is one of the worst species of idolatry!"

LeftSideDown

25th March 2010, 01:40

Behind every free-market, there stands a death squad.

Seems to me that Communism has had a lot more experience with death squads than capitalism.

S.Artesian

25th March 2010, 01:57

You think so? Then you don't know too much about the history of capitalism in Latin America, Asia, Africa.

Actually, you probably don't know too much about the actual history of capitalism in Europe either.

But wait... let me guess, you're going to say-- "Why that's not free market capitalism. Those death squads are all the result of government interfering with the natural harmony of the invisible hand." That's how the ideology goes, isn't it? Anarcho-monetarism in the service of obfuscation and disinformation.

Right. And Friedman and the Chicago Boys had nothing to do with Pinochet.

And those invisible hands? They belong to stranglers.

Skooma Addict

25th March 2010, 02:10

Anarcho-monetarism

?

Klaatu

25th March 2010, 02:36

Your question as to whether or not I've ever worked in manufacturing is nothing but ad hominem (seems to me to be "Poisoning the Well").

Why is that ad hominem? Your remark itself can be construed as being condescending.
That is, do you consider yourself to be superior to an average factory worker?

S.Artesian

25th March 2010, 02:37

Meant humorously. Probably not a good way to put it, and not intended as a slur against left anarchists. Should have said pseudo-anarcho-monetarists-- given how the "free marketeers" love to blame government for all the economic ills that are inherent in capitalism, but for which the bourgeoisie dare not accept responsibility.

Klaatu

25th March 2010, 02:39

Would you like to take up a job at third-world (or second-world) wages? Would you accept it without protest if it were the only choice you could afford to make?

Yes, Mr LeftSideDown: Would you take a job at Third-World wages? Be honest now.

Mo212

25th March 2010, 05:37

Seems to me that Communism has had a lot more experience with death squads than capitalism.

Capitalism has it's own death squads - notice the most capitalist nation on earth (US) is the one constantly engaged in illegal war... you don't think the us military is one giant deathsquad for capitalism? No one is upstanding here.

There are tonnes of _preventable_ deaths due to capitalism everyday due to private property and private ownership system.

-Ruined lives due to joblessness
-Suicides over lack of money
-Preventable death due to no regulation or ability to ban toxic food (junk food, soda, etc)
-Depression, suicide and mental illness is directly related to socio economic class and income levels
-Not paying the true cost of pollution (death by suffocation) due to capitalists not wanting to pay the lifetime costs of what they produce because they don't plan for the future (end of life) of their products due to time to market pressures.

There is all sorts of insanity under capitalist economic systems where sane judgement takes a back seat to profit.

Outinleftfield

25th March 2010, 19:33

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. I have the right to be left alone, you do not have a right to subside off me. I have a right to control what my body does, I do not have a right to control what your body does. These are a few examples of natural laws.

Prove these rights are in nature. Is it something even animals respect? In that case animals don’t always respect those rights. “Natural rights” is the same as an argument from emotion. You feel those rights should be there so they’re there.
Even if we concede that there are natural rights you are saying its possible to forfeit them such as by signing a contract and then people can control other people based on what the contract says. Do agreements like that last for say anywhere close to even 10 years in nature? No. An ape might submit to a stronger ape by necessity but if later he and a bunch of other apes are stronger and hold the same interests they don't naturally yield to the strongest ape if he threatens there interests. They will overthrow him and put in a new alpha male if they feel the alpha male is threatening them. Revolutions occur in nature. There are no property rights in nature.

Examples please.

OK. Do you think diamond miners in Africa even in non-conflict zones make enough to go buy all the diamonds they mined?
And even American auto workers. Sure they can affoard 1 car that they produce but do you think they could go and affoard to buy the same number of cars that they produced even divided by the number of workers in the process? I don’t think so.

Thats not true at all. Labor =\= wages. Only silly LTV adherents think that. IF they are hiring good secretaries and good planners that is a testament to their skill as a manager. TO say that people should not get millions of dollars is to say that no human can contribute millions of dollars worth to human society. This is wrong.

It doesn't take that much skill. In most cases its just word of mouth so and so is a good planner/secretary so they hire them and it works out or it doesn't. That doesn't take much skill at all.

When a new competitor emerges on the market the cartel lowers its prices in what ever area the competitor is until the competitor is out of business and then raises them back up. Do this enough and no one will even try to start a competing business.

[QUOTE]Mostly by keynesians who aren't really economists.

As much as I disagree with keynesians I still admit they're economists. Guess your definition of economist is anyone who agrees with you about the economy.

Okay, but how would they measure how much people would value it? You could do all these things, and have a lump of coal come out that has no pollutants and costs virtually nothing. You still don't know the benefits or the costs since the resources that goes into something =\= the cost, especially if you don't know the cost of the resources.

A lump of coal without pollutants is impossible. We need alternative energy. Either way there's no reason these costs can't be measured. And instead of lumping them all up into "money" and ignoring costs that money doesn't take into account each cost can be considered in isolation by itself and people can all have their input on what costs/benefits should be prioritized.

Market = The system by which consumer demands are met. Income = Proportional to the amount that someone contributes to consumer's demand. All individual valuations are subjective, so it seems if the market is subjective it is the best method of meeting subjective demands. I don't see where the checks and balances are against a tyranny of the majority.

Prove that income is proportional.

He wouldn't do this if he cared about profit. In Socialism there is no profit motive, therefore no motive not to make dumb decisions on seemingly intelligent premises.

There is plenty of motive. People want to live long, healthy lives. That's a motive for not making dumb decisions. People want a high quality of life. That's a motive. People want clean air. There's a motive that doesn't seem to be working in the market. With deliberation and debate we can make the best decisions together.

Electric plants running on what? You don't seem to understand that just because someone votes for something doesn't make it the best choice. NO matter how many times you run a ballot 2+2 = 5.

Of course that's why it should be highly decentralized, to encourage deliberation to arrive at the best choice.

I didn't say you can fulfill your infinite wants, but the market is force that intermediates infinite wants with limited supply. It allows you to fulfill your most urgent needs first, and less urgent ones later.

We don't have infinite wants. What if I had a billion oranges and was unable to exchange any of them? What good would that do me? There are limits to human wants.

Your "megasalaries" are completely subjective, and they imply that people can only benefit society to some amount X. This is wrong. Bill gates has benefited the world billions of dollars, therefore he deserves billions. But there is a choice that is right, in terms of money, and wrong, in terms of money. Voting one way doesn't negate this fact.

All Bill Gates making billions proves is he found a way to make billions in the system that is set up. It does not prove he deserve it or he contributed that much to society.

LeftSideDown

25th March 2010, 23:14

Why is that ad hominem? Your remark itself can be construed as being condescending.
That is, do you consider yourself to be superior to an average factory worker?

"Poisoning the well" is an ad hominem. Do you need direct experience of something to sympathize/empathize/understand something? I don't need to be set on fire to know that its unpleasant/to feel bad for people who are set on fire. I'm not equating being set on fire to workers, btw, although doubtless you'll assert this.

I do not consider myself to be innately superior to the average factory worker; maybe better educated, maybe with better prospects, but not innately superior.

LeftSideDown

25th March 2010, 23:15

Yes, Mr LeftSideDown: Would you take a job at Third-World wages? Be honest now.

If my chances of living were increased by taking a job in the third world of course I would.

S.Artesian

25th March 2010, 23:20

LeftSideDown

25th March 2010, 23:25

Capitalism has it's own death squads - notice the most capitalist nation on earth (US) is the one constantly engaged in illegal war... you don't think the us military is one giant deathsquad for capitalism? No one is upstanding here.

There are tonnes of _preventable_ deaths due to capitalism everyday due to private property and private ownership system.

-Ruined lives due to joblessness
-Suicides over lack of money
-Preventable death due to no regulation or ability to ban toxic food (junk food, soda, etc)
-Depression, suicide and mental illness is directly related to socio economic class and income levels
-Not paying the true cost of pollution (death by suffocation) due to capitalists not wanting to pay the lifetime costs of what they produce because they don't plan for the future (end of life) of their products due to time to market pressures.

