How is this socialist view not wrong?

[Deathb4Dishonor]

Production is for profit instead of for use. For example, the consumer society produces useless but profitable products, while people's needs are not met where it is not profitable to do so.

in capatalism if the peoples needs were not being meet by any one wouldnt some one step up in business and produce what ever it is the people need to make a profit? i just dont see how this philosophy makes sense if you could please explain it or am i right

[redstar2000]

No, because "just making a profit" is not really the point in capitalism...it is making the largest possible profit that is the "key" to the puzzle.

No one builds affordable apartment housing any more, not because it is unprofitable, but because far greater profits can be made on luxury apartment buildings.

This seems to me to be a topic for Opposing Ideologies...where the "merits" of capitalism are usually discussed.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[HankMorgan]

Making the largest possible profit just means there is incentive to use resources in the most efficient manner possible.

The beauty of a free economic system is that it's self correcting. Take redstar2000's affordable apartments. If there's a shortage of affordable apartments, that means people looking for a place to live will bid up the rent. If the rent goes up then it becomes attractive to build apartments. If it's attractive to build apartments, more will be built and the price will creep back down.

That's true if there are no outside influences like government imposed rent control. Where rents are held down there is no incentive to build more apartments. As a result there is a shortage.

In other words you can't get something for nothing.

[DaCuBaN]

That's true if there are no outside influences like government imposed rent control. Where rents are held down there is no incentive to build more apartments. As a result there is a shortage

I would disagree... Redstar is correct in asserting that the market will continually push away from affordable housing regardless of whether there are government controls on rent - which there certainly are not in my locality - or not. Given that the rich will continue to get richer, this means as time passes they have more expendable income.

So you are indeed quite correct, but not about what you intended.


The beauty of a free economic system is that it's self correcting

Indeed - the land is slowly being settled again into the hands of the few.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 02:03 AM
In other words you can't get something for nothing.
Of course you can't, to get housing for everyone, we may just have to get rid of the entire idea of owning land.

Landowners lose out, but it all works out in the end. So in a sense, you are right, but not in the way you meant it.

Which is of course: "if you want affordable housing, you really need housing no one can afford". What's your secret? How can you speak such contradictions and not end up utterly depressed about the cold inhumanity and lies you have been reduced to?

[DaCuBaN]

regardless of whether there are government controls on rent - which there certainly are not in my locality

I completely forgot to elaborate on this point :blink: :rolleyes:

Where I live there is an extreme shortage of affordable housing, and the vast majority of it that was built has since been sold off as private housing (previous they were, of course, council houses). Every building project in this area is for 'family' homes (be they apartment or detached house) and not one is going for less than £250,000 (approx US$450,000)

Single parent families are really going to be able to afford that, right?

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 03:51 AM
No, because "just making a profit" is not really the point in capitalism...it is making the largest possible profit that is the "key" to the puzzle.

No one builds affordable apartment housing any more, not because it is unprofitable, but because far greater profits can be made on luxury apartment buildings.

This seems to me to be a topic for Opposing Ideologies...where the "merits" of capitalism are usually discussed.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
If you would be correct Redstar, and everyone starts building luxurious appartments, there will be a surplus and the price will drop.


I would disagree... Redstar is correct in asserting that the market will continually push away from affordable housing regardless of whether there are government controls on rent - which there certainly are not in my locality - or not. Given that the rich will continue to get richer, this means as time passes they have more expendable income.

Incorrect. The amount of people who can afford a house with 5 bathrooms and cinema is smaller than the amount of people who cannot. A large pool of potential buyers makes entry to any industry interesting.

And building cheap houses is very easy. Just search on prefab housing.

[Deathb4Dishonor]

but what would stop some one from using cheap materials to build these buildings for affordible housing that way they fill the need and dont use very valuble materials?

also explain how hoppes first quote is wrong or is it?

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 02:41 PM
but what would stop some one from using cheap materials to build these buildings for affordible housing that way they fill the need and dont use very valuble materials?

also explain how hoppes first quote is wrong or is it?
I don't know in other countries but here in Holland the housing sector is like a socialist planned economy. Government decides how many, what type and where houses are build. If you actually own a house and decide to build a shed in your garden you have to get permission. If for some reason you want to paint your house red you have to get permission. And the funny thing is, everyone in the Netherlands can complain about your intention of building a shed.

