The ONLY way to eliminate poverty

[Nyder]

How do you eliminate poverty?

The poor must start producing wealth.

They have to create capital. Thereby generating themselves income.

They shouldn't strive to work for capitalists, nor should they strive to work for anybody. No one ever got rich from working for a wage.

So how do yo do it? Not by taking wealth off those who have produced it and giving it to those who have none - you would destroy the incentive to create wealth and systematically reduce everyone to poverty.

Nor should you force owners of business enterprises to share their ownership with their employees. This will just shut down many companies.

So how do you do it without using heavy state intrusiveness or absurd fantasies of apocalyptic uprisings of the masses to 'take over' the means of production?

I put the question to you for now........

[Osman Ghazi]

Are you completely deluded? Or just stupid?
There is NO way to get rid of poverty in a capitalist society because it is all about competition and in a competition, someone has to win and someone has to lose. It is as simple as that.

[Guest1]

Don't be so quick to jump, this is worth consideration.

Ok, suppose we took a page out of the book of western society, and temporarily allowed the slave-drivers to keep the wealth they amassed unethically. Would it make sense to let them keep slaves? No.

So no, they'll be forced to completely give up ownership of the bsuinesses, not just share it. Meanwhile, people later start to realize, fuck that guy really fucked me over, so they'll probably end up losing the wealth anyways.

And no, I would never support allowing them to keep it, even if temporarily.

[El Che]

Nyder:


How do you eliminate poverty?


You want the short version or the long one? :P


The poor must start producing wealth.

The poor do produce wealth.


They have to create capital. Thereby generating themselves income.

See above


They shouldn't strive to work for capitalists, nor should they strive to work for anybody. No one ever got rich from working for a wage.


They don't 'strive' to work for a third party, they simply have no alternative. That is the system. Its the way in which production forces are organized. The poor have no choice but to work for a wage.


Nor should you force owners of business enterprises to share their ownership with their employees. This will just shut down many companies.


Yes we should. It will not shut down 'companies' if there are no 'companies' to shut down in the first place. You replace 'companies' with cooperatives and thus end poverty. The tricky part is actually making it happen.

[redfront]

The only thing that comes out of capitalism is:
http://lux0r.projektas.lt/fatty1234567890.gif <_<

[God of Imperia]

Some people have tried cooperatives before, but they failed against companies, what if there wouldn&#39;t be no companies anymore but only cooperatives, but then you have some practical problems ...

[quaz]

There is NO way to get rid of poverty.
It doesn&#39;t matter wether you apply capitalism or communism.
Poverty will survive because people will always be greedy for money and power.

[God of Imperia]

That&#39;s true, but in communsim their is no need of money, the only problem is power...

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 12:55 PM
The poor must start producing wealth.

They have to create capital. Thereby generating themselves income.
They already do that to survive.


They shouldn&#39;t strive to work for capitalists, nor should they strive to work for anybody. No one ever got rich from working for a wage.

Then why the hell most people do work for a wage? Simple: this is a lie&#33; Chances for someone to suddenly become a successful businessman are limited.


So how do yo do it? Not by taking wealth off those who have produced it and giving it to those who have none - you would destroy the incentive to create wealth and systematically reduce everyone to poverty.

What if they didn&#39;t really "produce" that wealth? And the "incentive" to create wealth is related to the fact that a business, once it has some success, has to keep growing to avoid being eaten alive by the competition.


So how do you do it without using heavy state intrusiveness or absurd fantasies of apocalyptic uprisings of the masses to &#39;take over&#39; the means of production?

Sure, because most people nowadays do what a priest tells them, and people go around killing each other to steal the other&#39;s animals and such things.

And by the way...it seems that you forgot the point of this thread. You didn&#39;t really mention how can poverty dissapear, what you just did was simply saying "to make a TV work turn it on", but you didn&#39;t give instructions of how to do it :rolleyes:
Anyway, the advancement of technology and the need for proffesionals will eventually make the poor richer but they wont control the means of production and there will still be big inequality. Markets won&#39;t really solve that, only technological advancements and educated those who are left out will improve their living conditions. That&#39;s my theory.

[Nyder]

You guys completely miss the point.

In order for the poor to become wealthy, they have to start producing wealth, not take it from someone else.

And time and time again you mention that employees must have ownership. This is ridiculous - it&#39;s like saying that if I hire a gardener to improve the value of my property, that the gardener must be entitled to a share in the profit that I make.

And again I re-iterate that the reason employees don&#39;t get paid a share in the profits is because profits are unstable - for example a company I worked for had not been making profits for years so definitely I would choose a stable wage over risk. If it was truly feasible to pay employees shares in the company don&#39;t you think it would be a widespread practice (in fact many companies give their employees share entitlements as well as their wage)?.

My point for this thread is that in order for capitalism to prosper, we need more capitalists.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 01:23 AM
In order for the poor to become wealthy, they have to start producing wealth, not take it from someone else.
Here we come to the same old discussion: those who have wealth nowadays, do they really produced it? Or was it just that they owned the means of production and hired all those conquered people to do work for them, paying them a small quantity (and as you said, "No one ever got rich from working for a wage")? Or are you trying to suggest that the capitalists hire people to make charity? If you are hired by a company then it&#39;s definately because the company sees that your work can bring more profits, which won&#39;t just keep the owners living, but it will keep the company grow. So, are you saying that those who are hired to produce wealth don&#39;t really produce it, so they have to start doing it now?


And time and time again you mention that employees must have ownership. This is ridiculous - it&#39;s like saying that if I hire a gardener to improve the value of my property, that the gardener must be entitled to a share in the profit that I make.

