Why capitalism?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Why do you support capitalism?

Is there any reason?

These are not rhetoretical question. I really don't get it.

To me at least, capitalism is very anti-human.


We have the opportunity to cover the needs of the whole world population, easily, yet this is not happening. Not because there is something we haven't "figured out", but because we live in a system that does not care if people die of poverty, malnutrition, thirst, easily cureable diseases.


And as for the industrialized world. Even if capitalism in the industrialized world has a lot of "wealth", that wealth does not go to ordinary people, but someone detached from our world, our daily lives.

Just look at copyright laws. They create a lot of problems.

The lack of free healthcare.That's something we need if we are to survive, live healthy lives and become old. Even here, in the industrialized world, people die because people cannot afford medicine.


There are millions of people in this world who work hard 12 hours a day or more and yet they will die old and poor, with physical (as well as mental) problems due to a hard and difficult life.

There are people in Mexico who work all day and when they come home, they can't use the tap because the water is too expensive.

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 02:20 PM
Why do you support capitalism?

Is there any reason?

These are not rhetoretical question. I really don't get it.

To me at least, capitalism is very anti-human.


We have the opportunity to cover the needs of the whole world population, easily, yet this is not happening. Not because there is something we haven't "figured out", but because we live in a system that does not care if people die of poverty, malnutrition, thirst, easily cureable diseases.


And as for the industrialized world. Even if capitalism in the industrialized world has a lot of "wealth", that wealth does not go to ordinary people, but someone detached from our world, our daily lives.

Just look at copyright laws. They create a lot of problems.

The lack of free healthcare.That's something we need if we are to survive, live healthy lives and become old. Even here, in the industrialized world, people die because people cannot afford medicine.


There are millions of people in this world who work hard 12 hours a day or more and yet they will die old and poor, with physical (as well as mental) problems due to a hard and difficult life.

There are people in Mexico who work all day and when they come home, they can't use the tap because the water is too expensive.
Capitalism solves the incentive problem inherient in communism.

That is the one thing that the left has never been able to get around.

How do you motivate people to go to work to benefit others?

Only those of a collective mind will be enthusiatic about the notion.

Drunkeness was and still is a huge promblem in the Soviet Union.

People prefer to go get frunk rather than contribute their labor to a cause they did not believe in.

Hutterite colonies work just fine here in Manitoba. Rhey are entirely collective organizations who operate in a capitalist environment.

Now they believe and they don't drink. They own huge parcels of land that their hard work has entitled them too.

That is the one advantage capitalism has over socialism. A socialist communty can exist within a capitalist country.

The opposite is not true. The socialists would not and can not permit the private ownership of the means of production if socialism is to suceed in equality of wages.


It is capitalism that has raised the standard of living all over planet Earth by allowing those who produce to keep the fruits of their labors.

It thereafter becomes worthwhile to think about the work that one is doing and come up with more efficient ways of accomplishing the task.

Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.

[Rollo]

I understand what you mean, there was a plant discovered in malaysia that was super effective at killing the HIV virus, the problem was that they never found that tree again. Wouldn't be impossible but would require effort and funds.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:31 PM
I understand what you mean, there was a plant discovered in malaysia that was super effective at killing the HIV virus, the problem was that they never found that tree again. Wouldn't be impossible but would require effort and funds.
becuase no one wnats to fund a cure ot HIV :lol:

[Rollo]

Exactly my point, there are treatment drugs that are a multi million dollar making drug so the corporations would rather have a temporary solution that lasted forever then a cure that would make profit them for a few years then go dry.

[The Sloth]

Tigerman: People prefer to go get frunk rather than contribute their labor to a cause they [do] not believe in.

regardless, people in america don't work because they feel as if they're contributing to some kind of metaphysical, ideological good. they work because they have to. ideology plays very little role in average, day-to-day activities. granted, that's not a good thing, as people should feel self-consciousness and reflectiveness in all they do (and under different circumstances, they probably would be sensitive to culture and ideology), but that's simply not the case today. and that shouldn't be surprising.


Drunkeness was and still is a huge promblem in the Soviet Union.

yes, but the fact that it's still a problem in russia (and other places as well) indicates nothing good about the new system there. i can't speak of drunkeness before and after the soviet union, as i wouldn't even know where to get such statistics, but i think i can, with some justification, speculate that russian people now are more desperate than before.

i don't want to apologize for the soviet union, but simply because state-socialism/state-capitalism sucks doesn't mean that the present alternative isn't a crock of shit, too. it is, and by all indications, russia is worse off now, by far.

anyway, do you still believe that africa is poor because of marxist ideologues?

[The Sloth]

It is capitalism that has raised the standard of living all over planet Earth by allowing those who produce to keep the fruits of their labors.

well, i'd change "the fruits of their labor" to "some fruits of their labor." there's a difference, and that's the difference of stipulation. again, we simply have more of that in our philosophy. we take some of your basic premises, and don't develop them half-way and leave them hanging in the air. instead, we throw them to their natural conclusions, and modify our ideas accordingly.

anyway, i don't think any sensible critique of capitalism will deny that capitalism raised the standard of living all over planet earth. raised. in some places, it still is raising, but in most of the western world, it's raised all it can. indeed, it's raised itself into defunctness.

which is why places such as africa require capitalist investment & development for the sake of creating modern socio-economic relations between the people. yet, after a time, it'll stop raising, and it'll be proper to speak only in the past tense: raised.

and that's the argument -- at a certain point, capitalism seeks to be progressive, or necessary. let it raise all it can -- i have no problem with that. let it raise until it outlives its usefulness.

but then, let's get on with better things, and no longer speak in the past tense.

[James]

yes, but the fact that it's still a problem in russia (and other places as well) indicates nothing good about the new system there.

Aye this is true. But to be fair russia is hardly a fully free market nation.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:48 PM
Aye this is true. But to be fair russia is hardly a fully free market nation.
it's certainly not fully free-market, just as the rest of the world isn't fully free-market. but, there's no reason to believe that if the politicians would somehow implement a libertarian economy (of course, they'd never do that, as they have their own self-interest in mind), the people would suddenly become sensitive to ideology, to their own place in the world, and stop drinking.. all for the sake of "the new system."

and i hope that regardless of world ideology, drinking will continue.. everywhere. :lol:

[Phalanx]

Yeah, because if they were a fully free market nation the life expectancy would plummet from 61 to 40!

But their life expectancy is a good example of how bad things have got in Russia. It's not even limited to Russia. Much of Eastern Europe is facing the same situation now that their corrupted form of socialism is gone.

Even looking at Cuba, their life expectancy is higher and their infant mortality rate lower than the U.S.!

[James]

nah you are both going a bit over board there. I was merely pointing out that "to be fair", the argument could be made that russia "isn't really capitalist".
This site is the site which will often see comments such as "cuba isn't really communist" or "stalin wasn't a communist" or yada yada yada.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 05:15 PM
I was merely pointing out that "to be fair", the argument could be made that russia "isn't really capitalist".
oh, i know.. that's why i said that in the event that the free-market actually is implemented in russia, there's still no reason to believe that russians would drink less on account of a new ideology -- indeed, ideology, even in a fully capitalist society, would play very little role in people's day-to-day considerations.

it doesn't have to be that way, but, under the circumstances, it is.. and it will be so, even under free-market circumstances.

[Publius]

Why do you support capitalism?

I see no evidence of any other system.