We also have companies that manufacture prefabhouses and the Japanese already perfected the whole process.


also explain how hoppes first quote is wrong or is it?

It isn't wrong. It's a basic law of economics that if profits are high in a certain industry, more people will enter and the prices (and rate of profit) will decline.

[DaCuBaN]

And building cheap houses is very easy. Just search on prefab housing

Maybe in the middle of the desert, but in the UK we have these things called building regulations ;)

That said, I'm not arguing about how easy it is. I'm providing evidence for RedStar's claim that Capitalism is about maximising profit, and hence will never truly deliver the services we require.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 03:23 PM
Maybe in the middle of the desert, but in the UK we have these things called building regulations ;)

That said, I'm not arguing about how easy it is. I'm providing evidence for RedStar's claim that Capitalism is about maximising profit, and hence will never truly deliver the services we require.
Oops sorry, buidling regulations are just another excuse of the ruling class to withhold the lower classes affordable housing. <_<

You don&#39;t actually mean that the proof that "capitalism is all about maximising profits" and "hence will never truly deliver the services we require" lies in your last post?

Let&#39;s assume you&#39;re a bit brighter than you show in the above statement with this hypothetical situation: you&#39;re a capitalist wanting to maximise your profits. How will you do this?

a) provide goods and services people really want to have
b) provide goods and services people have no desire for

[DaCuBaN]

Oops sorry, buidling regulations are just another excuse of the ruling class to withhold the lower classes affordable housing

Hello Reactionary... would you care to read the rest of the thread to find out what we are actually talking about?


You don&#39;t actually mean that the proof that "capitalism is all about maximising profits" and "hence will never truly deliver the services we require" lies in your last post?

Nope. I&#39;ve made three posts in this thread, and you read one of them. Read the rest and then pass comment, if you please.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 04:04 PM
Hello Reactionary... would you care to read the rest of the thread to find out what we are actually talking about?

Nope. I&#39;ve made three posts in this thread, and you read one of them. Read the rest and then pass comment, if you please.
I have read them and they make no sense.

So I repeat:


You don&#39;t actually mean that the proof that "capitalism is all about maximising profits" and "hence will never truly deliver the services we require" lies in your last post?

Let&#39;s assume you&#39;re a bit brighter than you show in the above statement with this hypothetical situation: you&#39;re a capitalist wanting to maximise your profits. How will you do this?

a) provide goods and services people really want to have
b) provide goods and services people have no desire for


All shortage of affordable housing is caused by goverments who control this sector. There isn&#39;t any proof that a free market cannot give everyone a home.

[DaCuBaN]

There isn&#39;t any proof that a free market cannot give everyone a home

Well, we don&#39;t have a free market now, so to an extent you may well be right... I cannot say it will not, merely that I do not think it will.

However, this is not my arguement, and you know this well.


Redstar is correct in asserting that the market will continually push away from affordable housing regardless of whether there are government controls on rent - which there certainly are not in my locality - or not. Given that the rich will continue to get richer, this means as time passes they have more expendable income.


Money breeds money, agreed? With this given, we can assert that money will slowly move hands under a totally free economy until it is all concentrated in one place, or in one set of hands if you will. Considering the current balance of money distribution in comparison to population and demographics (I can&#39;t remember the exact figures but something like 90% of all funds are held by European/US interests) It becomes quite obvious who can afford to buy houses.

The point, as redstar made it, is that the purpose of a business is to maximise it&#39;s profits. If you were a building contractor with a plot of land to hold say, 30 plots for building, you could either build 30 houses as cheaply as possible and whack 10% on the top (selling them all at relatively low prices) or you could spend a similar amount on the building itself and &#39;deck out&#39; the house for an &#39;upper class&#39; clientelle.

I live in the UK, and I see it everywhere I go. For years council houses were being built - and subsidised - because noone wanted to built affordable housing on their own skin. This has stopped recently, but only because our government is a faux-socialist one.