There is all sorts of insanity under capitalist economic systems where sane judgement takes a back seat to profit.

You're confusing the imperialist government of a Keynesian country with the workers of a capitalist economy.

Which is worse: being shot because you have different political view than the government or dieing of starvation because a) you're too lazy to work b) you're too lazy to seek help c) you don't care. There really isn't an excuse to die of starvation in the US.

-Involuntarily Joblessness wouldn't exist in a freemarket
-So people being depressed and suicidal is because of capitalism? Interesting that socialist/former socialist countries have, on average, much higher rates of suicide than the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate)
-Why should their be regulation on what makes people happy? Who are you tell anyone what they eat, how they live, and how they die?
-It used to be in the US that companies had to take into account pollution, other peoples property rights, environmental damage etc etc. Only at the beginning of the 20th century did the courts start ruling against individuals for factories.

Who are you to decide what sane is? If a consumer wants a pet rock, why is that insane? It fulfills the demands of the consumer, it is not "insane".

LeftSideDown

25th March 2010, 23:48

Prove these rights are in nature. Is it something even animals respect? In that case animals don’t always respect those rights. “Natural rights” is the same as an argument from emotion. You feel those rights should be there so they’re there.

I didn't say they were always enforced, just always there. I doubt you believe in any kind of rights, so when the communist revolution rolls around if the mob votes to kill anyone/everyone else, doubtless this is find in your skewed system of morality.

Even if we concede that there are natural rights you are saying its possible to forfeit them such as by signing a contract and then people can control other people based on what the contract says. Do agreements like that last for say anywhere close to even 10 years in nature? No. An ape might submit to a stronger ape by necessity but if later he and a bunch of other apes are stronger and hold the same interests they don't naturally yield to the strongest ape if he threatens there interests. They will overthrow him and put in a new alpha male if they feel the alpha male is threatening them. Revolutions occur in nature. There are no property rights in nature.

Yes, but a contract that made me sign away my right to association I would have to look at very critically before I accepted. IF someone wanted to give up their freedom of speech for 5 years to be paid 5 million dollars, who are we to say he shouldn't be allowed to do this? So long as there is no force or fraud there is no crime. I guess you're saying we should all go back to living like apes, then?

OK. Do you think diamond miners in Africa even in non-conflict zones make enough to go buy all the diamonds they mined?
And even American auto workers. Sure they can affoard 1 car that they produce but do you think they could go and affoard to buy the same number of cars that they produced even divided by the number of workers in the process? I don’t think so.

Because diamonds aren't valuable to the miner? The miner doesn't want diamonds, he wants water and food, so he of course he doesn't value it as highly as Americans who, on the whole, have these desire already met. I don't think diamond mining is a good example anyway, its a government imposed monopoly. How much does the worker produce? Let me put it differently. If I rent you an axe and ask you to chop down a tree how much of the work is done by the Axe and how much is done by you? You couldn't chop down the tree without that Axe (try pushing a large tree over sometime), just like the autoworkers couldn't produce nearly so many cars without the division of labor/ preexisting machinery.
It doesn't take that much skill. In most cases its just word of mouth so and so is a good planner/secretary so they hire them and it works out or it doesn't. That doesn't take much skill at all.

When a new competitor emerges on the market the cartel lowers its prices in what ever area the competitor is until the competitor is out of business and then raises them back up. Do this enough and no one will even try to start a competing business.

So why wouldn't members of the cartel start selling below the cartel price? Do you not understand how the market is self regulating? IF I think I can make more money by undercutting the cartel, what am I going to do? Why wouldn't anyone in a cartel do this? Most cartels (if they aren't government enforced) rarely last longer than a few years, and they are still subject to supply and demand and especially elasticity.

As much as I disagree with keynesians I still admit they're economists. Guess your definition of economist is anyone who agrees with you about the economy.

Keynesians think that you can solve problems by printing money. Anyone who thinks this can hardly be called an economist in my mind.

A lump of coal without pollutants is impossible. We need alternative energy. Either way there's no reason these costs can't be measured. And instead of lumping them all up into "money" and ignoring costs that money doesn't take into account each cost can be considered in isolation by itself and people can all have their input on what costs/benefits should be prioritized.

I'm saying you create a lump of coal. I said you "could" so obviously this isn't something that would rationally happen. How do you measure cost? A resource isn't intrinsically worth something. Was oil worth anything before we had something to use it in? Was plutonium useful before nuclear power? Resources, labor, commodities have no intrinsic value, so how do you decide what something is worth?

Prove that income is proportional.

Bill Gates met a large consumer demand by selling/creating computers. He made a lot of money. A person who sets up an icecream shop in greenland and goes out of business didn't meet consumer demand. He made no money, and probably lost money. A doctor meets consumer demand by saving lives. A janitor, while keeping a company clean, doesn't really meet consumer demand, his income is small.

There is plenty of motive. People want to live long, healthy lives. That's a motive for not making dumb decisions. People want a high quality of life. That's a motive. People want clean air. There's a motive that doesn't seem to be working in the market. With deliberation and debate we can make the best decisions together.

People have infinite demand. The Earth has limited supply. People want clean air, but they also want houses and cars. When does one become more important than the other. Keep in mind there are tea-baggers in the world, so you really think that people make the best decisions? I guess you could kill everybody who doesn't think like you, but I really don't think that would be best. So no, there was tons of deliberation in Congress for this healthcare bill, and even people here know its a piece of crap.

Of course that's why it should be highly decentralized, to encourage deliberation to arrive at the best choice.

The United States government is decentralized (Federal, federal is divided into branches, legislature is divided into two houses, than there is state, county, local, municipalities) and yet, look at all the dumb decisions it makes.

We don't have infinite wants. What if I had a billion oranges and was unable to exchange any of them? What good would that do me? There are limits to human wants.

Have you ever taken an economics class? We don't want one thing. We want everything. We don't want tons of oranges, we want houses, cars, tvs, computers, shoes, socks, shirts, pants, airplanes, trains, busses, roads, electricity, ipods, iphones, cellphones, zunes, xboxs, wiis, ps3, psps, nintendo ds's, toys, women, oranges, apples, grapes, juice, water, soda, seltzer, chips, muffins, etc etc etc etc. If you don't think humans always want something, then I don't think you are human. The limit to human wants is what we know about right now, because as soon as there is a new invention there are new wants.

All Bill Gates making billions proves is he found a way to make billions in the system that is set up. It does not prove he deserve it or he contributed that much to society.

Okay, he makes that money by meeting consumer demand. Doesn't matter how much you "exploit" workers, if what you're making isn't valued.

LeftSideDown

25th March 2010, 23:49

Right.. and if people in hell had ice water, they wouldn't be so thirsty; and if my aunt had the xy chromosome instead of the xx she would have been my uncle.

See, it is all about class-- sure he would, accept a job in the 3rd world as long as it improved his class status... which, particularly in the third world is intimately connected with longevity.

I didn't say it'd improve my class status, just my odds of living. I really don't see what is wrong with my answer, or what the point of your weird analogies are.

Klaatu

26th March 2010, 02:28

LeftSideDown
"Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. I have the right to be left alone, you do not have a right to subside off me. I have a right to control what my body does, I do not have a right to control what your body does. These are a few examples of natural laws."

Outinleftfield
"Prove these rights are in nature. Is it something even animals respect? In that case animals don’t always respect those rights. “Natural rights” is the same as an argument from emotion. You feel those rights should be there so they’re there."

Yes Mr LeftSideDown. Do animals respect others' rights? It seems to me that, from watching nature shows on TV, that the
"natural world" is an unkind place indeed. Animals EAT other animals. Animals DESTROY other animals, who might happen
to be invading their spaces (like the mother bear that will viciously kill anyone that endangers her young)

You talk about natural law. Whose natural law? The gods natural law? The aliens natural law? Or the animals natural law?
I think the choices are pretty clear here; what is real and what isn't ? Gods, aliens, or animals?

Klaatu

26th March 2010, 02:37

LeftSideDown
"People want clean air, but they also want houses and cars. When does one become more important than the other."

