Capitalism

[D'Anconia]

Please take a look at this article. I would love to see some of you try to refute a man with a doctorate in economics.





Capitalism and the Common Man


There are some arguments so illogical that only an intellectual or politician can believe them. One of those arguments is: capitalism benefits the rich more than it benefits the common man.

Let's look at it.

The rich have always had access to entertainment, and some times in the comfort of their palaces and mansions. The rich have never had to experience the drudgery of having to beat out carpets, iron their clothing or slave over a hot stove all day in order to have a decent dinner; they could afford to hire people. Today, the common man has the power to enjoy much of what only the rich could yesteryear. Capitalism's mass production have made radios and televisions, vacuum cleaners, wash-and-wear clothing and microwave ovens available and well within the reach of the common man; thus, sparing him of the drudgery of the past.

What about those who became wealthy making comforts available to the common man? Henry Ford benefitted immensely from mass producing automobiles but the benefit for the common man, from being able to buy a car, dwarfs anything Ford received. Individual discovers and companies who produced penicillin, polio and typhoid vaccines may have become wealthy but again it was the common man who was the major beneficiary. In more recent times, computers and software products have impacted our health, safety and life quality in a way that dwarfs the wealth received by their creators.

Here's a little test. Stand on the corner and watch people walk or drive by. Then, based on their appearances, identify which persons are wealthy. Years ago, it wouldn't have been that hard.

The ordinary person wouldn't be dressed as well, surely not wearing designer clothing, nor would they have nice looking jewellery plus, they wouldn't be driving by. Compare the income status of today's airline passengers with those of yesterday; you'll find a greater percentage of ordinary people.

That's one of the great benefits of capitalism; it has made it possible for common people to enjoy at least some of what wealthy people enjoy. You say, "Williams, common people don't have access to Rolls Royces and yachts!" You're wrong. Microsoft's Bill Gates is super-rich and can afford to ride in a Rolls Royce and go yachting sailing; so can Williams - just not as long. I can rent a Rolls or a yacht for a day, half-day or an hour.

Capitalism is relatively new in human history. Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man. Capitalists seek to find what people want and produce and market it as efficiently as possible. Here's a question for us: are people who by their actions create unprecedented convenience, longer life expectancy and more fun available to the ordinary person, and become wealthy in the process, deserving of all the scorn and ridicule heaped upon them by intellectuals and politicians? Are the wealthy obliged to "give something back?" For example, what more do the wealthy discoverers and producers of life-saving antibiotics owe us? They've already saved lives and made us healthier.

Despite the miracles of capitalism, it doesn't do well in popularity polls. One of the reasons is that capitalism is always evaluated against the non-existent utopias of socialism or communism. Any earthly system pales in comparison to utopias. But for the ordinary person, capitalism, with all of its warts, is superior to any system yet devised to deal with our everyday needs and desires.

Walter E. Williams
August 25, 1997

[el_profe]

Good article.
Its the same with Wal-Mart, everyone hates wal-mart but they shop their because it has the best prices. And the creator of Wal-mart started out with a small wla-mart type grociery store. HE was not always rich.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Ludwig von Mises also carried a Ph. D. in economics as did his boy-slave Friedrich Hayek. What does it prove? Not much beyond the fact that these folks were really good with capitalist economics. Mises' works read more like a manifesto written by someone suffering from schizophrenia.

I reckon this cat forgot that there are also socialist economists with Ph. D.'s.


Whoop de do.

[Bolshevika]

This is not abnormal for the capitalist, the capitalist has no ideology, he only hopelessly worships the dollar sign.

A good capitalist would be in favor of entrepeneurism, Wal-Mart destroys any elements of "free market" or "freedom of choice" in our country, it is a capitalist monopoly, like Microsoft.

While Wal-Mart takes jobs to foreign countries, the common working man is weakened more and more with unemoployment. Expect this "Wal Martization" to bring horrible misery in the future.