There's no such thing as 'socialism' anymore. The international socialist movement is dead. There's nothing left.



To me at least, capitalism is very anti-human.

To be anti-human is to be human, to a certain degree.

Humans are not 'good'; that's your mistake. That's your starting assumption, and it's a false one.

In fact, humans are, more than anything, conflicted. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, mostly terribly ignorant.



We have the opportunity to cover the needs of the whole world population, easily, yet this is not happening. Not because there is something we haven't "figured out", but because we live in a system that does not care if people die of poverty, malnutrition, thirst, easily cureable diseases.

I love how you try to 'systemitize' the problem.

It's not 'the system'.

It's 'people'. Your neighbors, your friends. They don't care if 30,000 kids die a day. Honest fact.

Most people don't care. I believe I see why Communism is such an appealing belief-system; it allows you suspend reality (much like religion) and pretend that things can or will all be perfect soon, 'if only we fix things'.

I agree that problems should be fixed, but I also know they will never be solved because they are primarily human problems.

We could have helped Africa many times over if all the aid money wasn't stolen, and the people didn't live under oppressive regimes.



And as for the industrialized world. Even if capitalism in the industrialized world has a lot of "wealth", that wealth does not go to ordinary people, but someone detached from our world, our daily lives.

Just look at copyright laws. They create a lot of problems.

I agree, they're terrible.

And guess what? 95% or more of people don't know the first thing about them, or how terrible they are.

Guess what that means? The problem won't get solved.



The lack of free healthcare.That's something we need if we are to survive, live healthy lives and become old. Even here, in the industrialized world, people die because people cannot afford medicine.

I fully support free healthcare.

In fact, I can think of no way in which communism would be superiour to modern liberal democratic state health-care.



There are millions of people in this world who work hard 12 hours a day or more and yet they will die old and poor, with physical (as well as mental) problems due to a hard and difficult life.

And yet instead of saving, most people in America today are in debt to buy expensive cars and televisions.



There are people in Mexico who work all day and when they come home, they can't use the tap because the water is too expensive.

A lot of Mexico is desert.

It's not that I don't think a lot of these problems can be solved; I do. But they can only be solved through pragmatic, meaningful change to existing policy, not by pie-in-the-sky nonsense that died in 1968.

There's no reason, none at all, why the liberal democracy cannot be a perfect, ideal system except for one: human frailty.

Properly ran, a liberal democracy would be perfect, don't you agree? If the problems of greed and exploitation could be solved by heavy progressive taxation.

There's nothing that can't conceivably be solved by liberal democracy that can't be solved by communism.

So why institute one system for another when the problem is people? Create rational, humanistic people and you fix the problems.

No need to smash the apparatus of the state. Use it.

[Revolucion Compadre]

people in america don't work because they feel as if they're contributing to some kind of metaphysical, ideological good. they work because they have to.

If you were in a desert island and you had to climb palm trees and get coconuts to eat, you were doing this because you had to, not, because you wanted. I think that all work is because you have to, not because you wanted to.

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 13 2006, 04:46 PM

It is capitalism that has raised the standard of living all over planet Earth by allowing those who produce to keep the fruits of their labors.

well, i'd change "the fruits of their labor" to "some fruits of their labor." there's a difference, and that's the difference of stipulation. again, we simply have more of that in our philosophy. we take some of your basic premises, and don't develop them half-way and leave them hanging in the air. instead, we throw them to their natural conclusions, and modify our ideas accordingly.

anyway, i don't think any sensible critique of capitalism will deny that capitalism raised the standard of living all over planet earth. raised. in some places, it still is raising, but in most of the western world, it's raised all it can. indeed, it's raised itself into defunctness.

which is why places such as africa require capitalist investment & development for the sake of creating modern socio-economic relations between the people. yet, after a time, it'll stop raising, and it'll be proper to speak only in the past tense: raised.

and that's the argument -- at a certain point, capitalism seeks to be progressive, or necessary. let it raise all it can -- i have no problem with that. let it raise until it outlives its usefulness.

but then, let's get on with better things, and no longer speak in the past tense.
Amazingly enough Capitalism has never been tried anywhere on the face of the Earth.


We have a mixed economy. The State intervenes in everyway imaginable.


In America, the Constitution enshrines "merchantalism" into the economic system with the Interstate Commerce clause, which has been usurped to mean exactly what the government wants it to mean.

In Canada, the BNA Act of 1867 (2 years after the civil war) enshrined our federal government as all powerful in financial affairs. Canadians do not own property rights.


A capilalist society would have no corporations because there would be no need for them.

There could be unions and every other kind of association free men could think of but they get no special privilidge from the state either.

The Gold Standard would prevail so there would be no fractional reserve banking or any of that kind of chicanery. No just priniting up money to inflate away the purchasing power of the savers.

No state meddling in the economy is what Capitalism would mean.

http://www.mises.org/liberal.asp

Not only does Ludwig Von Mises destroy all the economic arguements of Socialism in his great 1922 book of the same name, in 1927 he writes "Liberalismus." The book was translated and released in the West in the 1960's (I believe) as "The Free and Prosperous Commonwealth."

It is a blueprint for how to govern planet Earth.

http://www.mises.org/liberal.asp

Chapter 4 would be a most enlightening read. Mises condenses Socialism

http://www.mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx

Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis
by Ludwig von Mises
This masterwork is much more than a refutation of the economics of socialism (although on that front, nothing else compares). It is also a critique of the entire intellectual apparatus that accompanies the socialist idea, including the implicit religious doctrines behind Western socialist thinking, a cultural critique of socialist teaching on sex and marriage, an refutation of syndicalism and corporatism, an examination of the implications of radical human inequality, an attack on war socialism, and refutation of collectivist methodology.



http://www.mises.org/liberal/ch2sec4.asp

4. The Impracticability of Socialism

[nickdlc]

http://www.mises.org/liberal/ch2sec4.asp

4. The Impracticability of Socialism I read this and it's a load of crap, it attacks a state capitalist (what you would call socialism) society and not an actual mode of socialism which is actually run by workers.


In a socialist society, every individual will think that less depends on the efficiency of his own labor, since a fixed portion of the total output is due him in any case and the amount of the latter cannot be appreciably diminished by the loss resulting from the laziness of any one man. If, as is to be feared, such a conviction should become general, the productivity of labor in a socialist community would drop considerably basically this is mises' wording of the human nature argument. In socialist society there are many more incentives than just money, i.e. that you actually control how society works, how you work, where you work, what to produce, in which way you like to be organized with your fellow workers. The alienation of labour is abolished and thats why people will work.


The objection thus raised against socialism is completely sound, but it does not get to the heart of the matter. Were it possible in a socialist community to ascertain the output of the labor of every individual comrade with the same precision with which this is accomplished for each worker by means of economic calculation in the capitalist system, the practicability of socialism would not be dependent on the good will of every individual. Society would be in a position, at least within certain limits, to determine the share of the total output to be allotted to each worker on the basis of the extent of his contribution to production. What renders socialism impracticable is precisely the fact that calculation of this kind is impossible in a socialist society. The ability to calculate a workers input into the economy would be easy. In capitalism abstract labour is the the basis of calculation and what we refer to as "value" this would be true of socialism i.e. one hour of "simple labour" is equal to anothers regardless of how much they produce. Although value ceases to exist in socialism i think abstract labour will still be the basis of accounting.