That&#39;s different. Gardeners, plumbers, electricians and such proffessions have many customers. The point remains the same: if the gardener&#39;s parents left him a multinational corporation, do you think he would be the one being hired to improve other people&#39;s property? No, in fact he would be doing that with other gardeners&#33;&#33;&#33;


My point for this thread is that in order for capitalism to prosper, we need more capitalists.

Which would require the existance of more means of production, which are limited to the available resources, and poor people doesn&#39;t have money to invest on that anyway. Hmmm....

[Som]

You guys completely miss the point.

In order for the poor to become wealthy, they have to start producing wealth, not take it from someone else.

Except this is capitalism, they do produce the wealth.

Then the capitalists, which serve as managers of that production of wealth, take it and dish out a small percentage as a wage, and then there is profit.

Many socialists simply seek to take out that managerial element and replace it with a democratic entity.

Example of a shoe company, for each shoe workers paid &#036;3, total cost of shoes materials shipping and all those addins comes to &#036;10, shoe sells for &#036;60, &#036;47 profit, but why does the capitalist get all that &#036;47 when the workers were the ones who made the shoes?


And time and time again you mention that employees must have ownership. This is ridiculous - it&#39;s like saying that if I hire a gardener to improve the value of my property, that the gardener must be entitled to a share in the profit that I make.

You&#39;re arguing against the opposition of property rights with an example that entails property rights, its rather awkward and doesn&#39;t quite fit.

But, its saying theres no inherent magic to ownership, and we have no notion of the entitlement of an owner to his profits which invariably show a massive percentage higher than any rational system of merit.


If it was truly feasible to pay employees shares in the company don&#39;t you think it would be a widespread practice

Why would an employer give his employees extra money when he doesn&#39;t have to?


They shouldn&#39;t strive to work for capitalists, nor should they strive to work for anybody. No one ever got rich from working for a wage.

and starving to death isn&#39;t exactly very well to make one rich either. For a huge portion of people its impossible to start their own buisness, not only that, but I doubt a capitalist economy could exist without wage workers.


My point for this thread is that in order for capitalism to prosper, we need more capitalists.

Its true that capitalism works better when there are more capitalists, but that certainly won&#39;t eliminate poverty.

Not only that, but capitalism has a consistent historic trend towards the concentration of wealth.

[Using Side Roads]

It seems more reasonable to say that poor people should just stop being lazy. I don&#39;t like when people say that it&#39;s not all their fault and that it&#39;s the big coperations&#39; fault instead. Microsoft makes shitty software, not shitty humans. If poor people want to get a job, they could probably get one. They won&#39;t be rich but they&#39;ll have a start somewhere.

It&#39;s not ALL their fault though. People are overpaid, people are underpaid. I can&#39;t think of a reasonable, possible way of getting rid of poverty, especially in places where most people are already poor. The only thing I can think of, and I&#39;m sorry to say this, is slavery. Not tortured, stereotyped, beaten slaves like back in the day, but if there&#39;s one word to describe rich people it&#39;s lazy. They probably wouldn&#39;t mind giving a poor guy a room to sleep and live in, a few outfits, and a low, yet reasonable wage, if he do decent work. It&#39;d probably just end up being abused though, and molded into what it used to be, so nevermind.

[Urban Rubble]

Some people have tried cooperatives before, but they failed against companies, what if there wouldn&#39;t be no companies anymore but only cooperatives, but then you have some practical problems ...

I had to say it twice in the last thread and now again in this one: Read a fucking book.

Read about Father Arizmendi and the Spanish cooperatives in the 40&#39;s and 50&#39;s. Read about how these cooperative businesses were successful and how some still exist to this day.


The poor must start producing wealth.

Are you kidding me ? Who the fuck do you think produces the wealth ? The CEO&#39;s ? No, the working class, the poor and middle class. The poor produce the wealth, but for a Capitalist to profit from. This isn&#39;t rocket science kid.


My point for this thread is that in order for capitalism to prosper, we need more capitalists.

Capitalism is prospering, exactly like it is supposed to. Rich men are profiting and the people who create the product get fucked. What you don&#39;t understand is that Capitalism cannot sustain itself with more Capitalists. In order for your system to work there must be a ample supply of people who are willing to work for shit to survive. We simply cannot all become Capitalists and get rich, there needs to be wage slaves for Captialism to survive.

[Nyder]

For the last fricking time:

LABOUR DOES NOT EQUAL PROFIT

You can spend as much money on labour as you want but that does not mean you are going to profit from the product that they make.

Notice also that corporations are moving to automation so it will be the capital (ie. the machines, computers, factories) that makes the product, NOT people. So where does the profit go to then?

And most of the time profits do get re-invested into the business if the owner wants to grow his/her business rather then them keeping it for themselves. And besides even if that capitalist does keep the profits he/she has to spend it somewhere - creating jobs and opportunities for others.

It really is funny that you commies keep harping on about the labour theory of value when I have proved it is complete nonsense over a dozen times. But if you want to test it out just ask your employer (if you have one) to pay you in accordance with the performance of the company then watch as the week after the share price plummets. Maybe then you won&#39;t be preaching about the labour theory of value as much as you did.

[Nyder]

As for the poor producing wealth:

# It can&#39;t be done in countries where the cost burdens imposed by Government make starting a business unfeasible.

# STATE schools are the institutions which drum the notion into children&#39;s heads that they should get a job when they leave school. Schools don&#39;t teach them how to run their own business - probably because they want to keep everyone poor so they are kept dependant on the state for survival.

[Urban Rubble]

You can spend as much money on labour as you want but that does not mean you are going to profit from the product that they make.

Yes, but on the same coin you can market a product all you want but if you do not have labor you can&#39;t make the product. At least you can agree that labor is half of where the profit comes from ?