When the health effect of car exhaust affecting public health becomes known. That is why we have emission controls
on cars, which had to be mandated, because the car manufacturers would have NEVER done a thing to limit pollution.

LeftSideDown
"So no, there was tons of deliberation in Congress for this healthcare bill, and even people here know its a piece of crap."

So tell me. Why is the new health care law in the U.S. "a piece of crap?"

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 02:41

Yes Mr LeftSideDown. Do animals respect others' rights? It seems to me that, from watching nature shows on TV, that the
"natural world" is an unkind place indeed. Animals EAT other animals. Animals DESTROY other animals, who might happen
to be invading their spaces (like the mother bear that will viciously kill anyone that endangers her young)

Yes, Animals respect others' rights. Animals don't have rights, so by eating each other etc etc they are violating nothing.

You talk about natural law. Whose natural law? The gods natural law? The aliens natural law? Or the animals natural law?
I think the choices are pretty clear here; what is real and what isn't ? Gods, aliens, or animals?

Man's natural law. Should be fairly simple even for you.

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 02:47

When the health effect of car exhaust affecting public health becomes known. That is why we have emission controls
on cars, which had to be mandated, because the car manufacturers would have NEVER done a thing to limit pollution.

You're ignoring the question. The health effect of everything is known. The health effect of breathing is, eventually, it kills you. So we should stop breathing. Honestly, I keep trying to show you something, and its like you're hiding from it. There is no way to measure costs and benefits in a socialist society. There is no way. It is impossible. Once you take away pricing in the means of production (necessary when it becomes communally owned) you lose rational economic activity. Do we need to mandate cars for them to have cushions? Do we need to mandate for them to have steering wheels? No, and if there was a demand for cleaner air, car industries would've acted accordingly. If people want clean air, what car are they going to get: the one thats clean, or the one thats not? It becomes a competitive thing to get the cleanest exhaust, etc etc. When you mandate that "it shall only release X pollutants maximum" then they stop caring because everyone just goes for this minimum standard, especially if the legislation appeared before the demand. That industry (research into cleaner technology) drys up because of legislation.

So whats more important: Making 1000 cars, or having one person live because the air is cleaner? Do this for everything. Every single thing. Every commodity, every good, every service. Thats what socialists have to do, and thats why it is impossible.

So tell me. Why is the new health care law in the U.S. "a piece of crap?"

Look at your own forum for that. The reasons they list are pretty good I think.

Klaatu

26th March 2010, 02:56

Yes, Animals respect others' rights. Animals don't have rights, so by eating each other etc etc they are violating nothing.

Sez Who?

Man's natural law. Should be fairly simple even for you.
Wait you're not getting out of this so easy. Man's natural law? Natural Law
is Natural Law. If you're going to use that argument, you can't invent your own
rules. Natural Law, period. Dog-eat-dog. Like Capitalism.

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 03:03

Sez Who?

Says me.

Wait you're not getting out of this so easy. Man's natural law? Natural Law
is Natural Law. If you're going to use that argument, you can't invent your own
rules. Natural Law, period. Dog-eat-dog. Like Capitalism.

Just because the name has "natural" in it doesn't mean it applies to animals. I wasn't changing the name. Honestly, you asked from where it came, and I said man. Man has/uses reason (except in your case), animals do not. Natural law only applies to man, because laws of nature apply to everything else (though they also apply to us. If you're trying to have the best dog ever, doesn't it make sense that the weak dog gets eaten by the strong dog, or the efficient company takes the market share of the unefficient one? I'm sorry that you're the weak dog, but thats what nature did to you.

Klaatu

26th March 2010, 03:06

No, and if there was a demand for cleaner air, car industries would've acted accordingly. If people want clean air, what car are they going to get: the one thats clean, or the one thats not? It becomes a competitive thing to get the cleanest exhaust, etc etc.

Wrong again. (It is amazing how often you are wrong.)

Cars had to have mandated pollution standards since the 1960s. Why not diesels?
I will tell you why: no government mandate, that is why. No law, no effort to clean
them up. Only now, manufacturers are just beginning to design cleaner diesels. Why?
Because of government mandates. That is why.

You don't want to get into an argument with ME on air pollution, bubba.
That's an argument you can't win.

Klaatu

26th March 2010, 03:12

Says me.

Aaaand... your name is... Jehovah?

Just because the name has "natural" in it doesn't mean it applies to animals. I wasn't changing the name. Honestly, you asked from where it came, and I said man. Man has/uses reason (except in your case), animals do not. Natural law only applies to man, because laws of nature apply to everything else (though they also apply to us. If you're trying to have the best dog ever, doesn't it make sense that the weak dog gets eaten by the strong dog, or the efficient company takes the market share of the unefficient one? I'm sorry that you're the weak dog, but thats what nature did to you.
"Natural law only applies to man." Therefore, nothing else but man is natural? (Talk about circular reasoning!)

News flash: "Companies" are not "natural." They are man-made. Therefore "natural law" does not apply.

Too bad your own worn-out semantics hopelessly defeat you. Wish to keep vomiting up the convoluted logic of Mises?

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 03:22

Aaaand... your name is... Jehovah?

You got it. Turns out God is capitalist, go figure.

"Natural law only applies to man." Therefore, nothing else but man is natural?

And "companies" are not "natural." They are man-made. Therefore "natural law" does not apply.

Too bad your own worn-out semantics hopelessly defeat you.

God you are so dumb. I guess "rock music" means music thats made from rocks right? Or "Progressive" is the type of music to listened by the left in the United States? I suppose, using your logic, Dr. Pepper must actually be a practicing physician... I mean if its in the name thats its definitions. Honestly, do you know nothing of Politics? Natural Law = Laws of nature. They're completely different and yet even this simple, very simple, play on words throws you through a loop like a circus lion.

I'm not going to get into a definition fight with you about "natural" you just don't understand what natural laws are.

Klaatu

26th March 2010, 07:04

You got it. Turns out God is capitalist, go figure.
Jesus was a Socialist. The Devil is the capitalist. Don't you know a thing about the Bible?

God you are so dumb. I guess "rock music" means music thats made from rocks right? Or "Progressive" is the type of music to listened by the left in the United States? I suppose, using your logic, Dr. Pepper must actually be a practicing physician... I mean if its in the name thats its definitions. Honestly, do you know nothing of Politics? Natural Law = Laws of nature. They're completely different and yet even this simple, very simple, play on words throws you through a loop like a circus lion.

I'm not going to get into a definition fight with you about "natural" you just don't understand what natural laws are.

I submit that YOU are the DUMB one, endorsing a system of criminals, con men, and rip off loan-sharks.

And animals have NO RIGHTS? Then it's OK with you if I torture, kill, and eat your dog? You really are a trip.
Too much "Ludwig" has rotted your brain. :p Why not read some Marx and at least get a balanced view.

Oh yes, and politics has nothing to do with nature or natural law. As for rocks, your head is full of them.

Klaatu

26th March 2010, 07:26

If someone in costa rica wanted to create a company with revolutionary ideas without state intervention, then they have a chance to earn 53 billion dollars. Gates taught himself basic and dropped out of college b/c it couldn't benefit him any more. He created one of the most successful companies in the world and has now earned the money he now has. Look at steve jobs and steve wozniak. they created a computer in their garage and got it out to the public and now apple is one of the most successful companies in the world. If you work hard then yes you can succeed and even become worth 53 billion dollars.

Gates STOLE ideas from Jobs. And he got lucky, because he entered at the right time. Like The Beatles entered the US at the right time (1964)
If the Beatles had come here a year or two later than they did, they might have flopped. If Gates had gotten in later, Microsoft would have flopped. And Gates was a ruthless businessman. You cannot get ahead without stepping on faces. And you will NEVER make $53 billion in Costa Rica.

Keep on dreaming Loopy Libertarians. Guys like Gates will rip YOU off too, and you just bend over...

Bob George

26th March 2010, 07:44

And animals have NO RIGHTS? Then it's OK with you if I torture, kill, and eat your dog?
Just a side note on this, pets are property. You don't need to protect animal rights, you just need to protect property rights.