In a socialist society, where all the means of production are owned by the community, and where, consequently, there is no market and no exchange of productive goods and services, there can also be no money prices for goods and services of higher order. Such a social system would thus, of necessity, be lacking in the means for the rational management of business enterprises, viz., economic calculation. For economic calculation cannot take place in the absence of a common denominator to which all the heterogeneous goods and services can be reduced. That common denominator is the labour hour. Although there is no exchange there is accounting and it becomes all the more important in socialism as mises notes.


Let us consider a quite simple case. For the construction of a railroad from A to B several routes are conceivable. Let us suppose that a mountain stands between A and B. The railroad can be made to run over the mountain, around the mountain, or, by way of a tunnel, through the mountain. In a capitalist society, it is a very easy matter to compute which line will prove the most profitable. One ascertains the cost involved in constructing each of the three lines and the differences in operating costs necessarily incurred by the anticipated traffic on each. From these quantities it is not difficult to determine which stretch of road will be the most profitable. A socialist society could not make such calculations. For it would have no possible way of reducing to a uniform standard of measurement all the heterogeneous quantities and qualities of goods and services that here come into consideration. In the face of the ordinary, everyday problems which the management of an economy presents, a socialist society would stand helpless, for it would have no possible way of keeping its accounts. Yes there would be. Since costs of things are represented by the average labour embodied in them we would be able to determine if one route is more costly or not. The reason this railway line would be built in the first place is because workers have met in thier workers councils and have decided that their is absolute need for a railway line from A to B.


The socialist ideal, carried to its logical conclusion, would eventuate in a social order in which all the means of production were owned by the people as a whole. Production would be completely in the hands of the government, the center of power in society. This is where mises fails, if this happend then you don't have socialism, we have a minority of people who because of their relationship to the means of production constitute themselves as a class over others and basically own the means of production regardless of the propaganda they pump out and the apologists who defend it. [


It alone would determine what was to be produced and how, and in what way goods ready for consumption were to be distributed. It makes little difference whether we imagine this socialist state of the future as democratically constituted or otherwise. Even a democratic socialist state would necessarily constitute a tightly organized bureaucracy in which everyone, apart from the highest officials, though he might very well, in his capacity as a voter, have participated in some fashion in framing the directives issued by the central authority, would be in the subservient position of an administrator bound to carry them out obediently. And that's mises' problem he thinks russia = socialism. The only leadership in socialist society are workers councils which organises millions of workers to make decisions when needed. A bureaucracy would be useless since workers meet up with other workers councils to decide what must be produced.

[red team]

Amazingly enough Capitalism has never been tried anywhere on the face of the Earth.

We have a mixed economy. The State intervenes in everyway imaginable.

It's basically the natural evolution of Capitalism to have it eventually needing state intervention. With each boom and bust cycle every business in order to get enough resources to be more profitable again needs to merge with smaller businesses for more resources and become more competitive against other competitors with less resources. It's basic economy of scale.

But, once you've reached a certain size, what would be the consequence of your failure once you're big enough to affect the economy of the entire country? If you let something like GM to fail which employs hundreds of thousands of workers and have operations world-wide and which have an indirect affect on the economy of small businesses what would that do to the national economy or international economy for that matter? Also, this same process is happening in other Capitalist countries. Huge conglomerates that have massive financial and material resources to enable them the out-compete small businesses nationally and internationally is also arising in other countries and they'll be competing against your businesses (imperialism). You would need to nurture and protect you own huge conglomerates to avoid hostile takeover by foreign economic powers.

State intervention on behalf of big businesses is inevitable once Capitalism reaches a certain stage in it's development, otherwise you're simply committing national economic suicide.


The Gold Standard would prevail so there would be no fractional reserve banking or any of that kind of chicanery. No just priniting up money to inflate away the purchasing power of the savers.

But, how will that stop commodity speculation where gold can be accumulated and then sold off only when people are willing to pay more than the reserve price for it because they want to join into the bidding frenzy? Same with real-estate. Like gold, there's only a limited amount of land available, but that never prevented people playing the realestate game from starting as a small landholder to becoming big landlords who have an oligopoly over land prices for rent and sale. What makes gold any different?

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 03:08 AM

http://www.mises.org/liberal/ch2sec4.asp

4. The Impracticability of Socialism I read this and it's a load of crap, it attacks a state capitalist (what you would call socialism) society and not an actual mode of socialism which is actually run by workers.


In a socialist society, every individual will think that less depends on the efficiency of his own labor, since a fixed portion of the total output is due him in any case and the amount of the latter cannot be appreciably diminished by the loss resulting from the laziness of any one man. If, as is to be feared, such a conviction should become general, the productivity of labor in a socialist community would drop considerably basically this is mises' wording of the human nature argument. In socialist society there are many more incentives than just money, i.e. that you actually control how society works, how you work, where you work, what to produce, in which way you like to be organized with your fellow workers. The alienation of labour is abolished and thats why people will work.


The objection thus raised against socialism is completely sound, but it does not get to the heart of the matter. Were it possible in a socialist community to ascertain the output of the labor of every individual comrade with the same precision with which this is accomplished for each worker by means of economic calculation in the capitalist system, the practicability of socialism would not be dependent on the good will of every individual. Society would be in a position, at least within certain limits, to determine the share of the total output to be allotted to each worker on the basis of the extent of his contribution to production. What renders socialism impracticable is precisely the fact that calculation of this kind is impossible in a socialist society. The ability to calculate a workers input into the economy would be easy. In capitalism abstract labour is the the basis of calculation and what we refer to as "value" this would be true of socialism i.e. one hour of "simple labour" is equal to anothers regardless of how much they produce. Although value ceases to exist in socialism i think abstract labour will still be the basis of accounting.


In a socialist society, where all the means of production are owned by the community, and where, consequently, there is no market and no exchange of productive goods and services, there can also be no money prices for goods and services of higher order. Such a social system would thus, of necessity, be lacking in the means for the rational management of business enterprises, viz., economic calculation. For economic calculation cannot take place in the absence of a common denominator to which all the heterogeneous goods and services can be reduced. That common denominator is the labour hour. Although there is no exchange there is accounting and it becomes all the more important in socialism as mises notes.


Let us consider a quite simple case. For the construction of a railroad from A to B several routes are conceivable. Let us suppose that a mountain stands between A and B. The railroad can be made to run over the mountain, around the mountain, or, by way of a tunnel, through the mountain. In a capitalist society, it is a very easy matter to compute which line will prove the most profitable. One ascertains the cost involved in constructing each of the three lines and the differences in operating costs necessarily incurred by the anticipated traffic on each. From these quantities it is not difficult to determine which stretch of road will be the most profitable. A socialist society could not make such calculations. For it would have no possible way of reducing to a uniform standard of measurement all the heterogeneous quantities and qualities of goods and services that here come into consideration. In the face of the ordinary, everyday problems which the management of an economy presents, a socialist society would stand helpless, for it would have no possible way of keeping its accounts. Yes there would be. Since costs of things are represented by the average labour embodied in them we would be able to determine if one route is more costly or not. The reason this railway line would be built in the first place is because workers have met in thier workers councils and have decided that their is absolute need for a railway line from A to B.