# It can&#39;t be done in countries where the cost burdens imposed by Government make starting a business unfeasible.

So what ? Take the U.S. Everyone in the U.S cannot start a company and become rich. It simply cannot happen.


# STATE schools are the institutions which drum the notion into children&#39;s heads that they should get a job when they leave school. Schools don&#39;t teach them how to run their own business - probably because they want to keep everyone poor so they are kept dependant on the state for survival.

That is because Capitalism has to have a huge labor force to survive. If they didn&#39;t all go get jobs the economy would collapse and you would realize just how much you needed those workers.

[Essential Insignificance]

There is NO way to get rid of poverty.
It doesn&#39;t matter wether you apply capitalism or communism.
Poverty will survive because people will always be greedy for money and power.

Marx never believed this disposition and numerous Marxist alike don’t either. To suggest, as you do, that there will perpetually be &#39;&#39;greed&#39;&#39; and insatiability, because it is inherent in human nature is a great fallacy on your part and innumerable others.

Marx hypothesised that mankind, by and large, thinks and develops in accordance to those of his material conditions, thus so, as material conditions change, so does men himself.

I propose that you examine a small number of history manuscripts, that are about society 10 000 years ago and prior forehand to that.

You will discover that there was, none to little greed.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Sure you can eliminate poverty, just implement a Cuban style ecomony where people get payed between 150-500&#036; per month and have the state pay for people&#39;s essentials, and collectivize as much as possible. There is still an incentive to work, there cannot be any oppression when the state owns all businuss, the rewards come back to the people in the form of services, there is guaranteed employment, and there is the plenty of opportunity for someone to do anything that is sociably useful.

[Essential Insignificance]

There is still an incentive to work

The "incentive" should not be for money, but instead "should" be socially advancing a backward nation-that’s in Cuba of course. Che supported this outlook, I believe.

There is still an elevated echelon of relentless completion between Cuba workers to "better" themselves over others. The medium of this is to expand supplementary wealth for themselves.

This is in know way recommendable in other nations, it just implanting capitalist society, then again it is successive, due course.


there cannot be any oppression when the state owns all businuss

This is candidly not worth repudiation. How not exactly I wonder ?


Perhaps I have misunderstood this complete post.

[synthesis]

You can spend as much money on labour as you want but that does not mean you are going to profit from the product that they make.

That&#39;s irrelevant. The point is that the bourgeois are unnecessary middlemen, like speculators.


Notice also that corporations are moving to automation so it will be the capital (ie. the machines, computers, factories) that makes the product, NOT people. So where does the profit go to then?

Uh, the owners of the corporation. That&#39;s the entire Marxist hypothesis, man, do your homework.


It can&#39;t be done in countries where the cost burdens imposed by Government make starting a business unfeasible.

It also can&#39;t be done when corporations hold an effective monopoly over their industry.

(You are a libertarian, right?)


STATE schools are the institutions which drum the notion into children&#39;s heads that they should get a job when they leave school.

You&#39;re making a case based purely on your own experiences. Throughout my various schools, the mantra was always "you can do anything you want, if you put your mind to it."

That&#39;s the real bullshit - that capitalism holds fruit for anyone who wants to pick it. That&#39;s the lie.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 05:29 AM
Notice also that corporations are moving to automation so it will be the capital (ie. the machines, computers, factories) that makes the product, NOT people. So where does the profit go to then?
Which basically means that a big part of the population will end up on poverty, their kids doomed to poverty too, without money to pay for their studies they will not even survive.

That&#39;s a nice thing, you know, to eliminate more than half the population of this world. :rolleyes:


And most of the time profits do get re-invested into the business if the owner wants to grow his/her business rather then them keeping it for themselves. And besides even if that capitalist does keep the profits he/she has to spend it somewhere - creating jobs and opportunities for others.

They won&#39;t create new jobs and "opportunities for others" if they invest it on those nice machines that feed the cappies so that they dont even have to work. Unless, of course, those "lazy poor immoral thieves" won&#39;t even be able to pay to have a university title to create those machines.


# It can&#39;t be done in countries where the cost burdens imposed by Government make starting a business unfeasible.

Blah blah blah. It&#39;s always the government, with their evil taxes and socialist policies, that are after the "exceptional successful" businessmen&#39;s "well deserved" wealth, just because it&#39;s sooo evil. The only way you will ever reach your cappie utopia will be by imposing a dictatorship and killing the opposition.


Schools don&#39;t teach them how to run their own business - probably because they want to keep everyone poor so they are kept dependant on the state for survival.

Explain please (I mean the last bit, excuse me but I didn&#39;t get it)

[El Che]

In order for the poor to become wealthy, they have to start producing wealth, not take it from someone else.
-nyder

They can&#39;t just start "producing wealth". In order to do that you need capital to get you started. So, the only other option open to them is to be a "wage slave". Why can&#39;t you understand this?

[Guest1]

Actually, they do produce wealth, they just can&#39;t use tap into it except by selling it at a hefty loss. That&#39;s where wage slavery comes in.

And that&#39;s exactly why the workers have to cut out the middle man and establish democratic work structures to maximize their profits and minimize waste.

If we look at it from that point of view, before the elimination of currency in general, it just makes economic sense for them to do that.

[Valishin]

There is NO way to get rid of poverty in a capitalist society because it is all about competition and in a competition, someone has to win and someone has to lose. It is as simple as that.
Economics is not a zero sum game. The problem with "getting rid of poverty" is in the goal. There is no agreed upon definition of poverty. To some people it isn&#39;t about how much a person has to eat but instead it is an issue of jealousy that some people don&#39;t have as much as some others. On the other hand to many it is an issue of survival and what the guy across the street has is irrelevent to the equation.