Phased Out

26th March 2010, 08:17

I don't believe in the bogus, libertarian assumption that whatever salary one makes, is equivalent to the value that they contribute to the economy. If someone or something is making millions or billions of dollars, it's because they have monopoly power in a winner take all industry. Monopoly power is a type of value transference because it allows the monopoly to charge higher price than the market price in a competitive market.

Marx did understand that people become rich by possessing capital, which in the 19th century meant owning factories. The factory owners didn’t invent the industrial processes used by the factory, and they don’t personally provide the labor for the factories, but they make all the money from the factory. Thus they transfer value from the scientists and the laborers to themselves.

Bud Struggle

26th March 2010, 12:18

And you will NEVER make $53 billion in Costa Rica.

Slim made 53 billion dollars in Mexico--that's pretty close. :D

RGacky3

26th March 2010, 13:29

Just because they are both hispanic countries does'nt mean they are the same.

Costa Rica has a much more social-democratic system than Mexico.

Bud Struggle

26th March 2010, 14:04

Just because they are both hispanic countries does'nt mean they are the same.

Costa Rica has a much more social-democratic system than Mexico.

I understand. I was speaking more to the fact that they are third woldesque.

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 17:15

Jesus was a Socialist. The Devil is the capitalist. Don't you know a thing about the Bible?

Jesus said there should be no property whatsoever, but he also said, or at least inferred, he was going to come back in the first lifetime of the apostles... so why should they waste time getting things like property? The early "communistic" christians didn't last that long because they realized he wasn't showing up anytime soon.

I submit that YOU are the DUMB one, endorsing a system of criminals, con men, and rip off loan-sharks.

I'm not supporting the government, what are you talking about?

And animals have NO RIGHTS? Then it's OK with you if I torture, kill, and eat your dog? You really are a trip.
Too much "Ludwig" has rotted your brain. :p Why not read some Marx and at least get a balanced view.

Oh yes, and politics has nothing to do with nature or natural law. As for rocks, your head is full of them.

They don't. If they did they are being violated every second in nature. Since this seems to bring up performative issues with this theory, I submit they have none and any the do have (in terms of domesticated animals) stems from contractual obligation to care for them since we have destroyed their ability (for the most part) to care for yourself. I've read the manifesto and I'm hardly impressed and I'm not going to read Das Kapital because I already know its wrong.

I was merely pointing out that because there is something in a phrase doesn't mean thats what defines a phrase. I said "Natural law" referring to something very particular and you started saying it was the law of nature. Its really really quite dumb of you. Rock music = not music for rocks. Thats all I was illustrated. If you cannot understand this simple concept I find it difficult to continue to force myself to inject some reasoning or logic into your head.

RGacky3

26th March 2010, 18:54

The early "communistic" christians didn't last that long because they realized he wasn't showing up anytime soon.

They did last pretty long until christianity became institutionalized by the state around 300 CE.

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 18:55

They did last pretty long until christianity became institutionalized by the state around 300 CE.

Interesting that only when this communistic mantra was dropped did it become popular...

RGacky3

26th March 2010, 19:00

Interesting that only when this communistic mantra was dropped did it become popular...

It did'nt become popular, governmenced declared their nations to be christian nations, then forced other people to become so.

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 19:49

It did'nt become popular, governmenced declared their nations to be christian nations, then forced other people to become so.

You think he would've done this if they told him they had to give up his wealth to the Roman Masses he would've converted.... I doubt it.

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 19:56

When nations rush blindly towards destruction, Liberalism must try to enlighten them. But even if they do not hear, whether because they are deaf or because the warning voice is too feeble, one must not seek to seduce them to the right mode of conduct by tactical and demagogic artifice. It might be possible to destroy society by demagogy. But it can never be built up by that means.

Ryke

26th March 2010, 20:17

So how can workers complain about companies leaving? How can anyone complain? If you punch somebody in the face don't expect them to stick around or be your friend, especially if they're not allowed to punch back.

Nobody who gave the answer I did expects them, or really wants them, to come back. We would be arguing for the statu quo. The people who want them to come back usually don't realise the conditions that would entail, and want a nice, friendly capitalism that doesn't exist.

Ryke

26th March 2010, 20:31

If my chances of living were increased by taking a job in the third world of course I would.
I would point out that my original question which he was quoting also included the question of whether or not you would be willing to tolerate that situation without attempting to change it, if it were your only worthwhile choice.

I often see the sort of defense of capitalism which implies that, if you have only one worthwhile choice, then choosing that option is an action freely undertaken and no coercion can be considered to be involved, and therefore you have no good reason to complain about that choice, which you made.

Never mind that, if it weren't for external circumstances in the hands of other people, other institutions, and other groups, as well as circumstances created by a particular organisation of society, you could have many more choices, which are in this case being removed from possibility. Making a choice does not put you in control of your life, or even the aspect of your life you made a choice on, provided your possibilities are being limited. A definition of "freedom" that doesn't acknowledge that is purely theoretical, and in practice will fail to take into account many of the situations people find themselves in.

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 21:07

I would point out that my original question which he was quoting also included the question of whether or not you would be willing to tolerate that situation without attempting to change it, if it were your only worthwhile choice.

I often see the sort of defense of capitalism which implies that, if you have only one worthwhile choice, then choosing that option is an action freely undertaken and no coercion can be considered to be involved, and therefore you have no good reason to complain about that choice, which you made.

Never mind that, if it weren't for external circumstances in the hands of other people, other institutions, and other groups, as well as circumstances created by a particular organisation of society, you could have many more choices, which are in this case being removed from possibility. Making a choice does not put you in control of your life, or even the aspect of your life you made a choice on, provided your possibilities are being limited. A definition of "freedom" that doesn't acknowledge that is purely theoretical, and in practice will fail to take into account many of the situations people find themselves in.

The factory owner does not care if you want a job or not. Hes not forcing you to get a job, and, if anything, he is raising your standard of living by locating there. If he wasn't, no one would work at factories and there would be no issue. Why do you complain about a raise in standard of living? Because someone else's is higher than yours?

Ryke

26th March 2010, 23:26

The factory owner does not care if you want a job or not. Hes not forcing you to get a job, and, if anything, he is raising your standard of living by locating there. If he wasn't, no one would work at factories and there would be no issue. Why do you complain about a raise in standard of living? Because someone else's is higher than yours?

For equal work elsewhere, there are wages several times higher under better conditions, probably for less hours per day and with better assurances of actually keeping the job and not suddenly finding oneself fired and living above one's means. And standards of living in monetary terms are not a measure of human satisfaction unless you consider human beings merely as working and consuming machines. The fact is, wage work removes tremendous amounts of free time, control over one's work, over one's day, and this thing over which you have little control or real decisional power is, in fact, what allows you to live with any reasonable degree of comfort, or in many cases, to live at all.

That, and foreign investment doesn't necessarily result in a higher standard of living. It does bring GDP up brilliantly, but that's not saying much. Mali's GDP went up quite a bit lately, yet conditions haven't improved much at all, and in some circles, famine became a problem where it wasn't before. Subsistence has become harder for a number of farmers who, since free-market reforms, have been forced to farm exclusively for profit if they want any money, since their usual crops, which they also used to eat (carrots, IIRC), are barely worth anything at all anymore compared to foreign sources. So now they farm peanuts, which they can't eat in large quantities, in order to sell anything at all, and among villages touched by this, many have a difficulty getting food, and there are occasional deaths from famine, where people were originally somewhat poorer, but had no problems surviving at all.

And most of all, I would complain about the standards of living because we have all of the necessary resources for much higher living standards for most of those people. I could care less that their standard of living is higher than it was if it's still pretty miserable.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

27th March 2010, 05:59

Whats funny is the kings standard of living wasn't much better than the serfs (compare wal-mart employee to someone who lives solely off government welfare), so there really was no incentive. Everyone lived in abject poverty, no one ever petitioned it because it was deemed to be a fact of life. Only when capitalism arrived and poverty could be eliminated to people start to become impatient and demand that things go back to the point where everyone lived at the poverty level (they actually demanded redistribution of wealth, but this is ultimately what distribution leads to, so I just skipped that for simplicity).