The socialist ideal, carried to its logical conclusion, would eventuate in a social order in which all the means of production were owned by the people as a whole. Production would be completely in the hands of the government, the center of power in society. This is where mises fails, if this happend then you don't have socialism, we have a minority of people who because of their relationship to the means of production constitute themselves as a class over others and basically own the means of production regardless of the propaganda they pump out and the apologists who defend it. [


It alone would determine what was to be produced and how, and in what way goods ready for consumption were to be distributed. It makes little difference whether we imagine this socialist state of the future as democratically constituted or otherwise. Even a democratic socialist state would necessarily constitute a tightly organized bureaucracy in which everyone, apart from the highest officials, though he might very well, in his capacity as a voter, have participated in some fashion in framing the directives issued by the central authority, would be in the subservient position of an administrator bound to carry them out obediently. And that's mises' problem he thinks russia = socialism. The only leadership in socialist society are workers councils which organises millions of workers to make decisions when needed. A bureaucracy would be useless since workers meet up with other workers councils to decide what must be produced.
A society which is run by workers is called syndicalism.
It is even more preposturous than socialism.

http://www.mises.com/humanaction/chap33sec1.asp

Human Action. Ludwig von Mises


1. The Syndicalist Idea


Wherein Mises explains the notion of "Eliminate the idle parasites, the entrepreneurs and capitalists, [p. 813] and give their "unearned incomes" to the workers! Nothing could be simpler."

http://www.mises.com/humanaction/chap33sec2.asp

2. The Fallacies of Syndicalism


The root of the syndicalist idea is to be seen in the belief that entrepreneurs and capitalists are irresponsible autocrats who are free to conduct their affairs arbitrarily. Such a dictatorship must not be tolerated. The liberal movement, which has substituted representative government for the despotism of hereditary kings and aristocrats, must crown its achievements by substituting "industrial democracy" for the tyranny of hereditary capitalists and entrepreneurs. The economic revolution must bring to a climax the liberation of the people which the political revolution has inaugurated.

The fundamental error of this argument is obvious. The entrepreneurs and capitalists are not irresponsible autocrats. They are unconditionally subject to the sovereignty of the consumers. The market is a consumers' democracy. The syndicalists want to transform it into a producers' democracy. This idea is fallacious, for the sole end and purpose of production is consumption.



On Mises goes to reveal why the worker controlled system will fail. The system does not appreciate that the entrepeneur is a worker too. The most important worker in satisfying the wants of consumers.

What workers committee would give meek geeky Bill Gates any serious consideration? Who would have listened to Henry Ford? The banks turned him down and no doubt the workers committee would have thought he was nuts too.

The American government has a "workers committee" with a million dollar budget working on the notion of powered flight in the early 1900's. The military gathered all the best minds from all the top universities and that 1 million would be 100 million today. Results nada, nothing, zilch, zero.

One day, two bicycle mechanic's come flying on by to show them how it was all done on the cheap using spare bicycle parts and a little ingenuity.

What "workers committee" would have given the Wright Brothers the time of day?

Bill Gates, Henry Ford and the Wright Brothers most likely would have remained silent rather than be thought the fool by the "workers committee."

Now lets talk about what workers committee would have approved the funds for Trivial Pursuit!

[The Sloth]

tigerman,

do you still think african marxists are responsible for african poverty ? can you please discuss that within the context of my private message / old post ?

[The Sloth]

oh, here's the link to the discussion:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54221

unfortunately, only one person replied.. it should be more, considering that i'm challenging a very popular notion on these boards.

[Tigerman]

The notion that all labor hours are equal needs to be addressed.


I want to reduce the arguement to a hunter/gather society.


The hunter, the spear maker and the division of labor.


In every tribe there would be the best hunter and he would occupy a position of esteem.


Spear making is also an art form. You have to pick the right rocks and strike them in such a way as to produce a point. Arrowheads are similarly produced.


This great hunter has a kill rate of three game to one against the others. Some are such poor runners that they barely ever kill anything and some couldn't hit the broadside of the cave with their spears.

No two men are equal in ability.


Perhaps the worst hunter in the group has an affinity for producing spears. He just looks at a rock and can tell if it will split into a point. Every strike he produces a good spear. Meanwhile the hunter could bang rocks together all day long and be lucky to derive a single pointy rock.


This great hunter has two more game than he or his family can use. The Spear maker has plenty of pointy rocks. Who is to say what each other values more?


What value does one place on the fact that the hunter spends all day to make one spear, then hunts like a tiger, and the fact that the spear maker spends two seconds breaking rocks, but needs two days to out run game for a kill?


This scenerio brings in just about every concievable economic arguement needed to faciltate a trade.

The first game kill is of prime importance to the hunter, he needs it to feed himself. The next kill (marginal utility) is of lesser value to the hunter and the third kill might rot before it is ever eaten, therfore being of no value.


Same with the spear maker, the first one he needs for himself to hunt with. The rest of them point rocks are of lesser value to that individual (marignal utility.)


Only the spear maker and the hunter can decide what value they attach to their surplus goods. Perhaps the spearmaker will give the hunter two point rocks for a killed game animal? Perhaps the hunter will laugh and tell the spear maker he can get 7 pointy rocks from the spear maker in the tribe accross the river. The moccasan maker will give him a pair for the animal.

The chief sticking his nose into all of this to set arbitrary trade conditions would simply make matters worse. Whoever felt taken advantage of would no longer produce. If the hunter had to trade one animal for one rock, he might just kill but two animals, eat one today and save the second for the next day when he goes spear making.

The spear maker can't eat those pointy rocks so he better get out there and start hunting.

Who's labor is worth what is best determined by the person purchasing the labor.

Labor is but another commodity to be traded for our own benefit.

The spear maker and the hunter are both better off if they use the division of labor to both put their best talents to work.

The labor hour has little to do with the value people place on goods and services.

It is what you can trade your labor hour for that is important. The more highly in demand your skill, the more you can charge for your services.

There will be more of a demand on the skill of the hunter than the skill of the spear maker. The hunter can make his own spears. The spear maker is likey to starve left to his own hunting skills. Inheriently they would both know that.

You labor is only worth what the next guy over is willing to pay for it.

[red team]

It is what you can trade your labor hour for that is important. The more highly in demand your skill, the more you can charge for your services.

There will be more of a demand on the skill of the hunter than the skill of the spear maker. The hunter can make his own spears. The spear maker is likey to starve left to his own hunting skills. Inheriently they would both know that.

You labor is only worth what the next guy over is willing to pay for it.


That's the problem. It's has all to do with will and subjective value. Fine, if you're doing straight bartering as you've got in this example, but do you know anybody now who's into making handicrafts to sell for living? :lol:

This is a rather poor excuse for an example of an economy when production doesn't take place this way for over 100 years now. There is a division of labour in which people who are willing to put something in the market doesn't know beforehand how well it's going to do and this has got nothing to do with the innate talent of the individual in anyway.

Commodities like the spear in your example are designed once by wage workers who receive a fixed wage regardless of their ingenuity (or incompetence) just like every other worker and are mass produced without knowing actual demand for what is produced. Far from your example of trade in a primitive tribal society this is a blind shot in the dark for return on investments.

Furthermore, there's no more skill involved in making a frying pan as there is in making a car. The theory behind all of these things are well known for decades now and any difference are only cosmetic changes to what is already an established product. In fact there is a conservatising effect once a business reaches a certain size as have most established businesses in the Capitalist world.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:31 PM
I understand what you mean, there was a plant discovered in malaysia that was super effective at killing the HIV virus, the problem was that they never found that tree again. Wouldn't be impossible but would require effort and funds.
scum. shut up :D

[R_P_A_S]

F*CK a cappie, its kids and its dead homies!