[D'Anconia]

As expected, no one actually tryed to dispute anything written in the article. You just resorted to attacking Williams' credentials. You have not refuted anything that he said. Take this for example:

Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man. Capitalists seek to find what people want and produce and market it as efficiently as possible. Here's a question for us: are people who by their actions create unprecedented convenience, longer life expectancy and more fun available to the ordinary person, and become wealthy in the process, deserving of all the scorn and ridicule heaped upon them by intellectuals and politicians? Are the wealthy obliged to "give something back?" For example, what more do the wealthy discoverers and producers of life-saving antibiotics owe us? They've already saved lives and made us healthier

You claim to hate Wal-Mart and Microsoft as "monopolies" that "bring horrible misery." Are you saying that the millions of people who shop at Wal-Mart for their food and clothing and those on this board who undoubtedly are running Windows and the latest version of Internet Explorer, are not receiving benefit from these corporations? These people who obviously benefit from Wal-Mart and Microsoft are being duped and are actually miserable because they are able to go to the store and get the things they need off the shelf?

[Vinny Rafarino]

I think no one bothers to refute what is spoken as we simply don't care. We have heard it all before. More times than I can count. Perhaps you should look through the archives...I recall tarring many of these self serving, hooray for capitalism 'doctors' many times over.



Hoooooooray for capitalism!! If you yell out a really "patriotic" hooo-rah for capitalism, I will throw in a free bottle of Turtle Wax. Gotta keep that Porsche nice and shiny now don't we?

[synthesis]

Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man.

Things are no different these days. Instead of some Nietzschean "war of all against all" it is the nation, or rather the national-corporate bourgeoisie, plundering, looting, and enslaving the inhabitants of the Third World.

I reckon that the actions of the proxies of the United States are not a great deal more civilized than those taken by, say, the Vikings or the Celts.


What about those who became wealthy making comforts available to the common man?

His entire argument destroys the credibility of free-marketeers as it attempts to dismantle the precepts of socialism. Your professor uses the obvious fact that things have become much better in the civilized world over recent years; the economy, however, has become much less privatized.

He would say that it is because of some 'trickle-down' nonsense. It seems apparent to me that the improvement of society has come - aside from the transfer of the most brutal labor to the Third World - from the extension of basic worker's rights to the lower classes. Walter E. Williams has found the wrong cause for the right effect.

After all, don't the minimum wage, basic health care, and public education assist working class people in purchasing these new goods and services?

[D'Anconia]

After all, don't the minimum wage, basic health care, and public education assist working class people in purchasing these new goods and services?

If anything the minimum wage hurts more than it helps.

. . . the last two minimum wage increases in 1997-98 resulted in the percentage of workers earning less than the minimum rising from 2.9 percent in 1996 to 6.2 percent in 1998 -- even as overall unemployment fell from 5.4 percent to 4.5 percent.

When the minimum was raised from $4.25 to $4.75 in 1996, the share of workers earning less than the minimum jumped from 2.9 percent to 4.3 percent. The proportion of blacks working at subminimum skyrocketed from 6 percent in 1995 to 13.9 percent in late 1997. And the proportion of teens working below the minimum rose from 7.2 percent to 19.8. http://www.ncpa.org/iss/min/pd111301b.html

Also is it better to have a job that pays $3 an hour, or to not have a job that would pay $5? By increasing the minimum wage employers are forced to hire fewer people and contribute to the nation's unemployment.

The Federal Reserve's Open Market Committee meets tomorrow and may raise interest rates again in response to low unemployment. If the Federal Reserve believes the rate of unemployment is below NAIRU -- the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment -- it will keep monetary policy tight and interest rates high.

NAIRU is the level of unemployment consistent with stable inflation. But it is not calculated on a monthly basis, and can only be estimated after the fact.

Press reports indicate the Federal Reserve puts NAIRU at 5 percent to 5.25 percent presently.

With 4 percent unemployment in the inflationary range, the Fed has been raising interest rates despite the lack of inflation in the Consumer Price Index.
Federal Reserve economist Peter Tulip says the largest single component of the NAIRU has been the minimum wage. The minimum wage prevents wages from falling when unemployment is high. Higher wage costs force employers to raise prices, thereby contributing to inflation.