First you have to decide which "problem" your trying to address. As I don&#39;t see the former as an actual problem I will focus on the later. If you want to get rid of poverty then continue improve technology for production and means of transportation. The more effecent those become then the less and less people will go hungry. Everyone won&#39;t be eating stake but they will all have what they need to survive.


Example of a shoe company, for each shoe workers paid &#036;3, total cost of shoes materials shipping and all those addins comes to &#036;10, shoe sells for &#036;60, &#036;47 profit, but why does the capitalist get all that &#036;47 when the workers were the ones who made the shoes?
Because without his willingness to take risks in the first place and put all the effort into building up a company that could have folded at anytime. Your idea sounds an awful lot like "thank you for doing all the hard part that we weren&#39;t willing to do, now we are going to take over and reap the rewards"


Not only that, but capitalism has a consistent historic trend towards the concentration of wealth.
If everyone&#39;s standard of living is improving then why is concentration of wealth such a bad thing?

Now one last thing for you guys to keep in mind. As long as employeement is volunteery then you are gaining full value of the service you produce. You continue to sell your services for an agreed upon price. You are not forced to do so. You can raise that price and sell to anyone willing to pay your increased price at your own whim. If you choose not to do so then you have set the value of your service. If noone is willing to buy your service for the price you want then the value of your service is set, you are just not taking that value into account. Either way you are getting the value of the service you have provided. Once you have provided this service then nothing entitles you to further compensation beyond what you and your customer have agreed upon as the value of the service. If that customer takes the results of the service you performed for him and adds them to his own and resells the package then the resulting profits are entirely his unless of course it was stated otherwise in your agreement. In most cases you have already received your compensation for your efforts.

[HankMorgan]

What is the question here? Is it how do we equalize the outcome or is it how do we raise the standard of living for the poorest people in society? Neither problem is hard to solve.

If the goal is to make it so everyone has the same amount of wealth just do like the song says "tax the rich &#39;til there are no rich anymore". There is no way to create a society where everyone is rich but it is possible to create a society where everyone is poor.

Raising the standard of living for the poorest people is also easy. The law of supply and demand is as inviolate as any law of physics. We just harness its power. Labor is a commodity just like peaches or steel. To raise the value of labor we have only to create demand for workers, in other words create more jobs than there are workers. To create more jobs all that has to be done is get out of the way of the people who have the creativity, drive and daring do to start new enterprise. Just make it profitable to create new business and new business florish. When business is over taxed and over regulated, business will be slow to grow and jobs will be few.

Not a hard problem.

[STI]

Great, until these &#39;creative minds&#39; find some new way to eliminate the need for human labour, putting even more people out jobless.

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 10:48 PM
Great, until these &#39;creative minds&#39; find some new way to eliminate the need for human labour, putting even more people out jobless.
Are you referring to increasing efficiency so that each worker can do more and therefore is worth more?

Consider building a road for instance. It&#39;s possible to hire a thousand workers with woven baskets to build a road. Picture a thousand workers walking along with baskets of gravel on their heads. Now consider building a road with heavy equipment and just a handful of operators. With heavy equipment, maybe it takes five operators to do the work of a thousand workers with woven baskets. Those five operators are paid much more and have a much better standard of living.

What about the other 995 workers and their woven baskets? They also get jobs where their efforts are magnified by machinery and they get the higher standard of living. Now everyone gets a higher standard of living because of increased efficiency and productivity. Machinery and automation do not bring unemployment. Instead they bring a higher standard of living.

socialist_tiger, if all you want is jobs then your path lies with the woven baskets.

[Nyder]

To Commies,

So let&#39;s get this straight - the person/s who came up with the idea for the business, raised the finance to purchase the business, who have to make debt repayments on the business and have to ensure it&#39;s success in the marketplace don&#39;t actually own the business, according to you.

What a load of crap&#33;

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 04:38 AM
So let&#39;s get this straight - the person/s who came up with the idea for the business, raised the finance to purchase the business, who have to make debt repayments on the business and have to ensure it&#39;s success in the marketplace don&#39;t actually own the business, according to you.

What a load of crap&#33;
In capitalist theory they HAVE to own that business, but as I do not recognise that someone can "own" such things, I can only recognise that such a person who came the idea should work doing that thing if he likes it but not hiring other people to do work for him to get more money. If he "deserves" to own more, that&#39;s another thing. The idea of "success in the marketplace", "growth of the business", "private ownership of the means of production", is just part of the capitalist market system, which is imposed. Does a business necessarily has to grow? The answer is no. That&#39;s how capitalism was "set up". That&#39;s their only way of not being eaten by the competition and surviving, which is the point of that business.
Do you get my point?

[AC-Socialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 12:55 PM
How do you eliminate poverty?

The poor must start producing wealth.

They have to create capital. Thereby generating themselves income.

They shouldn&#39;t strive to work for capitalists, nor should they strive to work for anybody. No one ever got rich from working for a wage.

So how do yo do it? Not by taking wealth off those who have produced it and giving it to those who have none - you would destroy the incentive to create wealth and systematically reduce everyone to poverty.

Nor should you force owners of business enterprises to share their ownership with their employees. This will just shut down many companies.

So how do you do it without using heavy state intrusiveness or absurd fantasies of apocalyptic uprisings of the masses to &#39;take over&#39; the means of production?

I put the question to you for now........
Ok, Nyder

So your saying that due to state market restrictions, it is not possible for just anyone to go out and start up a business?

This is the paradox of libertarinaism, if no goveernment restrictions on enterprise or the market existed then what? You would have ever ingreasingly large companies leading to monopolies, these new, smaller companies would have even less of a chance as they do now&#33; They would not be able to cope with the large companies and there horendously large economies of scale and would either go bankrupt or be absolved by the larger companies. Under Kenyneism, this is stopped by competition rules, monopoly rules and other pragmatic restrictions, allowing for more fair competition.