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 15 2006, 04:07 AM

It is what you can trade your labor hour for that is important. The more highly in demand your skill, the more you can charge for your services.

There will be more of a demand on the skill of the hunter than the skill of the spear maker. The hunter can make his own spears. The spear maker is likey to starve left to his own hunting skills. Inheriently they would both know that.

You labor is only worth what the next guy over is willing to pay for it.


That's the problem. It's has all to do with will and subjective value. Fine, if you're doing straight bartering as you've got in this example, but do you know anybody now who's into making handicrafts to sell for living? :lol:

This is a rather poor excuse for an example of an economy when production doesn't take place this way for over 100 years now. There is a division of labour in which people who are willing to put something in the market doesn't know beforehand how well it's going to do and this has got nothing to do with the innate talent of the individual in anyway.

Commodities like the spear in your example are designed once by wage workers who receive a fixed wage regardless of their ingenuity (or incompetence) just like every other worker and are mass produced without knowing actual demand for what is produced. Far from your example of trade in a primitive tribal society this is a blind shot in the dark for return on investments.

Furthermore, there's no more skill involved in making a frying pan as there is in making a car. The theory behind all of these things are well known for decades now and any difference are only cosmetic changes to what is already an established product. In fact there is a conservatising effect once a business reaches a certain size as have most established businesses in the Capitalist world.
All the dynamics of trade between two individuals have not changed over the eons. Spears most certainly never came under the title "Handicrafts." A spear would have been a necessity. Pointy sticks at first and then on we move to the stone age, the bronze age, the iron age, the industrial age and now the information age.

The spear maker is the tool maker today not the bead weaver. Though there is a place for both in a free and prosperous country.

The hunter is the farmer.


Who's labor is worth more or less today? Each has benefits and pitfalls. You have to like rural live to be a farmer. Machinists pretty well work in cities where modern day foundries are found. And rather than producing spears, they produce farm impliments. How one could "objectively" compare farm life to urban living life is beyond me. It is completly subjective whether one prefers the crowds of the city or the more mundane of rural life. Only an individual could put a price on it. Price need not be a money value. Some would just prefer to be their own bosses and work 16 hours a day to eek out a miserly wage. Those individual would likely not trade their farms for a job in the factory no matter how short the hours, how high the pay nor how strong the Union. They prefer smelling cow poop to car exaust. How do you quantify any of that?

These values are all subjective and when any one tries to put an arbitrary objective value to any of it, well, it would be easy enough to see how another man's opinion about what will bring you happiness or allivate your suffering will likely be wrong.


So far as I know, no one can predict the future.


There are probably a lot more buisnesses that start up and fail than ones that actually suceed. The workers in those failed buisnesses are compensated for their time anyway. The workers do not suffer the lost investment time and money not to mention worry that goes with getting a business off the ground. The workers did not sacrifice and save to make the dream come true, even if the dream was doomed to dust.

That is what is unappreciated by those who would like to tell the successfull how to run their business and what wages to pay their employees and what benefits those said employees must be compensated with. Those who are successful are the exception rather than the rule.


The division of labor makes for a harmonious economy where each actor can contribute the best of their skills to enhance living for the whole of the community.


The idea that there is no more skill in making a frying pan than in making a car would have surprized Henry Ford.

I'm pretty sure that given enough time, I could hammer out a frying pan from a piece of steel. That is providing I don't have to first make the steel.


Making a car would reqire just a tad more engineering than a hammer and an anvil to pound out a frying pan. Just making the drive shaft run true would take a lifetime of labor if pounded on that same anvil. Our machines are what allow for precision tooling.


Bottom line is that we are still better off to let free men decides for themselves what wages they will offer and what wages they will accpet.


Perhaps the farmer can be enticed away from the freedom he enjoys to work in the factory if the wages are high enough.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:31 PM
I understand what you mean, there was a plant discovered in malaysia that was super effective at killing the HIV virus, the problem was that they never found that tree again. Wouldn't be impossible but would require effort and funds.
But why would one suppose a socialist system would find that tree? Effort and resources do not magically vanish in a socialist world.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 02:47 PM

Capitalism solves the incentive problem inherient in communism.

How do you motivate people to go to work to benefit others?


No it doesn't. If communism fails because people don't work hard because they can't get rich than capitalism would've failed a long time ago because even when the working class works hard they never move up in class while the rich keep rising off their labor.

Besides, incentives can be incorporated into socialism. Have you heard of LTVs or Labor Time Vouchers?



Drunkeness was and still is a huge promblem in the Soviet Union.

It's worse here. Along with Divorce and probably even suicide.



That is the one advantage capitalism has over socialism. A socialist communty can exist within a capitalist country.

A true socialist society cannot..



It is capitalism that has raised the standard of living all over planet Earth by allowing those who produce to keep the fruits of their labors.

That's false. The fruits of the working class labor goes to the manager and CEO. They make all the profits and millions of dollars, while the working class cannot even buy the product they make on the wage they recieve.

And yes, in some parts of the world standards of living have increased through capitalism, but almost every there have 'communist states', the standards of living of the average person has increased.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:31 PM
becuase no one wnats to fund a cure ot HIV :lol:

Well, as a matter of fact, AID and HIV pills have become such a large money making industry thanks to capitalism, that a better pill will be more profitable than a cure.

[theraven]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Aug 17 2006, 04:29 AM--> (LeftyHenry @ Aug 17 2006, 04:29 AM)
[email protected] 13 2006, 03:31 PM
becuase no one wnats to fund a cure ot HIV :lol:

Well, as a matter of fact, AID and HIV pills have become such a large money making industry thanks to capitalism, that a better pill will be more profitable than a cure. [/b]
believe me the cure woudl make far more money

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Aug 17 2006, 04:26 AM--> (LeftyHenry @ Aug 17 2006, 04:26 AM)
[email protected] 13 2006, 02:47 PM

Capitalism solves the incentive problem inherient in communism.

How do you motivate people to go to work to benefit others?


No it doesn't. If communism fails because people don't work hard because they can't get rich than capitalism would've failed a long time ago because even when the working class works hard they never move up in class while the rich keep rising off their labor.

Besides, incentives can be incorporated into socialism. Have you heard of LTVs or Labor Time Vouchers?



Drunkeness was and still is a huge promblem in the Soviet Union.

It's worse here. Along with Divorce and probably even suicide.



That is the one advantage capitalism has over socialism. A socialist communty can exist within a capitalist country.

A true socialist society cannot..



It is capitalism that has raised the standard of living all over planet Earth by allowing those who produce to keep the fruits of their labors.

That's false. The fruits of the working class labor goes to the manager and CEO. They make all the profits and millions of dollars, while the working class cannot even buy the product they make on the wage they recieve.

And yes, in some parts of the world standards of living have increased through capitalism, but almost every there have 'communist states', the standards of living of the average person has increased. [/b]
The characteristic feature of modern capitalism is mass production of goods destined for consumption by the masses. The result is a tendency towards a continuous improvement in the average standard of living, a progressing enrichment of the many. Capitalism deproletarianizes the "common man" and elevates him to the rank of a "bourgeois."
~ Ludwig von Mises

With these words, Mises began his book, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality (1956).