All shortage of affordable housing is caused by goverments who control this sector. There isn&#39;t any proof that a free market cannot give everyone a home

Why would a government force builders to build expensive houses? That&#39;s complete nonsense&#33;

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Not everyone has the money to buy a house. People live in sheds, overaged houses, or in the streets because they don&#39;t have the money to buy a quality house. Earning 10,000 dollar or less a year puts someone in a difficult position in the housingmarket.

The Dutch Housingmarket isn&#39;t socialist. May i remind you of which parties govern and which parties have governd?

Why not built to the need instead of building for profits?

[Hoppe]

The point, as redstar made it, is that the purpose of a business is to maximise it&#39;s profits. If you were a building contractor with a plot of land to hold say, 30 plots for building, you could either build 30 houses as cheaply as possible and whack 10% on the top (selling them all at relatively low prices) or you could spend a similar amount on the building itself and &#39;deck out&#39; the house for an &#39;upper class&#39; clientelle

Possibly. But I already said that if there is a surplus of these appartments prices will drop.


Why would a government force builders to build expensive houses? That&#39;s complete nonsense&#33;

No builder is forced. Yet if you create an artificial shortage, prices will rise. If prices rise people can afford more expensive houses. So if a builder finaly gets approval for building his houses, he will build expensive ones.

Now, who will profit most of this situation. Perhaps the builders, but in the end the government profits most. In most countries they tax:

1) peoples savings, or wealth for that purpose
2) profits of real estate developers
3) collect VAT (so inflate prices and you get more money)

In the Netherlands it&#39;s even better. You have to pay taxes over the marketvalue of your house every year. You have to pay a percentage of the value of the house you&#39;re buying, as tax. The subsidize rents for lower incomes, so builders will build houses based on the subsidy given by the government.

So it&#39;s all in the interest of the government to create artificial shortages.

[Deathb4Dishonor]

no one ever awserd my question or said how hoppe quote was wrong so it leads me to belive your socilist views have a major flaw

[redstar2000]

If there&#39;s a shortage of affordable apartments, that means people looking for a place to live will bid up the rent. If the rent goes up then it becomes attractive to build apartments. If it&#39;s attractive to build apartments, more will be built and the price will creep back down.

That is what is supposed to happen according to the bourgeois economists.

But in fact, it does not happen. Rents never "go down"...at best, the increase slows down for a few years and then starts back up again.

There are a whole bunch of reasons for this and, to be fair, rent control and building codes have a role in the process.

In the U.S., every American city has what is called a "property owners&#39; association"...a large group of people who own local rental properties. They lobby local governments to protect their interests...but their main purpose is price-fixing -- or, to be exact, rent-fixing. They mutually pressure one another to "keep those rents up" even on those rare occasions when there is a shortage of "good tenants". They informally agree to "compete" on "amenities", not rent.

I have seen the effects of this in my own lifetime. When I went to high school more than 40 years ago, we were all advised to budget 25% of our take-home pay for rent and utilities; and when I did begin renting my own apartments, that&#39;s pretty close to what it actually did cost.

You cannot do that any more&#33; Now, the advice is to budget 50% of your take-home pay for rent and utilities. I pay 52.4% of my monthly income for a small one-bedroom apartment including utilities.

It is theoretically possible to "over-build" in a given locality...but it&#39;s very difficult. If apartment vacancies rise above 5%, the developer can&#39;t get a bank loan to build. Thus the possibility of rents dropping due to over-supply is "nipped in the bud".

And people must have a place to live...they will spend 50% or even 75% of their income to "hold onto a place" as long as they can.

What I think we&#39;ll see in the future is more and more people "doubling up" and even "tripling up" in order to get the individual rent down to an affordable level and, at the same time, stay off the streets.

Just another aspect of what Marx called "the immiseration of the proletariat".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@May 29 2004, 12:43 PM
Why not built to the need instead of building for profits?
Even better, do both.

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 10:47 PM
But in fact, it does not happen. Rents never "go down"...at best, the increase slows down for a few years and then starts back up again.


redstar2000, you are close to my age.

I live in an area that is subject to cycles of boom and bust. Rents have gone from very expensive (&#036;1000 / month for a 4x8 ft packing crate...I kid you not) to dirt cheap and back.