Well, yes. We have progressed dramitically since the dark ages. In almost any category, from womens rights to freedom of speech to technology alone we've been 'improved.'

You know, it's almost like we're getting to a point in which capitalism has conquered the globe, and the last vestiges of feudalism are being done away with. Much of it is done with weapons, but the real transformation could be said to come with the factories, ships, and railways (and telecommunications and aircraft and sattelites and...) of the capitalist in his desire to increase profit by exploiting those economies which cling to a more feudal type of governance, often created by the capitalist in order to be exploited.

You know, I swear I've read this argument somewhere before. Can someone point me in the right direction? ;)

Klaatu

27th March 2010, 06:16

I've read the manifesto and I'm hardly impressed and I'm not going to read Das Kapital because I already know its wrong.

Sooooo... you're saying that: it is OK to "judge a book by it's cover."

Klaatu

27th March 2010, 06:21

Just a side note on this, pets are property. You don't need to protect animal rights, you just need to protect property rights.

But then consider endangered species.

Animals have no rights?

I disagree in a strong way. Animals own this planet too.

After all, humans are merely intelligent animals, yes?

And every lesser animal species was here first, yes?

So just who the hell do we think we are, anyway???

The point is that, we must live with animals, on this planet, and respect their right to exist, yes?

That is, we do not have a right to just wipe them out, do we?

Bob George

28th March 2010, 23:13

But then consider endangered species.
What about endangered species? Are they not better off as private property? People have an incentive to protect their private property. What if we lift restrictions on the trade of animal products derived from endangered species? Then you create a financial incentive to farm these animals which means they'd surely be repealed of their endangered status. Do we have a shortage of cows, of pigs, chickens or sheep?

Animals have no rights?

I disagree in a strong way. Animals own this planet too.

After all, humans are merely intelligent animals, yes?

And every lesser animal species was here first, yes?

So just who the hell do we think we are, anyway???

The point is that, we must live with animals, on this planet, and respect their right to exist, yes?

That is, we do not have a right to just wipe them out, do we?
I don't think man is equal to animal. Animal serves man in many a way. They serve as a great source of pleasure for man. We can admire the beauty of the dolphin or an exotic bird and it brings us joy. The also serve as a great source of food and clothing for man. And that's not something we should be ashamed of. We aren't just "wiping them out" for our own consumption. Those animals that we do use as resources we farm and create more of so that we can continue using them as resources. Just like trees. We don't just wipe out trees. There's money to be made in the resources that come from trees so we essentially farm them. There are tree farms. And it the trees and animals that we're allowed to farm that are in effect the most protected and the most abundant.

Ryke

29th March 2010, 06:22

What about endangered species? Are they not better off as private property? People have an incentive to protect their private property. What if we lift restrictions on the trade of animal products derived from endangered species? Then you create a financial incentive to farm these animals which means they'd surely be repealed of their endangered status. Do we have a shortage of cows, of pigs, chickens or sheep?

You forget that the reason for most endangered animals being endangered in the first place is either because they're being hunted, commercially or not, or because parts of their habitat are being commercially exploited. We're not running out of cows, pigs, chickens and sheep mostly because we aren't running out of grass. Bamboo? Not so sure. In particular areas, there is simply not enough of certain fish, because they're already being exploited for profit, and now both they and their predators are nearing endangered status, at least in a given area. There is already incentive for profit in exploiting most endangered animals. It's the reason Canadian politicians recently had a meeting over a plate of seal meat. To encourage the seal industry.

Besides, what about any value that actual wildlife might have? Commercialisation of a species to keep it alive in large numbers means leaving its natural habitat essentially free to be exploited by whoever might prefer to, whether it's the logging and paper industries, or fisheries, or what have you. People campaigning to avoid the extinction of endangered species aren't asking for petting zoos or pens and slaughterhouses, and it's not what most other people envision when you talk to them about the issue, either.

Also I must admire how you managed to completely ignore every point contained in your second quote and still went through with a response exactly as though you'd actually bothered to even try to show anything.

Bob George

29th March 2010, 07:02

You forget that the reason for most endangered animals being endangered in the first place is either because they're being hunted, commercially or not, or because parts of their habitat are being commercially exploited.
And you're forgetting that most of those animals aren't privately owned. They are wildlife. I'm arguing to let people own animals as private property so they have an incentive to protect them from poachers.

Drace

29th March 2010, 07:18

And you're forgetting that most of those animals aren't privately owned.So? The motive in their destruction is still the same - profit.

I'm arguing to let people own animals as private property so they have an incentive to protect them from poachers. And kill it themselves? No one keeps hunt-able animals like deer and bears as their own privately owned animals so what animals are farmers keeping that would otherwise be hunted? The only animals that are provide any use without being killed are things like cows and chickens, which they themselves may be killed for food.

And any ownership, state, private, or collective, would give equal protection from poachers. So your argument that privately owned animals protects animals from being hunted falls short...very short.

Bob George

29th March 2010, 08:35

So? The motive in their destruction is still the same - profit.
But because of the profit motive...

And kill it themselves?
they have an incentive to farm the animals, produce more of them, so that their source of profit doesn't run out.

Therefore allowing the private ownership of endangered species and lifting restrictions on the trade of animal products derived from endangered species, the numbers within those species go right up. They would no longer be endangered.

No one keeps hunt-able animals like deer and bears as their own privately owned animals
Some do. But for the most part there are so many restrictions on keeping wild animals as pets (it's illegal in most parts) that people simply can't, or can't be bothered getting all the correct licensing.

You really don't seem to understand what incentives the profit motive creates. You fail to grasp even simple concepts like maintaining the source of your profit so that you can keep profiting. No wonder you're a communist.

RGacky3

29th March 2010, 15:17

they have an incentive to farm the animals, produce more of them, so that their source of profit doesn't run out.

Therefore allowing the private ownership of endangered species and lifting restrictions on the trade of animal products derived from endangered species, the numbers within those species go right up. They would no longer be endangered.

What if its more profitable to not reproduce them and just drive up your quarterly profits for now, which is exactly what happens.

Bob George

29th March 2010, 15:29

What if its more profitable to not reproduce them and just drive up your quarterly profits for now, which is exactly what happens.

No. What happens now is that endangered animals can't be owned and traded.

Klaatu

30th March 2010, 04:20

Bob George

30th March 2010, 04:31

I am wondering if we can all agree to keep a certain small area of this planet
off-limits to all human activity - hunting, fishing, forestry, farming, etc, just
to preserve the original primeval nature of such places? In other words, why
does everything have to be profitable? We are losing the essence of nature
itself, by our present means of doing things, are we not?
I don't see why every corner of the Earth can't be privately owned. There's no reason at all. Certainly not "preservation". Private parks, wildlife sanctuaries and nature reserves so a much better job of preserving natural amenities than federal agencies. If you want to keep certain areas off limit to hunting, fishing, forestry and farming; privatise.

IcarusAngel

30th March 2010, 04:35

Right, so we need to turn back to feudalism, where everything is run by landlords and 99% of the population are serfs.

Capitalists basically want to take people backwards in history.

Bob George

30th March 2010, 05:21

Right, so we need to turn back to feudalism, where everything is run by landlords and 99% of the population are serfs.

Capitalists basically want to take people backwards in history.
The market economy ended feudalism, you fool. Private property rights, if they're extended to everybody and not just to the nobility or ruling class, tends to end things like serfdom which emerge out of centrally-planned economies, not free economies. That's been the course of history so far.

IcarusAngel

30th March 2010, 05:31

No where have these "free-economies" even existed, and when we had something closer to the idea of our rights coming from the private property owners, there was just as much consolidation of resources as there was under feudalism. Also, under feudalism people did indeed have some property - it was divided up among the serfs.

The market leads to a consolidation of resources, and this is especially bad under so-called "free-markets" where nothing gets done.

Drace

30th March 2010, 05:34

I think arguing whether communism or capitalism is better for endangered species is rather ridiculous.

they have an incentive to farm the animals, produce more of them, so that their source of profit doesn't run out.