The idea of a wage earner getting rich is a very real possibility in America. The fact of the matter is that as the average American ages he rises in wealth accumulation through home ownership and investments of their own choosing.


The labor theory of value does not hold water. The value of any good or service is imputed by the individual. That is called the subjective theory of value in contrast to objective theroies of values like the labor and cost of production theories.


Why is it the left does not value the labor of the manager, the CEO, the Entrepeneur and the Capitalist? Without their labor and talents the wage earner would have no or lesser employment.

Those are the workers who imagine the future, they make plans to attain their goals. It is their imputed value to future results that makes possible the beggining of the production process, which is a means to an end.

The social function of the entrepenuer is to own and adminster production properties and to provide materials, tools and direction in building values into consumer satisfactions.


It is important that this admininstrator call to his aid many persons having specific training, skills and capacity. All these persons enter an agreement to pursue the administrators goals for wages and salaries. And if the admininstrator should fail in his capacity he will lose everything with employees having first dibs on payment.


Supervision, discipline and coordination are the managers role. Not to mention the merchandising which must be successful or everybody goes home too.

Like I said there is plenty of value to the work of the entrepeneur and the manager and they ought to be compensated accordingly.

The worker has no risk of losing everything he ever worked for if the admininstrator fails to do his functions in a profitable manner. The worker goes home and loses only his employment.


I would say that any person in the western hemisohere merly has to stick their head out the window to understand how wealthy they are compared to the rest of the world. We have a high standard of living because the accumlated wealth of a couple of hundred years of propserity underpins society,

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by theraven+Aug 17 2006, 05:29 AM--> (theraven @ Aug 17 2006, 05:29 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:29 AM

[email protected] 13 2006, 03:31 PM
becuase no one wnats to fund a cure ot HIV :lol:

Well, as a matter of fact, AID and HIV pills have become such a large money making industry thanks to capitalism, that a better pill will be more profitable than a cure.
believe me the cure woudl make far more money [/b]
A cure is taken once, pills are taken everyday. A cure can't cost to much because many with HIV/AIDs have little money and wouldn't be able pay the expenses.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 06:35 AM

The characteristic feature of modern capitalism is mass production of goods destined for consumption by the masses. The result is a tendency towards a continuous improvement in the average standard of living, a progressing enrichment of the many. Capitalism deproletarianizes the "common man" and elevates him to the rank of a "bourgeois."
~ Ludwig von Mises

With these words, Mises began his book, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality (1956).

But not really because the cost of living rises with the standard. It just bumps the poverty line up a notch or two. Besides communists are not at all against mass production.



The idea of a wage earner getting rich is a very real possibility in America. The fact of the matter is that as the average American ages he rises in wealth accumulation through home ownership and investments of their own choosing.

Not really. Most working class people live hand to mouth and many times don't have enough to get by. Many 'wage earners' live in dangerous conditions where gangs roam at night and poverty is a everyday reality.


Why is it the left does not value the labor of the manager, the CEO, the Entrepeneur and the Capitalist? Without their labor and talents the wage earner would have no or lesser employment.

Because workers know what they're doing. Many have been doing the same job for 5 or 10 or 15 or more years and know their job, their workplace, and how it's run inside out. Most have been doing there job longer than any manager and know what changes can be made to make their workplace more efficient. So put the power in the worker's hand.


The social function of the entrepenuer is to own and adminster production properties and to provide materials, tools and direction in building values into consumer satisfactions.

But the workers can do this as well in a co-operative and democratic way. All that changes is that instead of the manager making all of the decisions, everyone in the workplace puts input into decision making based on statistics and personal experience.


Like I said there is plenty of value to the work of the entrepeneur and the manager and they ought to be compensated accordingly.

Well then they ought to take part in the descision making as part of the work force.

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Aug 18 2006, 04:06 AM--> (LeftyHenry @ Aug 18 2006, 04:06 AM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 06:35 AM

The characteristic feature of modern capitalism is mass production of goods destined for consumption by the masses. The result is a tendency towards a continuous improvement in the average standard of living, a progressing enrichment of the many. Capitalism deproletarianizes the "common man" and elevates him to the rank of a "bourgeois."
~ Ludwig von Mises

With these words, Mises began his book, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality (1956).

But not really because the cost of living rises with the standard. It just bumps the poverty line up a notch or two. Besides communists are not at all against mass production.



The idea of a wage earner getting rich is a very real possibility in America. The fact of the matter is that as the average American ages he rises in wealth accumulation through home ownership and investments of their own choosing.

Not really. Most working class people live hand to mouth and many times don't have enough to get by. Many 'wage earners' live in dangerous conditions where gangs roam at night and poverty is a everyday reality.


Why is it the left does not value the labor of the manager, the CEO, the Entrepeneur and the Capitalist? Without their labor and talents the wage earner would have no or lesser employment.

Because workers know what they're doing. Many have been doing the same job for 5 or 10 or 15 or more years and know their job, their workplace, and how it's run inside out. Most have been doing there job longer than any manager and know what changes can be made to make their workplace more efficient. So put the power in the worker's hand.


The social function of the entrepenuer is to own and adminster production properties and to provide materials, tools and direction in building values into consumer satisfactions.

But the workers can do this as well in a co-operative and democratic way. All that changes is that instead of the manager making all of the decisions, everyone in the workplace puts input into decision making based on statistics and personal experience.


Like I said there is plenty of value to the work of the entrepeneur and the manager and they ought to be compensated accordingly.

Well then they ought to take part in the descision making as part of the work force. [/b]
I have to learn to use the short box quote.

Cost of living rising has a lot more to do with governemt chicanery that market conditions. Inflation being the most incidious form of government theft.


Used to cost 5 cents to buy a Coke and now it cost 1 dollar and more.

That means an inflation rate of better than 95% over the last 100 years.


How would socialists know what to mass produce if there is no feedback from the market in the form of prices? Like what if the workers committee chose Linux instead of Microsoft? Makes sence doesn't it? Just produce a billion copies of Linux and the instructions to educate the people and that's that right? Wrong.

The people chose Microsoft dispite the flaws. The people chose Microsoft dispite the views of the critics. Bill Gates made their live easier with point and click and it is Bill Gates the public have grown to trust. Force the public to use an Operating System they don't understand or want to learn and you would find out just how over-rated the internet is.


Most working people live hand to mouth because they have no money handling skills. Lots of poor people enjoy instant gratification with their leisure dollars rather than suffer the wait interest would earn on any savings. And just like there is no external force that can put a grain of reason into the heads of parents who abuse their children, there are no external forces that can compel people to practice good banking skills. Those who do learn to bank properly can raise themselves out of poverty if they want to. All they need to do is to know how to read and then anything is achievable. Gangs are social sonstructs with drug prohibition being just as responsible for the Hell's Angels as Alcohol prohibition was responsible for Al Capone.


Poverty is the opposite of wealthy and is needed as a measure.

Poverty is also a subjective and a relative term.

The poorest person in America is richer than any Pharoh who ever existed just by the fact that they can go to the fridge an make a baloney sandwich that cost about ten minutes worth of their labor. The poorest person in America is wealthy by comparrison with his Mexican counterpart.

I know I'm poor because I can judge how rich Bill Gates is. He is worth about 30 billion. Spread out to the worlds 6 billion inhabitants and that $5 that everybody got would be quickly consumed. That's why wealth is best left in the hands of those who created it. Soon enough Microsoft Vista will be released and computing will become an even more fun hobby and a greater working tool.