The capitalism, nay the market system does not allow for everyone to be a boss, this is ridiculous if you are suggesting it, but ill take it your not...

If you want to argue libertarianism, youve come to the right place :D

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 04:38 AM
To Commies,

So let&#39;s get this straight - the person/s who came up with the idea for the business, raised the finance to purchase the business, who have to make debt repayments on the business and have to ensure it&#39;s success in the marketplace don&#39;t actually own the business, according to you.

What a load of crap&#33;
Well, no, they do own the business, under capitalism. Socialism is created when workers seize this private property from the bourgeois.

"Ensuring its success in the marketplace" is the worst thing about capitalism. Fire workers, move plants, destroy the environment, hire death squads, all in the name of "staying competitive." Not for me, thanks.

[Hoppe]

In your socialist factories no one would work since they have to meet endlessly to discuss whether to make red or green things.

But then again, if companies get a monopoly in a capitalist world they will eventually implode in the same way socialist companies will if you abolish the market. So no harm yet.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 04:27 PM
The only thing that comes out of capitalism is:
http://lux0r.projektas.lt/fatty1234567890.gif <_<
true, :lol:

[synthesis]

In your socialist factories no one would work since they have to meet endlessly to discuss whether to make red or green things.

What is your justification for this statement?

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 02:16 AM
What is your justification for this statement?
Logic. Direct democracy would perfectly work with three people not with 5000. You can of course appoint a manager, but he can then control the minority who oppose him. Secondly, if managers in the capitalist world don&#39;t produce anything (all value is coming from labour) how are you going to measure his contribution to society?

[Nyder]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 4 2004, 02:35 PM
In capitalist theory they HAVE to own that business, but as I do not recognise that someone can "own" such things, I can only recognise that such a person who came the idea should work doing that thing if he likes it but not hiring other people to do work for him to get more money. If he "deserves" to own more, that&#39;s another thing. The idea of "success in the marketplace", "growth of the business", "private ownership of the means of production", is just part of the capitalist market system, which is imposed. Does a business necessarily has to grow? The answer is no. That&#39;s how capitalism was "set up". That&#39;s their only way of not being eaten by the competition and surviving, which is the point of that business.
Do you get my point?
Your logic is totally confusing. Honestly I have no idea what you are trying to argue.


Does a business necessarily has to grow? The answer is no. That&#39;s how capitalism was "set up".

Eh? How do make sense of that statement.

And capitalism wasn&#39;t &#39;set up&#39;. Capitalism has existed probably since the Neanderthals - when tribes would trade to mutual benefit.

However, it is capitalism which was largely suppressed for most of history because merchants were generally reviled in society and the lords of the land used to take away most of the profits that they made.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by AC&#045;[email protected] 4 2004, 03:58 PM





So your saying that due to state market restrictions, it is not possible for just anyone to go out and start up a business?

No I&#39;m saying it makes it a lot more difficult - eg. taxes, licensing fees, regulations, employee entitlements, etc.


This is the paradox of libertarinaism, if no goveernment restrictions on enterprise or the market existed then what? You would have ever ingreasingly large companies leading to monopolies, these new, smaller companies would have even less of a chance as they do now&#33;

That is complete nonsense. Government is the worst purveyor of monopolies - protecting industries, giving subsidies and corporate welfare, tariffs, anti competitive legislation etc. In fact without Government corporations would have to rely entirely on their success in the market. Which means it is all about consumer needs.

As for small companies, there is no reason why they would not flourish without the restrictions imposed on them. Some small operators are very popular - like weekend street markets.


They would not be able to cope with the large companies and there horendously large economies of scale and would either go bankrupt or be absolved by the larger companies. Under Kenyneism, this is stopped by competition rules, monopoly rules and other pragmatic restrictions, allowing for more fair competition.

You can&#39;t have fair competition by restricting the competitors.


The capitalism, nay the market system does not allow for everyone to be a boss, this is ridiculous if you are suggesting it, but ill take it your not...

Oh yes it does because of the variety of markets out there and also the differing production costs (some extremely cheap), anyone can feasibly start their own enterprise. Of course it takes some effort but the potential rewards are worth it.

Perhaps if everyone took an entrepreneurial approach to their careers you would no longer have any &#39;wage slaves&#39;. But then again that is quite an optimistic notion that people will one day change their focus to investment rather then just spending.

[AC-Socialist]

so your suggesting that everyone start there own enterprise???&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

As for street market vendors, they ARE protected by the state at the moment by compettion laws. If not these businesses could not survive.
Small companies would be absolved or put out of businesss they would not be able to catch up with the low retail price of the large companies. You can tell me that they can borrow money, but thats why not anyone starts up a business now&#33; not becuase of tax implications.

A land were avery citizen is a CEO of his own company, and all being wealthly? thats obsurd&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Oh, and in your libertarian paraidise, would there be street-lamps?

[j]

And capitalism wasn&#39;t &#39;set up&#39;. Capitalism has existed probably since the Neanderthals - when tribes would trade to mutual benefit.


Actually no, capitalism has not existed since Neanderthals (who, by the way, are not the descendants of humans--I believe they died out--couldn&#39;t adapt). Trade of goods for mutual benefit is called the barter system. Capitalism is merely the private ownership of the means of production (vs. state ownership of the means of production, ie Socialism).

To trace the economic roots of the world is a Herculian task and I am not going to attempt it here. But know this, Capitalism is merely one type of economic structure that has had its place in various parts of the world for centuries. Communism (or Socialism) is a relatively new economic structure (unless you believe in primitive communism--but that&#39;s a whole other ball of wax). One is new, the other old, but mere age of an economic structure does not necessarily make it right or better.