Therefore allowing the private ownership of endangered species and lifting restrictions on the trade of animal products derived from endangered species, the numbers within those species go right up. They would no longer be endangered.

How realistic is the privatization of endangered species? Buisness would have no motive in preserving endangered species anyway.

You really don't seem to understand what incentives the profit motive creates. You fail to grasp even simple concepts like maintaining the source of your profit so that you can keep profiting. No wonder you're a communist.

When profit is applied to preserving animals, then no, I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

The incentive profit creates is rather easy to understand.

IcarusAngel

30th March 2010, 05:44

In fact, capitalism is a higher form of serfdom than feudalism.

Let's say that there are a million business owners. That's less than 1% of the population. It's actually .003+% percent in a population of 300,000,000. Even in feudalism there was more equal distribution. The actual figure of small business owners is about 30 million or 1% of the population. This was of course even worse under industrial capitalism.

Now, keep in mind that many "small businesses" are classified as such even though they are often franchisees of larger corporations. That means that the small business class is subordinate to the larger corporations, and all small businesses ultimately are because the corporations control the economy.

That means the government is protecting the economic capitalists at the expense of the rest of the population.

Of course, what's really sad is that all of our industries are controlled by two or three monopolies (companies that work together and all have access to special monopolistic practices).

Free-market basically means you're free to be a slave to the propertied class.

Karl Marx was dead on right here when he said that there exists an upper class, and a lower class, the non-propertied owners.

mikelepore

30th March 2010, 06:29

I don't see why every corner of the Earth can't be privately owned. There's no reason at all. Certainly not "preservation". Private parks, wildlife sanctuaries and nature reserves so a much better job of preserving natural amenities than federal agencies. If you want to keep certain areas off limit to hunting, fishing, forestry and farming; privatise.

Maybe that's why, in a city like Chicago, Detroit or Los Angeles, the business district of the city has so many wooded acres, where the wildlife roam through the old growth forest.

Ryke

30th March 2010, 06:45

And you're forgetting that most of those animals aren't privately owned. They are wildlife. I'm arguing to let people own animals as private property so they have an incentive to protect them from poachers.

And you're forgetting the entire rest of my post about how people also see value in wildlife. The profit motive can be self-defeating, when it's used to preserve things which people only see considerable value in if they are not being exploited. For example, you know, actual nature. Wildlife. Where you don't have to go through a toll booth at both ends of the park.

Besides, many wild animals do a good job of surviving and thriving if you give them adequate land under the right conditions. But curiously, when that adequate land is privatised and put up for profit, it rarely remains adequate for very long.

And I should mention, the idea of introducing the profit motive to keep alive species that would have no problem surviving if it weren't for the profit motive driving the destruction of much of their environment is, well, silly. And opportunistic. People will be cashing in on artificially (and, if they're farming animals that are now considered wild, that's pretty damn artificially) solving a problem that similar-minded people created for the same reasons, and it may well end up in the same pocket. And if they profit, someone pays. You don't pay to see someone clean up a mess that shouldn't be there in the first place.

LeftSideDown

1st April 2010, 00:43

For equal work elsewhere, there are wages several times higher under better conditions, probably for less hours per day and with better assurances of actually keeping the job and not suddenly finding oneself fired and living above one's means. And standards of living in monetary terms are not a measure of human satisfaction unless you consider human beings merely as working and consuming machines. The fact is, wage work removes tremendous amounts of free time, control over one's work, over one's day, and this thing over which you have little control or real decisional power is, in fact, what allows you to live with any reasonable degree of comfort, or in many cases, to live at all.

Okay, what you're saying is that there are some markets that are better than others and they are only separated by location? I agree, and if workers want to improve their standard of living they can also move if the benefits of a higher wage outweigh leaving friends/familiar locations etc etc. And how is saying money is one mean in which an end can be accomplished and one used by most implying that humans are working and consuming machines? People don't have to consume goods or work for consumption goods and I never implied that, but for most people a higher wage will = more desires that can be satisfied. Wage work does do all these things, and if they value their free time and self-employment more than the wages they would receive from working in a factory or anywhere for a wage they are certainly free to make this choice for themselves.

That, and foreign investment doesn't necessarily result in a higher standard of living. It does bring GDP up brilliantly, but that's not saying much. Mali's GDP went up quite a bit lately, yet conditions haven't improved much at all, and in some circles, famine became a problem where it wasn't before. Subsistence has become harder for a number of farmers who, since free-market reforms, have been forced to farm exclusively for profit if they want any money, since their usual crops, which they also used to eat (carrots, IIRC), are barely worth anything at all anymore compared to foreign sources. So now they farm peanuts, which they can't eat in large quantities, in order to sell anything at all, and among villages touched by this, many have a difficulty getting food, and there are occasional deaths from famine, where people were originally somewhat poorer, but had no problems surviving at all.

I don't really trust GDP, although it does have its uses. For instance, if a government suddenly takes out a large sum of debt and spends it in the economy the GDP shoots up even though the economy that government oversees hasn't actually improved. Wait, so you're saying that because farmers CHOSE to change their crops in order to make money (in this case they must've seen the benefits of money as outweighing the benefits of self sufficiency or else why would they make this change? And if it proved not to be better than self-sufficiency what is stopping them from switching back?).

And most of all, I would complain about the standards of living because we have all of the necessary resources for much higher living standards for most of those people. I could care less that their standard of living is higher than it was if it's still pretty miserable.

So, in your opinion, slow increases in standards of living don't matter? Seems pretty callous to me. What you want is a redistribution of wealth now, no matter the consequences (although I doubt you can even imagine consequences from a sudden shift in wealth). We do not have the resources for everyone to own a yacht, Rolls-Royce, or mansion unless we made drastic shifts in the economy where we took resources from more urgent needs (like food) and put it into these less urgent needs (the need for an expensive car/house/boat).

LeftSideDown

1st April 2010, 00:44

Sooooo... you're saying that: it is OK to "judge a book by it's cover."

No, I'm judging it by its content which has been shown to be wrong.

LeftSideDown

1st April 2010, 00:47

But then consider endangered species.

I have, and they'd be much better served if they're owned. Cows, pigs, and chickens are all owned and they are nowhere near endangered.

I disagree in a strong way. Animals own this planet too.

Coming dangerously close to accepting the universality of property rights, might wanta reconsider before your communist friends splatter your brains against the wall next to mine.

After all, humans are merely intelligent animals, yes?

And every lesser animal species was here first, yes?

So just who the hell do we think we are, anyway???

The point is that, we must live with animals, on this planet, and respect their right to exist, yes?

That is, we do not have a right to just wipe them out, do we?

I would posit that by possessing intelligence our right to exist outweighs animals. Taken to its logical extreme your argument advocates going back before civilization because every action we take kills animals that could've conceivably been here before us. We must live with animals, but we don't have to respect their right to exist (we eat animals, You might be vegetarian).

LeftSideDown

1st April 2010, 00:49

What if its more profitable to not reproduce them and just drive up your quarterly profits for now, which is exactly what happens.

So why don't farmers just kill all their cows, chickens, and pigs and reap the profits for this year? Oh wait, next year they'll have nothing. Strange how humans can think about the future, although maybe you were denied this ability somehow.

LeftSideDown

1st April 2010, 00:50

Right, so we need to turn back to feudalism, where everything is run by landlords and 99% of the population are serfs.

Capitalists basically want to take people backwards in history.

Strange how capitalism is the engine of innovation, progress, and increases in standard of living. But I guess thats all backwards. I am cowering in fear of hearing your definition of forward.

LeftSideDown

1st April 2010, 00:54

I think arguing whether communism or capitalism is better for endangered species is rather ridiculous.

they have an incentive to farm the animals, produce more of them, so that their source of profit doesn't run out.

How realistic is the privatization of endangered species? Buisness would have no motive in preserving endangered species anyway.

When profit is applied to preserving animals, then no, I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

The incentive profit creates is rather easy to understand.