I&#39;ll grant you people play games to distort the system if you&#39;ll grant me that rents are subject to the same laws of supply and demand as any other commodity.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 02:47 AM

If there&#39;s a shortage of affordable apartments, that means people looking for a place to live will bid up the rent. If the rent goes up then it becomes attractive to build apartments. If it&#39;s attractive to build apartments, more will be built and the price will creep back down.

That is what is supposed to happen according to the bourgeois economists.

But in fact, it does not happen. Rents never "go down"...at best, the increase slows down for a few years and then starts back up again.

There are a whole bunch of reasons for this and, to be fair, rent control and building codes have a role in the process.

In the U.S., every American city has what is called a "property owners&#39; association"...a large group of people who own local rental properties. They lobby local governments to protect their interests...but their main purpose is price-fixing -- or, to be exact, rent-fixing. They mutually pressure one another to "keep those rents up" even on those rare occasions when there is a shortage of "good tenants". They informally agree to "compete" on "amenities", not rent.

I have seen the effects of this in my own lifetime. When I went to high school more than 40 years ago, we were all advised to budget 25% of our take-home pay for rent and utilities; and when I did begin renting my own apartments, that&#39;s pretty close to what it actually did cost.

You cannot do that any more&#33; Now, the advice is to budget 50% of your take-home pay for rent and utilities. I pay 52.4% of my monthly income for a small one-bedroom apartment including utilities.

It is theoretically possible to "over-build" in a given locality...but it&#39;s very difficult. If apartment vacancies rise above 5%, the developer can&#39;t get a bank loan to build. Thus the possibility of rents dropping due to over-supply is "nipped in the bud".

And people must have a place to live...they will spend 50% or even 75% of their income to "hold onto a place" as long as they can.

What I think we&#39;ll see in the future is more and more people "doubling up" and even "tripling up" in order to get the individual rent down to an affordable level and, at the same time, stay off the streets.

Just another aspect of what Marx called "the immiseration of the proletariat".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
This is actually surprisingly on point.

I have a degree in economics, and I can tell you: people who support &#39;free trade&#39; and &#39;perfect competition&#39; need to figure out that neither exists in the real world. When politics exist that can and are influenced by those with money nothing will ever be free nor fair. If you want perfect competition you should be lobbying for more gov&#39;t intervention, not less.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by percept¡[email protected] 30 2004, 03:55 AM
I have a degree in economics, and I can tell you: people who support &#39;free trade&#39; and &#39;perfect competition&#39; need to figure out that neither exists in the real world. When politics exist that can and are influenced by those with money nothing will ever be free nor fair. If you want perfect competition you should be lobbying for more gov&#39;t intervention, not less.
What, have the government running the economy ? What a brilliant idea. No one&#39;s ever thought of that before. :rolleyes:

http://www.jif2000.supanet.com/Tendencies%20of%20central%20economic%20planning%20 systems.PNG

Image is copyrighted.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by percept¡[email protected] 30 2004, 03:55 AM
I have a degree in economics, and I can tell you: people who support &#39;free trade&#39; and &#39;perfect competition&#39; need to figure out that neither exists in the real world. When politics exist that can and are influenced by those with money nothing will ever be free nor fair. If you want perfect competition you should be lobbying for more gov&#39;t intervention, not less.
I am not a believer in perfect competition. It&#39;s an imaginary concept which cannot be achieved.

Glad you have found the central problem undermining democracy.

[redstar2000]

Cool flow chart, Moneybags. :D

I really liked that "absence of objective moral standards" one. Things have really just gone straight to hell since the Protestant reformation, right? :lol:

Some lefty with nothing to do for a few days should make one for modern capitalism. But s/he&#39;d have to remember to put in a factor showing the effects of ruling class retreat into obscurantist superstition.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[pandora]

I&#39;m sorry I missed that is that the flow chart for the current White House adminstration :lol:
A want to be totalitarian regime for sure.

Especially in militarization. What exactly was the difference between the current Republican U.S. adminstration and your flow chart exactly :D

[Professor Moneybags]

Maybe they ought to do one explaining how the USSR collapsed, (being careful not to put anything to suggest that it was because communism doesn&#39;t work).