Tulip concludes a 10 percent rise in the minimum wage raises the NAIRU by about half a percentage point.

Increases in the minimum wage in the 1960s and 1970s caused the NAIRU to almost double (see figure).

By the late 1960s, the minimum wage was responsible for more than half of the NAIRU.

But when the nominal (money) value of the minimum wage during the 1980s was frozen, NAIRU fell from more than 7 percent in 1980 to less than 5 percent by the end of the decade.
In response to the declining NAIRU, the Fed eased monetary policy, contributing to strong growth in the 1980s. When George Bush raised the minimum wage, the Fed tightened money policy in the early 1990s. Likewise, Bill Clinton's minimum wage increases are causing the NAIRU to rise.

Source: Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, August 21, 2000.

http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/min/pd082100a.html

[Pete]

On the first source

Great, so the current system is an improvement on the last one. We accept that. Now we should start moving on to a better one.

On the second source

If employers are not to pay their employees atleast a living wage, while the executives are making hundreds of thousands who is the one causing the problems? Not those recieving a slightly higher pay increase, but those also with the ridiculously high incomes that needn't go higher. Cut the pay at the top, where it is not deserved, and add it at the bottom, where it obviously is. Easy solution that is mathetically pleasing, isn't it?

-Pete

[synthesis]

Unfortunately, us socialists disagree with the inferences taken from your data.

You say that the minimum wage forces employers to downsize to maintain a profit.

But socialists know that this equation is willfully ignorant of the profits of those at the top of the corporate hierarchy. A CEO earns 728 times as much as a minimum-wage worker as of 2002. For every completely unnecessary CEO in a corporation, you could double the wages of the workers and still hire about 350 more of them without taking a hit.

Socialism believes in disallowing capitalists to appropriate the labor of their workers, and in the process ensuring employment for all.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by D'[email protected] 7 2004, 11:24 PM
Please take a look at this article. I would love to see some of you try to refute a man with a doctorate in economics.


Here's a little test. Stand on the corner and watch people walk or drive by. Then, based on their appearances, identify which persons are wealthy. Years ago, it wouldn't have been that hard.

Walter E. Williams
August 25, 1997
This article is a waste of time to read. I picked out this part because I have heard this same stupid capitalist argument before. This so called "test" omits important information like so many other tests preformed by capitalists promoting themselves. In this test it is "proven" that wealth is more equally distributed because you cannot pick out a wealthy individual on the street. This leaves out why such a person would want to be ont the street with the "common man." Reallistically they would only have motivation to stay away from the "common man" because they fear the people that they gather wealth from. This just proves that the wealthy people are now more able to avoid going out onto a public street full of working class people. If his great test doesn't even work, the rest of his article must be shit too.

I hope you loved seeing me refute that idiot with a doctorate in economics. He must know how to take tests but he must also not understand how they work.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by D'[email protected] 8 2004, 12:22 AM
Capitalists seek to find what people want and produce and market it as efficiently as possible. Here's a question for us: are people who by their actions create unprecedented convenience, longer life expectancy and more fun available to the ordinary person, and become wealthy in the process, deserving of all the scorn and ridicule heaped upon them by intellectuals and politicians?
Okay, here he describes the motive of capitalist because he knows what all capitalists are thinking. He proves nothing and pathetically states that polititians recieve scorn. This persecution complex has no basis, polititians are mostly capitalists and work with mostly capitalists. This part is just a bunch of stupid lies that once again contradict themselves.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Jan 8 2004, 05:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (313C7 iVi4RX @ Jan 8 2004, 05:29 PM)
D&#39;[email protected] 8 2004, 12:22 AM
Capitalists seek to find what people want and produce and market it as efficiently as possible. Here&#39;s a question for us: are people who by their actions create unprecedented convenience, longer life expectancy and more fun available to the ordinary person, and become wealthy in the process, deserving of all the scorn and ridicule heaped upon them by intellectuals and politicians?
Okay, here he describes the motive of capitalist because he knows what all capitalists are thinking. He proves nothing and pathetically states that polititians recieve scorn. This persecution complex has no basis, polititians are mostly capitalists and work with mostly capitalists. This part is just a bunch of stupid lies that once again contradict themselves. [/b]
Answer the first 2 sentences of that paragraph. You cant because you know its true. If you want to make money you look to produce something that the consumer wants.