So if Bill Gates doesn't know what he's doing why not simply open a factory across the street and sell your improvements to the public?

That is the beautiful thing about capitalism. If your idea of how to build a better mousetrap is meritorious then soon enough the consumers will beat a path to your door and the old factory will close down. You may be hiring your old commerade and now that you are the brains behind the outfit, you can pay them any amount you like and set up whatever commitee the way you want.

The power is in the workers hands so long as there are no government obsticles to that worker getting into business for themselves. Bill Gates made the right decisions when IBM makes the wrong decision. Now the people who believed that the personal computer was the way to go, well if they worked at IBM, I'm sure Bill would welcome them aboard Microsoft in a heartbeat.

The workers at General Motors decided that GM would pay for health care and give them a pension. Genral Motors is just about out of business now because they can no longer compete with the Japanese and others who are not bound by such entitlements. Do you suppose the workers at GM will surrender their benefits or watch the company go broke? Putting the power to vote yourselves largess into the hands of the people destroyed the Republic America once was. Putting the power in the hands of the people at the factory will accomplish the same result.

Bad management has destroyed many businesses. That why good managers are worth their weight in gold to a company. Good employee's are also worth their weight in gold. That's why who Bill Gates hires is very important. Not just any bozo the committee votes for will do in positions of comapny authority. You want capable people with integrity and leadership ability that can communicate with people. Those kinds of people are hard to find.

The most knowlegable person on the factory floor might be full of brilliant ideas of how to run the factory, but if his personality sucks and he has bad breath and hygiene problems then he will not be the person to inspire the rest of the employees. Better to have someone with communication skills and the ability to get the job done than to piss everybody off with the appointment of an idiot sevant to the position of authority. You'll get more work when the workers have confidence and respect for the management.


There is nothing stopping workers from pooling their money and buying whatever business they want. Most of those cooperatives go broke because there is a poor understanding of the dynamics of busniness ownership going on.

You keep insisting that somehow the collective would be making wiser decisions than the individuals who's dreams are being pursued. I don't see how that can be.

No factory comes into existance without somebody somewhere having an insight and setting out to achive a profit oriented goal.

All the workers in the world can gather in an empty lot somewhere and without a enterprise to pursue and the capital to build that enterpise with, well you have a lot of hungry people on your hands.

The entrepenuer is a much undersung hero in the grand scheme of existance.

It is the entrepenuer who commands the capital to build and provide tools and materials to work with. It is the entrpeneur who guides and decides what direction production will take. It is the entrepeneur who calulates the risks against the potential profits and makes a decision based on feedback from the market and a keen insight on what products or services will satisfy the demands of the consumers in a never ending cycle of improvements over the competition.


Like I said, if the worker want to make the decision, it should be the money of the workers at risk.

I have a big problem with me putting up all my life's meager savings to start a barber shop with a couple of chairs just to get outvoted by the people I hired who think they know better how to spend my savings.

There will only be so much money. Everyperson will have their own opinion on how any money should be spent. Suppose the company wants to advertize and the employees think Microgoofoff is a better name than Microsoft for a computer company. What if it's my money? Should the employee's decide what I will name the company?

Like I said the workers of microsoft would not likely give a geek like Bill Gates the time of day let alone listen to his plea to name the company Micorsoft.

What if the workers committee decided to write their own code instead of spending the $50,000 Bill did to get the original code he wanted?


Making the right decision at the right time is what getting rich is all about. That's why not everybody will achive wealth. Make a bad decision or two in business and you become a museam.


The decision maker is the most important person when wealth creation is the goal. That's why all those people who decide to drink, drug and dance the hoochie koo ahould not be deciding how Bill Gates will be investing his money.

[Messiah]

I feel like I just sat through one of those two hour "trade foreign currency" infomercials after that last post. Whoever it was up above that commented that Mises is essentially just using the same, old, tired "rebuttles" to the socialist altnerative except in slightly fancier language was absolutley correct. Just as you, Tigerman, are really just masutrbating to the same old myths of capitalism.

Your entire tirade comes down to this:


The decision maker is the most important person when wealth creation is the goal. That's why all those people who decide to drink, drug and dance the hoochie koo ahould not be deciding how Bill Gates will be investing his money.

In this simple excerpt we find two very common tools used by the ardent capitalists: a) the glorification of the "individual" and b) the idea that the poor are poor because the poor are lazy/dumb or any combination or the two.

Let's face reality for one second however, the market does not exist. There is simply no such thing; it is a completely invented and artificial construct. As such, to speak of the market giving "feedback" is like asking a door knob to evalute and university thesis. What does exist, however, are workers and bosses. People who create, and people who exploit. It's that simple.

The fact is, capitalism is not some great embodiment of human ingenuity. If that were the case, the greatest minds of humanity would have been the capitalists. But they weren't. They were the poor, miserable, and brilliant minds who became the artists, the scientisits, the philosophers and those who refused to see an elborate pyramid scheme as something virtueous or something to behold.

There is nothing noble about capitalism, or the capitalist. Men like Bill Gates are held up as these icons, to say that anyone, with the right idea can be like him. But the reality is, the vast, vast, vast majority of capitalisms wealth isn't created by the inventors turned industrialists. It is "created" by white, buisness men trading stocks from NYC to Tokyo. The vast majority of inventors don't become billionaires, because they get essentially cheated out of their labour by people who buy the "copyrights" from them.

Thus, libertarianism is nothing more than a pipe dream. A refusal to admit that capitalism exists and succeeds because only one cold, carnal fact. And that is that is inherently corrupt system, this institutionlization of greed is defended and propogated by the gun, through nothing more than violence.

Capitalism does not work without a state, because no rationale, thinking human being with even a shred of mental capacity would willingly work for 8 dollars an hour, for 9 hours a day, in a unsafe working conditions only to go home to a smelly one bedroom apartment in the worst part of town. It's simply a lie, there is no other way of putting it.

Capitalism is a system that fails on a daily basis. It has failed billions of people, as we speak. And this failed system only continues to exist because the people it happens to benefit also, as part of the bragain, happen to have a monopoly on all political, and physical means of power in the world.

The only definition by which capitalism can be called a success is to do precisley what Tigerman has done here. Glorify the mythical individual, the Bill Gates, the idol in the temple of gold. Glorify him because, look, look how successful he has been! It is by the same rationality that we can call rape a "successful" system; because look how pleasureable it is for the rapist!

And to top it all of, you insult and degrade the victim. The hussy who "had it coming". Why? Because if she were smarter, she wouldn't have been a rape victim/working class schmoe!

My friend, you can dress it up and call it what you will. You can read Mises, and Rand from dusk till dawn. You can go to bed everynight, resting easy, knowing that capitalism is ultimately perfect, and socialism inherently flawed. That is your right, and clearly you exersise it well.

But humanity marches on, and as slow as we are, as a species, to learn, as long as it takes us to really grasp on to an idea, we eventually do. And capitalism may reign for another day, or for another thousand years. But it's day will come, as it has so many times in the past. The only question is, when it comes crashing down next time as a result of the wise, brillaint capitalist minds of this world will the working people be ready, sufficiently educated to say "enough". Maybe, maybe not. You however can rest easy, also knowing, that everyone of us here at these boards will make sure to do our part in making the next time the last time.