The central question was and still is:

How do we eliminate poverty?

The obvious answer is, NOT CAPITALISM. The not so obvious answer might also be NOT SOCIALISM. The reality, in my view, is we need to mix the two. If we can regulate business enough to provide every citizen with the basic needs for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness we have suceeded in eliminating poverty.

We need a cultural revolution in the USA to eliminate poverty. We need to rethink the structures that make it difficult for ordinary citizens to live. How do we do this you may ask?

My answer,

FUCKED IF I KNOW

But what I do know is that there are things we can do everyday to eliminate poverty and number one thing is for all people to register to vote. Can you imagine how different the USA would be if ALL people voted? If every man and woman living in poverty voted, what do you think would happen to poverty?

j

[che's long lost daughter]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 31 2004, 04:47 AM



My point for this thread is that in order for capitalism to prosper, we need more capitalists.

Capitalism is prospering, exactly like it is supposed to. Rich men are profiting and the people who create the product get fucked. What you don&#39;t understand is that Capitalism cannot sustain itself with more Capitalists. In order for your system to work there must be a ample supply of people who are willing to work for shit to survive. We simply cannot all become Capitalists and get rich, there needs to be wage slaves for Captialism to survive.
Am I also deluded like Nyder or I am really agreeing with you Urban Rubble for the very first time? Would someone hand me some some Haloperidol?

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by AC&#045;[email protected] 5 2004, 07:02 PM
Oh, and in your libertarian paraidise, would there be street-lamps?
Of course, just as lighthouses.

[Som]

Because without his willingness to take risks in the first place and put all the effort into building up a company that could have folded at anytime. Your idea sounds an awful lot like "thank you for doing all the hard part that we weren&#39;t willing to do, now we are going to take over and reap the rewards"

Hard work we weren&#39;t willing to do? I&#39;m reasonably sure mr. CEO wasn&#39;t exactly &#39;willing&#39; to sit for 14 hours and make shoes.

What are his risks in practice? that he could lose everything? whats everything for him? his home, his livlihood? and if one of his workers gets fired, whats their risk? their homes, their livlihoods, even more so, their lunch.

Its not even a matter of willingness, those workers weren&#39;t even in a position to put the same work in as the CEO.

I should thank King George for holding the colonies as long as he did, Washington was an ungrateful little bastard wasn&#39;t he?


If everyone&#39;s standard of living is improving then why is concentration of wealth such a bad thing?

Is everyones standard of living really improving? Even in the US people have to work harder now than they did 40 years just to meet the basic necesecities, wages are falling and more people are poor now than they were then.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 12:54 PM
Your logic is totally confusing. Honestly I have no idea what you are trying to argue.
You are just making the "entrepeneurs" look like "hard-working men who sacrifice themselves to insure their companies have success becuase they deserve it" and us as some "totalitarian freedom hating people who want to take my hard earned property to give it to those lazy idiots". They aren&#39;t such great people and the idea is a crappy way of justifying a hidden dictatorship. I&#39;m criticizing that.


Eh? How do make sense of that statement.

That bit was about you saying "and have to ensure it&#39;s success in the marketplace".


And capitalism wasn&#39;t &#39;set up&#39;. Capitalism has existed probably since the Neanderthals - when tribes would trade to mutual benefit.

Capitalism exists since feudalism dissapeared. You&#39;re just talking about trade. And by the way, isn&#39;t the concept of "tribes" contradictory with the idea of "individuals owning things"???? :rolleyes:

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 08:44 PM
more people are poor now than they were then.
I would rather live poor in todays world than middle class 40 years ago. I don&#39;t consider people that have TV&#39;s with cable, a roof over their head, food in their bellies, as poor.

[Shredder]

Nyder:

Your argument initially rests on suggesting that everyone become a capitalist. That sounds like a great idea, except that we&#39;d all starve to death in two months with no one to make food. Labor is the starting point for all society.


This is ridiculous - it&#39;s like saying that if I hire a gardener to improve the value of my property, that the gardener must be entitled to a share in the profit that I make.

He is entitled to a share of the profit you make. That&#39;s why you paid him to do the work. Anything less is outright slavery. All your argument really does is explain labor power and profits in an anecdote, but you&#39;ve not shown that it&#39;s "ridiculous."


Notice also that corporations are moving to automation so it will be the capital (ie. the machines, computers, factories) that makes the product, NOT people. So where does the profit go to then?

Oh, you&#39;re so cute, trying to dismiss the labor theory of value by citing machines, which you apparently think dropped from the sky without any labor whatsoever. These machines require labor to produce. Less employees simply means a smaller Market, because "robots don&#39;t buy fords."

Here you&#39;re running your mouth about how the capitalist has a right to extract surplus value, because he took risks, etc. You make the same mistake as every other capitalist in judging planned economy: you try to imagine the latter in terms of capitalism, speaking of stock prices, profits, etc. In socialism, all of that is ridiculous and superfluous--all that matters is employment and production. Labor is the lifeforce of production, but capitalists thrive off of unemployment for profit (to keep labor prices low, supply and demand). Competition does not allow for maximum production. In a planned economy, all of the rules and laws of the market disappear and are simply replaced with the question of appropriating the labor forces in the most efficient manner, so that enough materials are mined, to make enough steel, to make enough cars.

Labor-reducing technology, under capitalism, is used to create profit. Usually, when an innovation is introduced, the employees will keep the same working hours, and close to the same wages, but there will simply be less employees. Under democratically planned economy, labor-reducing technology reduces the amount of work required by all. Which brings us to, what Hoppe said on this thread, "In your socialist factories no one would work since they have to meet endlessly to discuss whether to make red or green things." With less hours spent actually producing, workers will be left with ample time to run the world.