Whats the reason these creatures are endangered? Because they are being hunted (for the most part), right? Why are they being hunted? Sometimes for sport, but more often than not by poachers who want to sell "Essence of Rhino Horn" and other things like that. If they have value theres incentive to keep these animals alive so your line of profit doesn't die. All animals don't need to be privatized, just the ones that people want to privatize. Squirrels don't need to be privatized because they don't need to be protected from anyone because no one really values them. IF there is value on an animal, there is an incentive to keep it alive.

LeftSideDown

1st April 2010, 00:56

Dean

1st April 2010, 15:51

Why does the income gap matter at all if capitalism has and will improve the lot of everyone? Why should we stop all progress for momentary equality? Its silly, dumb, and inspired by jealousy and envy.

Capitalism not only has an explicit incentive to deprive people to drive up costs and demand, but in execution routinely manifests this way - the Iraq rebuilding is a classic example. US Capitalist firms which controlled enough market shares were able to acquire contracts that should have gone to Iraqis themselves.

Bud Struggle

1st April 2010, 19:31

US Capitalist firms which controlled enough market shares were able to acquire contracts that should have gone to Iraqis themselves.

It's hard to argue with you that there is definite favoritism by the American government to certain large American companies that pay huge salaries to certain key executives that easily slide in and out of "public service" when the need arises. These guys are brilliant at representing their companies while in public office.

That is one area in which you Communist have the relationship between the government and large business pegged exactly.

Believe it or not--as a medium sized business owner that does NO BUSINESS with the government and has NO HOPE of doing business with the government this pisses me off, too.

Klaatu

1st April 2010, 21:16

If my chances of living were increased by taking a job in the third world of course I would.

I really think you should put your money where your mouth is, and actually
take a low-paying job in a third-world country for a year or two.

Then you can see exactly how your "Laissez-faire capitalistic" ideals work out:
No health, safety regulation, 16-hour days, low pay, unbearable heat (or cold)

Or are you beneath that? Is such a job only for those which you consider as being lesser than you?

I have had shit jobs in my life. But I seriously doubt you ever have, Ivy-Leaguer.

Klaatu

1st April 2010, 21:20

Dean

1st April 2010, 21:22

It's hard to argue with you that there is definite favoritism by the American government to certain large American companies that pay huge salaries to certain key executives that easily slide in and out of "public service" when the need arises. These guys are brilliant at representing their companies while in public office.

That is one area in which you Communist have the relationship between the government and large business pegged exactly.

Believe it or not--as a medium sized business owner that does NO BUSINESS with the government and has NO HOPE of doing business with the government this pisses me off, too.

Honestly - I think there are very few people that this shouldn't piss off, even in a lot of large corporations. This favoritism - which has more to do with capital than cronyism - has destabilized Iraq and caused long term problems for any economic system that seeks to get a foothold there.

Bud Struggle

1st April 2010, 21:35

Honestly - I think there are very few people that this shouldn't piss off, even in a lot of large corporations. This favoritism - which has more to do with capital than cronyism - has destabilized Iraq and caused long term problems for any economic system that seeks to get a foothold there.

And Dean--if you forget about Iraq in this instance--you see how second and third tear AMERICAN businesses do in this enviorment.

LeftSideDown

4th April 2010, 08:25

Capitalism not only has an explicit incentive to deprive people to drive up costs and demand, but in execution routinely manifests this way - the Iraq rebuilding is a classic example. US Capitalist firms which controlled enough market shares were able to acquire contracts that should have gone to Iraqis themselves.

Really?

Lets say I'm a farmer and I have a nice big plot of land and I grow, lets say, corn. I've farmed my land for a long long time, and I know its ins and outs as well as the back of my hand. One portion of my farm, lets say 3% of it doesn't grow as much corn as the rest. By your logic I should just stop trying to grow anything there, even though it is more productive than its costs. Why would I want to be less productive? Not only is it bad business, its just irrational.

As to your second part capitalism =\= imperialism. I'm not going to defend America's government's interference in the middle east or anywhere else in the world. I don't agree with it.

LeftSideDown

4th April 2010, 08:31

I really think you should put your money where your mouth is, and actually
take a low-paying job in a third-world country for a year or two.

Then you can see exactly how your "Laissez-faire capitalistic" ideals work out:
No health, safety regulation, 16-hour days, low pay, unbearable heat (or cold)

Or are you beneath that? Is such a job only for those which you consider as being lesser than you?

I have had shit jobs in my life. But I seriously doubt you ever have, Ivy-Leaguer.

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Sell all your stuff and distribute it to everybody around you. Or donate it to charity. Why are you using/buying/consuming all this stuff made from exploited workers. You're just as guilty as the capitalists using all their products made from the sweat-blood-and tears of your proletarian brothers. How can you be so cruel as to support their exploitation!?

I said if it improved my standard of living, that was a very important distinction that you missed out. Moving to one of these countries would lower my standard of living. If the American economy collapses and suddenly we lose hundreds of years of progress and have to start fresh, I won't be complaining about all the capitalists, I'll be complaining about the lack thereof. Like it or not everything you have (for the most part) is able to be provided to you because of capitalism.

Really, these ad-hominems are really quite tiresome. Trying to infer I'm an elitist ivy-leaguer is ludicrous. When I was young I had two brothers, a single dad because my mother died, my dad dropped out of college and went to work at a local factory. So please, comparing sob stories does nothing and most of your appeals are those of emotion and not of logic. You're berating me because rainbows and unicorns don't come out of capitalists' asses and yet I still value the services they do for the economy.

mikelepore

4th April 2010, 13:46

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Sell all your stuff and distribute it to everybody around you.

I just arrived in the middle of a conversation. It seems that you're having a conversation here with Jesus and the twelve apostles.

Argument

4th April 2010, 16:48

I have not read the whole thread, but I found something on the first page I'd like to respond to.

If you work hard and give the market what it wants then you will make money, if you revolutionize the market with one of the biggest products of the 20th century then you are going to make billions. Everyone deserves what they work for, bill gates worked to create a massive company and one of the most important technologies in the world.You are aware that Bill Gates got rich through the help of the state, through copyrights and patents, through regulations that benefits big companies and penalizes small business?

LeftSideDown

4th April 2010, 16:54

I just arrived in the middle of a conversation. It seems that you're having a conversation here with Jesus and the twelve apostles.

Well actually hes extrapolating on some bunk point he made earlier where he asked if I would take a third world job. My response was: Of course if it raised my standard of living. He then told me to prove it by moving to a third world country and doing it myself... which would lower my standard of living so... my point still holds. It seems hes being more hypocritical in the regards I mentioned than I am in his regards.

krazy kaju

10th April 2010, 16:10

The proper question is why do people earn over $1 million a year? People earn as much as they do because that's the value they provide to other people.

For example, if I'm a CEO and I get paid $5 million, that's because the stockholders value my contribution to the company at $5 million.

If I'm a stockholder and I earn $1 million in dividends and capital gains, that's because that's how much the companies value me lending them money through the stock market and how much other stockholders value my stocks.

If I'm a doctor who earns $100,000, that's because that's how much my patients value my services.

If I'm an auto worker earning $50,000, that's because that's how much the auto company values my individual contribution to the company.

SocialismOrBarbarism

10th April 2010, 17:42

If I'm an auto worker earning $50,000, that's because that's how much the auto company values my individual contribution to the company.

lol, yeah, that's totally why auto workers have(or had) such high pay.

Thirsty Crow

10th April 2010, 20:58

So your point is people are born into different situations and its up to the individual to make the best of it? Yeah, I agree. I'm sorry but people are not equal; maybe when they're small children they are, but not as they grow up.
One correction: even as small children, people aren't equal.
Conclusion: the existing system reproduces inequality on various levels.

And all this fuss about capitalism and how everyone gets a fair shot at glory goes down the drain with a simple a priori, in fact metaphysical statement "Sorry but people are not equal".
And that's what arguing for the existing order boils down in the end.
Congrats!

LeftSideDown

10th April 2010, 21:17

One correction: even as small children, people aren't equal.
Conclusion: the existing system reproduces inequality on various levels.

And all this fuss about capitalism and how everyone gets a fair shot at glory goes down the drain with a simple a priori, in fact metaphysical statement "Sorry but people are not equal".
And that's what arguing for the existing order boils down in the end.
Congrats!