[Fidel Castro]

Please, please, come over to Scotland and tell those living in dumps they call housing estateshow great capitlism is.

Tell the homeless people lining the streets how great capitalism is.

Tell the elderly man stuck in a hospital ward because he can&#39;t afford a nursing home room how great capitalism is.

Tell the guy on unemployment benifit, taking things out of his shopping basket because he is short on cash how great capitalism is.

[Dirty Commie]

Could a capitalist please explain than the matter of 4,000 years of slavery? Or the sweatshops where workers in some instances are not allowed to leave the factory untill the qouta is filled? Or the fact that only 30% of people in the capitalist world live above the poverty line?

I&#39;ll give you that most (not all) amerikans+Europeans have a nice life, but not the other 5 billion.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Dirty [email protected] 9 2004, 12:38 AM
Could a capitalist please explain than the matter of 4,000 years of slavery? Or the sweatshops where workers in some instances are not allowed to leave the factory untill the qouta is filled? Or the fact that only 30% of people in the capitalist world live above the poverty line?

I&#39;ll give you that most (not all) amerikans+Europeans have a nice life, but not the other 5 billion.
jaja, you blame capitalism for slavery? LOL.
There was slaves all over the world, that was when most cultures had a king or monarchies or prince or leader. Just with that you can see its not capitalism. Besides most societies worked for their leader.
Here is a good article: http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1063

The sweatshops, today alot of swaetshops exist in china, vietnam and other socialist countries.

What you had in the 1800 in some factories was such a big number of immigrants fleeing their socialist countries and trying to go to America, that the demand for jobs was higher than the number of jobs. that was not the compnaies fault that so many people wante to work in theri companies, was the work hard , yes, but not so many immigrants would of come if it was not better than what they had.

A capitalist World? did u just forget Eastern Europe and many countrie of asi where/are communist (socialist) countries.

Lets not forget that in the other 5 billion is the 1 billion from CHINA. LOL

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by el_profe+Jan 9 2004, 01:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (el_profe @ Jan 9 2004, 01:37 AM)
Dirty [email protected] 9 2004, 12:38 AM
Could a capitalist please explain than the matter of 4,000 years of slavery? Or the sweatshops where workers in some instances are not allowed to leave the factory untill the qouta is filled? Or the fact that only 30% of people in the capitalist world live above the poverty line?

I&#39;ll give you that most (not all) amerikans+Europeans have a nice life, but not the other 5 billion.
jaja, you blame capitalism for slavery? LOL.
There was slaves all over the world, that was when most cultures had a king or monarchies or prince or leader. Just with that you can see its not capitalism. Besides most societies worked for their leader.
Here is a good article: http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1063

The sweatshops, today alot of swaetshops exist in china, vietnam and other socialist countries.

What you had in the 1800 in some factories was such a big number of immigrants fleeing their socialist countries and trying to go to America, that the demand for jobs was higher than the number of jobs. that was not the compnaies fault that so many people wante to work in theri companies, was the work hard , yes, but not so many immigrants would of come if it was not better than what they had.

A capitalist World? did u just forget Eastern Europe and many countrie of asi where/are communist (socialist) countries.

Lets not forget that in the other 5 billion is the 1 billion from CHINA. LOL [/b]
Pathetic, you haven&#39;t responded to any of my points. I&#39;m about done with this one sided debate. Anyway I&#39;ll make at least one more. By the monetary motivation for capitalism slavery is simply very profitable but in a socialist society productivity, quality of life are more important, making a true socialist society, slavery is not allowed. So by these basic applications of their definitions, capitalism embraces slavery and socialism functions against it. Now how can anyone support a system that allows slavery to occur? Unless you try to justify slavery, you can&#39;t.