As for small companies, there is no reason why they would not flourish without the restrictions imposed on them. Some small operators are very popular - like weekend street markets.

However, in an unregulated market, all industries would increasingly come under the influence of Wal-Marts. This is because, as I have shown above with the ore--&#62;steel--&#62;car example above, monopolies produce things more efficiently (and so more cheaply, and so absorb all consumers). The goal then, is to give shared ownership of one single monopoly to all people, and have it run democratically.

[Hoppe]

However, in an unregulated market, all industries would increasingly come under the influence of Wal-Marts. This is because, as I have shown above with the ore--&#62;steel--&#62;car example above, monopolies produce things more efficiently

Economies of scale is limited Shredder.


Oh, you&#39;re so cute, trying to dismiss the labor theory of value by citing machines, which you apparently think dropped from the sky without any labor whatsoever. These machines require labor to produce. Less employees simply means a smaller Market, because "robots don&#39;t buy fords."


Nyder, dismissing it is not necessary. Marx himself implicitly rejected the labor theory in his last book.


In a planned economy, all of the rules and laws of the market disappear and are simply replaced with the question of appropriating the labor forces in the most efficient manner, so that enough materials are mined, to make enough steel, to make enough cars.

Since when? I was clearly under the impression that most honest socialist concluded that a market was necessary.

[AC-Socialist]

Originally posted by Hoppe+Apr 5 2004, 08:34 PM--> (Hoppe @ Apr 5 2004, 08:34 PM)
AC&#045;[email protected] 5 2004, 07:02 PM
Oh, and in your libertarian paraidise, would there be street-lamps?
Of course, just as lighthouses. [/b]
This really does show how economically naive you are

There would be no street lamps under a libertartianist system becuase you couldnt accusue anyone of using them, nor force anyone to use them, therefore you couldnt ask people to pay for them.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by AC&#045;[email protected] 6 2004, 12:11 PM
This really does show how economically naive you are

There would be no street lamps under a libertartianist system becuase you couldnt accusue anyone of using them, nor force anyone to use them, therefore you couldnt ask people to pay for them.
:lol:

You mean to say that streetlamps are non-excludable goods. Yes, I am defeated, there is no way how this can be solved. We will all be in living in the dark.

Of course, you as economic brain must certainly be aware that there is not at all a consensus on what can be defined as public good. Certainly because as far as I am aware most goods have been produced by individuals in the past.

[dopediana]

Originally posted by lucid+Apr 5 2004, 08:48 PM--> (lucid @ Apr 5 2004, 08:48 PM)
[email protected] 5 2004, 08:44 PM
more people are poor now than they were then.
I would rather live poor in todays world than middle class 40 years ago. I don&#39;t consider people that have TV&#39;s with cable, a roof over their head, food in their bellies, as poor. [/b]
poverty is an odd thing. in urban areas poor people are very much detested. they sleep on the streets, get kicked around, and are basically considered useless and drains on society. however, poor people in rural situations are loved because they&#39;re willing to do loads of work for almost jack shit.

the difference with america as opposed to other countries is that homeless people are extremely well hidden and the poverty line is well above that of other countries. and many haven&#39;t complained till the recent job losses during bush&#39;s administration, which goes to show you that you can screw the people over but as long as you create a false enemy like iraq they&#39;ll stand behind you for the principle of the thing.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Don&#39;t bother ATP. The boy read an article from a right-wing website that claimed to "expose poverty" as a "left-wing conspiracy theory to bring down Rebublicans".

It was one of the silliest article I have ever read.

I really loved the parts that state people who eat "once in a while" and only "starve a little bit" are not considered "poor" because they at least get to eat "occasionally".

This kid loves to find interesting "facts" on the internet and then blindly follow them as if they were scripture. A common trait among these silly capitalists. I can see the boy here writing his pay cheque away to Billy Graham right now.

[dopediana]

well, at least you read my post even if noone else did. it feels like noone reads my posts. unless i&#39;m railing against cruelty to animals.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Uhh, what were you saying?

[Som]

Originally posted by lucid+Apr 5 2004, 08:48 PM--> (lucid @ Apr 5 2004, 08:48 PM)
[email protected] 5 2004, 08:44 PM
more people are poor now than they were then.
I would rather live poor in todays world than middle class 40 years ago. I don&#39;t consider people that have TV&#39;s with cable, a roof over their head, food in their bellies, as poor. [/b]
So you&#39;d rather poorer?

Try surviving on walmart slave wages today.

The answer there is even the lowest paying jobs paid more. Minimum wage in the 60s adjusted for inflation is something like 8 or 9 dollars an hour, as opposed to the 6 millions of people actually try to survive on, usually taking a second job.

How about this:
In the fifteen years between 1983 and 1998, the bottom 40% of Americans saw their wealth drop 76%. (In other words, they lost three-quarters of their wealth in 15 years).

In the same time period, the richest 1% saw their wealth increase by 42%.

The richest 40%, excluding the richest 1%, saw their wealth increase roughly 20%.

http://www.worldrevolution.org/Projects/Fe...SInequality.htm (http://www.worldrevolution.org/Projects/Features/Inequality/USInequality.htm)

But if you&#39;d rather work twice as hard for a quarter of the money, I suppose thats your buisness

[Shredder]

Since when? I was clearly under the impression that most honest socialist concluded that a market was necessary.

Different degrees of socialism require different degrees of market. For example, a single socialist country must participate in the world market to a large degree in order to take advantage of the world division of labor--for comparitive advantage or whatever normal people call it. Speaking for myself, the ultimate goal of planned economy should be to eliminate all the rules of the market. In an absolute monopoly, capital can be transferred from one branch of industry to another without either branch being concerned with profit, since they are all pulling from the same pool. Overproduction becomes a non-issue.