So because people are innately not equal this justifies communism coming and trying to pretend they are? Okay.

Thirsty Crow

10th April 2010, 21:29

So because people are innately not equal this justifies communism coming and trying to pretend they are? Okay.
Innately? Wait, innately?
So, what you're trying to say is that a person born in Western Sahara is not equal to a person born into a rich family residing in Manhattan because...that person is innately born to Western Sahara?

LeftSideDown

10th April 2010, 21:45

Innately? Wait, innately?
So, what you're trying to say is that a person born in Western Sahara is not equal to a person born into a rich family residing in Manhattan because...that person is innately born to Western Sahara?

I'm talking about abilities not circumstances.

Thirsty Crow

10th April 2010, 22:09

[QUOTE=LeftSideDown;1717462]so your point is people are born into different situations and its up to the individual to make the best of it? Yeah, I agree. I'm sorry but people are not equal; maybe when they're small children they are, but not as they grow up./QUOTE]
Your own words. And don't pretend that innate abilities have something to do with the real crippling conditions. Even innate abilities are nothing without a proper manner of their development and transformation into acts and actions.
And while communism really does not contend that all people are equal in their abilities, it does, on the other hand, contend that people are innately able to work and thus create wealth (with exceptions; as far as those are concerned, such people should be taken care of).
In fact, what these silly commies are trying to communicate all along is that there should not be a difference in conditions of life (a tragically dramatic one nowadays) between an inhabitant of Western Sahara and an affluent New Yorker.

LeftSideDown

11th April 2010, 05:15

Your own words. And don't pretend that innate abilities have something to do with the real crippling conditions. Even innate abilities are nothing without a proper manner of their development and transformation into acts and actions.
And while communism really does not contend that all people are equal in their abilities, it does, on the other hand, contend that people are innately able to work and thus create wealth (with exceptions; as far as those are concerned, such people should be taken care of).
In fact, what these silly commies are trying to communicate all along is that there should not be a difference in conditions of life (a tragically dramatic one nowadays) between an inhabitant of Western Sahara and an affluent New Yorker.

Those were my words, and although I was talking about individual circumstances at the beginning of the statement, I was not at the end. And you are right, without certain circumstances a skill or attribute (no matter how great) can wither and die. A beautiful woman in Ethiopia has much less of chance of becoming a model than one in America, and I would attribute this to the opportunities for self improvement offered by capitalism and not some magical regulation that made it so people have to recognize other's abilities.

Its all well and good that "silly commies" advocate an increase in standard of living for places where the standard of living is low, however their system of achieving it amounts to nothing more than capital consumption and redistribution of consumption goods, something that can never produce wealth for more than a brief period of time. I can wish all I want for a perpetual motion device, but then to compare it to a combustion engine and say a perpetual motion device is superior is not only silly but its intellectually misleading.

Thirsty Crow

11th April 2010, 13:10

Those were my words, and although I was talking about individual circumstances at the beginning of the statement, I was not at the end. And you are right, without certain circumstances a skill or attribute (no matter how great) can wither and die. A beautiful woman in Ethiopia has much less of chance of becoming a model than one in America, and I would attribute this to the opportunities for self improvement offered by capitalism and not some magical regulation that made it so people have to recognize other's abilities.

Its all well and good that "silly commies" advocate an increase in standard of living for places where the standard of living, however their system of achieving it amounts to nothing more than capital consumption and redistribution of consumption goods, something that can never produce wealth for more than a brief period of time. I can wish all I want for a perpetual motion device, but then to compare it to a combustion engine and say a perpetual motion device is superior is not only silly but its intellectually misleading.

Time and time again, your analogy comes off as completely irrelevant and indeed intellectually misleading.
Engines are a matter of technological development, whereas socioeconomic systems are a matter of common agreement between the groups of people involved. They do not share the same logic nor do they share the same criteria. It has been proven that the assumption that a society, with its production relations and culture alike, can be studied and governed on the methodological basis of empirical sciences (e.g. physics) is completely false and gravely misleading. It is an overtly ideological assumption.
In other words, a society is not governed by laws resembling natural laws, and cannot be studied and evaluated in such a manner.

As far as the self improvement that capitalism affords, sure, but that self improvement rests on the absolute necessity of someone else's stagnation, economic insecurity, and psychological anxiety.
In other words, only a small number of, say, McDonalds workers who share a very similar set of abilities will have the chance to realize this (material!) self improvement. Another's stagnation enables one's improvement. Moreover, this is affected by mere contingencies over which an individual has no control, so what we basically end up with is a system which grants prosperity and improvement to a few at the expense of alienation (see Erich Fromm's studies on this issue) of many. A manual worker in garment industry may prosper only if she/he happened to enjoy favourable circumstances and only if there remained a constant number of those who will remain in such a position, thus effectively alienated from the potentials most of human beings possess.

This is called the reproduction of inequality and the revolutionary left's (which happens to be very heterodox in that not all groups tend to emphasize government intervention) goal is to eliminate it.
The only way is to replace the existing socioeconomic model with something new (adn not with the Soviet Union model, which is historically bankrupt). This is completely evident in that we've just realized how capitalist competition necessitates winners and losers, as any competition does.

LeftSideDown

11th April 2010, 20:11

Time and time again, your analogy comes off as completely irrelevant and indeed intellectually misleading.
Engines are a matter of technological development, whereas socioeconomic systems are a matter of common agreement between the groups of people involved. They do not share the same logic nor do they share the same criteria. It has been proven that the assumption that a society, with its production relations and culture alike, can be studied and governed on the methodological basis of empirical sciences (e.g. physics) is completely false and gravely misleading. It is an overtly ideological assumption.
In other words, a society is not governed by laws resembling natural laws, and cannot be studied and evaluated in such a manner.

So you are saying there are no "socio economic systems" that are worse than others and there are no "socio economic systems" that are unrealistic? If you are saying this my analogy is irrelevant, you are correct, but if you there are socio economic systems that cannot exist or at least not without extreme changes in technology than surely you must see the application?

As far as the self improvement that capitalism affords, sure, but that self improvement rests on the absolute necessity of someone else's stagnation, economic insecurity, and psychological anxiety.
In other words, only a small number of, say, McDonalds workers who share a very similar set of abilities will have the chance to realize this (material!) self improvement. Another's stagnation enables one's improvement. Moreover, this is affected by mere contingencies over which an individual has no control, so what we basically end up with is a system which grants prosperity and improvement to a few at the expense of alienation (see Erich Fromm's studies on this issue) of many. A manual worker in garment industry may prosper only if she/he happened to enjoy favourable circumstances and only if there remained a constant number of those who will remain in such a position, thus effectively alienated from the potentials most of human beings possess.

I would rather have improvement and prosperity for a few than for nobody. Under Communism if one person doubles his effort and doubles his output he only gets (assuming the population of America) .0000000032572594949521435291852893692333 more stuff. What an incentive that creates for me to work harder. But I guess it isn't about incentives? Having read a portion Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward (essentially a communist novel) he asserts that "The way it strikes people nowadays is, that a man who can produce twice as much as another with the same effort, instead of being rewarded for doing so, ought to be punished if he does not do so." If you don't see the problems with this ethos I won't try to convince you of them suffice it to say these obligations become chains.

This is called the reproduction of inequality and the revolutionary left's (which happens to be very heterodox in that not all groups tend to emphasize government intervention) goal is to eliminate it.
The only way is to replace the existing socioeconomic model with something new (adn not with the Soviet Union model, which is historically bankrupt). This is completely evident in that we've just realized how capitalist competition necessitates winners and losers, as any competition does.

If you had a group of people who were being tested on calculus together, and of this group you had one man who was extremely skilled at calculus, most of the group was okay, and a few sucked terribly at it, and your goal was to get the highest grade would you assign everybody an equal amount? Or would you give more of the math problems (and especially the harder ones) to the one who was best at solving them, split the normal questions amongst those who are adequate at calculus, and give almost none (or even none) of the responsibility to those who are terrible at calculus and they will still benefit from the good grade?