Especially in militarization. What exactly was the difference between the current Republican U.S. adminstration and your flow chart exactly

Not as much as some imagine, but there is one that shows the tendencies of a mixed economy.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 30 2004, 08:03 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 30 2004, 08:03 PM)
percept¡[email protected] 30 2004, 03:55 AM
I have a degree in economics, and I can tell you: people who support &#39;free trade&#39; and &#39;perfect competition&#39; need to figure out that neither exists in the real world. When politics exist that can and are influenced by those with money nothing will ever be free nor fair. If you want perfect competition you should be lobbying for more gov&#39;t intervention, not less.
What, have the government running the economy ? What a brilliant idea. No one&#39;s ever thought of that before. :rolleyes:
[/b]
This is the type of dumb shit that still catches me off guard.

I said that if you want to maintain cn environment of near-perfect competition in a market economy government intervention is necessary. And you equate that with a planned economy. You are a retard.

[Deathb4Dishonor]

but even though the prices go up dosnt like the use of a dollar play a part? say you could buy a candy bar for a dollar then the value of a dollar changes so you need 2 dollars to buy that same candy bar dosnt that play a part in the value of the apartments? so really there not going up in price just staying the same?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 09:14 PM
but even though the prices go up doesn&#39;t like the use of a dollar play a part? say you could buy a candy bar for a dollar then the value of a dollar changes so you need 2 dollars to buy that same candy bar doesn&#39;t that play a part in the value of the apartments? so really there not going up in price just staying the same?
Inflation is not relevant in this discussion; we&#39;re talking about what percentage of your disposable income (after taxes) you can expect to pay for habitable housing.

In 1960, &#036;400 a month (after taxes) was "good pay" -- rent & utilities might run you &#036;75 to &#036;100 a month.

In 2004, &#036;1,200 a month (after taxes) is "good pay" -- but your rent and utilities are likely to be &#036;600 per month or even more.

Rents and utilities have increased in price much faster than the general inflation rate.

A staunch defender of capitalism might well argue that "what you get" for your rent money now is "better" than what was generally available in the 1960&#39;s...and there is some truth in that argument. The biggest change I&#39;ve noticed over the last couple of decades is that apartments now come with air-conditioning...it&#39;s routine (at least in the "sun belt"). Also, new buildings (if you can afford to live in one) have better soundproofing than older rental housing.

On the other side of the equation is that the rental stock in most cities is very old and is not being replaced at anything close to the rate needed. The practice seems to be to keep making patch-work repairs and keep on renting those units until the ancient wiring finally causes the building to burn down. The fire insurance is usually inadequate to actually put up a new building, so the ruins are demolished and the empty lot is put on the market...where it languishes indefinitely.

New apartment complexes are constructed in the "near-suburbs" where public transit is inadequate or non-existent. So the worker who makes enough to "afford" one of those new places must buy a car (and gas, and oil, and repairs and maintenance, and auto insurance)...devouring an even larger percentage of his/her disposable income.

It is hardly any wonder that working people have plunged into enormous credit-card debt...just getting by with the basics has become increasingly difficult.

To be honest, I don&#39;t see how people with kids make it at all&#33;

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

The fact that "supply and demand" (the holy mantra of capitalist ideologues) has nothing to do with the energy market is becoming more and more obvious...


Enron &#39;cashed in on power crisis&#39;

Collapsed energy trader Enron is at the centre of allegations that it tried to manipulate electricity prices during California&#39;s energy crisis.

In another section of the tapes, an Enron employee says: "They&#39;re taking all the money back from you guys? All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?"

Now she wants her money back for all the power you&#39;ve charged right up, jammed right up her arse for &#036;250 a megawatt hour."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/3770757.stm

The "free market" is becoming as "imaginary" as anything we communists say.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Professor Moneybags]

California&#39;s energy &#39;problem&#39; was already apparent (courtesy of the environmentalist cults who didn&#39;t want any horrible power stations built) long before Enron.


The "free market" is becoming as "imaginary" as anything we communists say.

How is it not "free" ?