[j]

however, poor people in rural situations are loved because they&#39;re willing to do loads of work for almost jack shit.


I disagree with this statement. Poor people in rural situations are NOT loved. Look to the people of Appalaichia or northern Maine. Poor people are shit on regardless of where they live.

Saying that they are willing to do loads of work is true, however. Most poor people are willing to do loads of work (regardless of where they live). To believe otherwise is to fall into the right-wing&#39;s theory that the poor do not work or do not want to work.

Poor people are poor because of a variety of complex socio-economic reasons. One person living in poverty may be there for a completely different reason than the next person. That is the problem. People want to stereotype the poor.

This is part of the reason that I have re-thought some of my beliefs that capitalism is all together evil. Although I am far from a right winger, I do see the benefits of well regulated capitalism.

j

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 07:01 PM

Since when? I was clearly under the impression that most honest socialist concluded that a market was necessary.

Different degrees of socialism require different degrees of market. For example, a single socialist country must participate in the world market to a large degree in order to take advantage of the world division of labor--for comparitive advantage or whatever normal people call it. Speaking for myself, the ultimate goal of planned economy should be to eliminate all the rules of the market. In an absolute monopoly, capital can be transferred from one branch of industry to another without either branch being concerned with profit, since they are all pulling from the same pool. Overproduction becomes a non-issue.
In capitalism when there is over-production, the company sells the produce at a lower price, ensuring that capitalism will always reach equilibrium no matter what.

Can&#39;t say the same about communism.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Som+Apr 6 2004, 06:09 PM--> (Som @ Apr 6 2004, 06:09 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 08:48 PM

[email protected] 5 2004, 08:44 PM
more people are poor now than they were then.
I would rather live poor in todays world than middle class 40 years ago. I don&#39;t consider people that have TV&#39;s with cable, a roof over their head, food in their bellies, as poor.
So you&#39;d rather poorer?

Try surviving on walmart slave wages today.

The answer there is even the lowest paying jobs paid more. Minimum wage in the 60s adjusted for inflation is something like 8 or 9 dollars an hour, as opposed to the 6 millions of people actually try to survive on, usually taking a second job.

How about this:
In the fifteen years between 1983 and 1998, the bottom 40% of Americans saw their wealth drop 76%. (In other words, they lost three-quarters of their wealth in 15 years).

In the same time period, the richest 1% saw their wealth increase by 42%.

The richest 40%, excluding the richest 1%, saw their wealth increase roughly 20%.

http://www.worldrevolution.org/Projects/Fe...SInequality.htm (http://www.worldrevolution.org/Projects/Features/Inequality/USInequality.htm)

But if you&#39;d rather work twice as hard for a quarter of the money, I suppose thats your buisness [/b]
Those statistics sound like bullshit to me. How were they measured?

Always be weary of statistics from an organisation with a political agenda.

[Osman Ghazi]

Those statistics sound like to me. How were they measured?

Always be weary of statistics from an organisation with a political agenda.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: This coming from the guy who practically quoted verbatim a right-wing think tank. Not only that, you didn&#39;t even analyze it or provide any supporting statistics. You sure make me laugh, kiddo.

[Hampton]

Those statistics sound like bullshit to me. How were they measured?

Always be weary of statistics from an organisation with a political agenda.

I take it you didn&#39;t click the link? Or you did and then didn&#39;t look at the sources that the article linked to? Most came from www.levy.org, The Levy Economic Institute of Bard College and Columbia University.

Of course I guess you could always e mail the President of the Institute Dr. Dimitri B. Papadimitriou, [email protected], phone or fax him too.

[Nyder]

I&#39;ll just address some of the &#39;statistics&#39; on that website you linked to:


Poverty

In 1999, there were 35 million people (or, approximately 12% of the population) living below the poverty line (&#036;13,000 income per year for a 3 person family)
(Divided Decade: Economic Disparity at the Century&#39;s Turn, United for a Fair Economy)

Much of what consitutes &#39;below &#036;13000 USD&#39; is a lot higher then p.a. incomes in poor countries (which have been wrecked by collectivism).


Income and poverty

In 1998, 18.7 percent of American children lived in poverty

Doubtless there&#39;s many American children earning under &#036;13000 USD.

[Hampton]

Much of what consitutes &#39;below &#036;13000 USD&#39; is a lot higher then p.a. incomes in poor countries (which have been wrecked by collectivism).

Ok thanks, but, that dosen&#39;t really say anything. You&#39;re basically saying those who make under 13,000 should be happy they don&#39;t live in poorer countries. I&#39;m sure they appricate the sentiment, but, the cost of living is also higher in the US and under 13 grand a year is nothing.


Doubtless there&#39;s many American children earning under &#036;13000 USD

That&#39;s not what that statment means, it dosen&#39;t mean 4 years olds who hold jobs are making less that 13,000, it means they&#39;re living in poverty with their parents or some other person who&#39;s living hand to mouth every day.

[mariposa]

well, one way to reduce poverty would be to pay sports stars what they deserve- pennies- and give the rest of their overballooned salary to people whose jobs mean something. :D :D :D



(this is meant to be a joke, don&#39;t jump me)

[Shredder]

In capitalism when there is over-production, the company sells the produce at a lower price, ensuring that capitalism will always reach equilibrium no matter what.


Err, if the capitalist does not make a profit, then he will not be able to continue with the next round of production.


Can&#39;t say the same about communism.

I don&#39;t really understand how you could come to this conclusion even if your premises were correct. In any case, when there is no profit of one industry over another, then overproduction is not a crisis, because the profit of one branch of production can be invested in a totally different branch of production.