[TheGreatOne]

the idea that the poor are poor because the poor are lazy/dumb or any combination or the two.

They're not necesarily poor because they're lazy or dumb. They may be lazy or dumb, but it is also possible that the work they do isn't worth very much and they would rather do that work than do something that will give them more money that they will be able to save to invest and become wealthy.


Let's face reality for one second however, the market does not exist. There is simply no such thing; it is a completely invented and artificial construct. As such, to speak of the market giving "feedback" is like asking a door knob to evalute and university thesis.

How can you claim the market doesn't exist? It may not be a physical entity, but it certainly exists. The market gives feedback in the form of consumers buying or not buying a product.



The fact is, capitalism is not some great embodiment of human ingenuity. If that were the case, the greatest minds of humanity would have been the capitalists. But they weren't. They were the poor, miserable, and brilliant minds who became the artists, the scientisits, the philosophers and those who refused to see an elborate pyramid scheme as something virtueous or something to behold.

If people like an artist's work, he will become rich. The quality of art is not a set standard, so if someone produces art that is beautiful by our standards, it would not necesarily be considered such three hundred years ago. The scientists whose discoveries helped society would certainly become famous and wealthy. Philosophers rarely do anything that can be made profitable as they just think instead of producing something that people can buy. Those who wrote books and became famous would also become wealthy.


But the reality is, the vast, vast, vast majority of capitalisms wealth isn't created by the inventors turned industrialists. It is "created" by white, buisness men trading stocks from NYC to Tokyo.

So why don't you become an stock trader? Trading stocks benefits the economy because businesses use the money that is invested in them to expand, which is beneficial to both the business and the invester.


And that is that is inherently corrupt system, this institutionlization of greed is defended and propogated by the gun, through nothing more than violence.

No one forces anyone else to participate in the system. There is no gun pointed at the heads of the workers. They work because they choose to do so. However, in communism, there would be a gun pointed at the heads of the people who did not work.


Capitalism does not work without a state, because no rationale, thinking human being with even a shred of mental capacity would willingly work for 8 dollars an hour, for 9 hours a day, in a unsafe working conditions only to go home to a smelly one bedroom apartment in the worst part of town. It's simply a lie, there is no other way of putting it.

And yet, in communism, you expect people to want to work for most of the day for the benefit of others? At least in capitalism, you are immediately rewarded for your work. In communism, you have to hope someone else has done their job in order for you to survive.


Capitalism is a system that fails on a daily basis. It has failed billions of people, as we speak. And this failed system only continues to exist because the people it happens to benefit also, as part of the bragain, happen to have a monopoly on all political, and physical means of power in the world.

Capitalism promises food on the table and a roof over the head for everyone who works. Communism cannot make this promise.


It is by the same rationality that we can call rape a "successful" system; because look how pleasureable it is for the rapist!

Wrong. The rape victim does not consent to being raped, whereas the worker consents to selling his labor for a certain price.

[theraven]

In this simple excerpt we find two very common tools used by the ardent capitalists: a) the glorification of the "individual" and b) the idea that the poor are poor because the poor are lazy/dumb or any combination or the two.

1) is there something wrong with the individual?

2) in a truely captilsit society that would be the reaosn to be poor.



Let's face reality for one second however, the market does not exist. There is simply no such thing; it is a completely invented and artificial construct. As such, to speak of the market giving "feedback" is like asking a door knob to evalute and university thesis. What does exist, however, are workers and bosses. People who create, and people who exploit. It's that simple.

all human socities are social constructs. the market is not an object it is a system, a group of humans owrkign together. the market is nto giving feedback, the humans who make up the market are.



The fact is, capitalism is not some great embodiment of human ingenuity. If that were the case, the greatest minds of humanity would have been the capitalists. But they weren't. They were the poor, miserable, and brilliant minds who became the artists, the scientisits, the philosophers and those who refused to see an elborate pyramid scheme as something virtueous or something to behold.

some of the greatest iminds in history were capitlist. edison and the wright bothers come to mind. not to mention the fact that many prominet rich men were very intellgeent. Rockefellor and carnegie were brilliant, J.P. Morgan etc. wer also brilliant. to think that genius is solely the realm of the communist is idioitc.



There is nothing noble about capitalism, or the capitalist. Men like Bill Gates are held up as these icons, to say that anyone, with the right idea can be like him. But the reality is, the vast, vast, vast majority of capitalisms wealth isn't created by the inventors turned industrialists. It is "created" by white, buisness men trading stocks from NYC to Tokyo. The vast majority of inventors don't become billionaires, because they get essentially cheated out of their labour by people who buy the "copyrights" from them.

1) what makes soemthing noble?

2) the vast majory of the wealt comes form buisnesmen, whehre thier white or brown is inconsequental. some of it is by men like warren buffet, some is like donald trump, some are like bill gates and some are like the amazon guy

3) the only inventros wo get cheated are those who wouldnt have known what to do with their invention if they had it. If I accidently invent a way to pproduce diamnds from coal but dont relieze it and de bears finds out they could easily buy it fro me for far les then tis worth.


Thus, libertarianism is nothing more than a pipe dream.

as are all pure ideolgical systesm.


A refusal to admit that capitalism exists and succeeds because only one cold, carnal fact. And that is that is inherently corrupt system, this institutionlization of greed is defended and propogated by the gun, through nothing more than violence.

wow a corrupt human civilization! theres no precednet for that. :rolleyes: do you really think that capitilsm somehow makes people corrupt. people are alaways like that whether their capitsli, socialist or tribal. all socites at thier heart are propagate dby some fear of violcince, because "if men were angels then no governmetn would be nessacary"


Capitalism does not work without a state, because no rationale, thinking human being with even a shred of mental capacity would willingly work for 8 dollars an hour, for 9 hours a day, in a unsafe working conditions only to go home to a smelly one bedroom apartment in the worst part of town. It's simply a lie, there is no other way of putting it.

well obviusly. you have to make the cost of stealing so high that people will prefer to do honest work.


Capitalism is a system that fails on a daily basis. It has failed billions of people, as we speak. And this failed system only continues to exist because the people it happens to benefit also, as part of the bragain, happen to have a monopoly on all political, and physical means of power in the world.


fails according to what crtiera?



The only definition by which capitalism can be called a success is to do precisley what Tigerman has done here. Glorify the mythical individual, the Bill Gates, the idol in the temple of gold. Glorify him because, look, look how successful he has been! It is by the same rationality that we can call rape a "successful" system; because look how pleasureable it is for the rapist!


being succesful=rapist? oook sure buddy


And to top it all of, you insult and degrade the victim. The hussy who "had it coming". Why? Because if she were smarter, she wouldn't have been a rape victim/working class schmoe!

with the differne cbeing rape is a crime against somebdoy, being succesufl is not. bill gates di dnot hurt anyone by invneting a computer system (except everyone who uses it). he didnt get rich by tricking a peaceful hunter gather society to let him mine gold under thier tribal land or ensalve millions. and he puts his money to good use, he drops a fe mil here a few mil there to charies. apparently they plan ong viing almost all thier money away.

re the rape victim/wroking class person-thats actually not a horrible compariosn. not in terms of a simialirty betwene rapist and a capitsli,t but because there are some simialrites in the victim/poor person. often (far from always) the rape happened because there was an oppurtnity. a pretty drunk girl walking down a dark ally. now if she had walked with freinds and not drank perhaps it would have bene less likely. indeed rapists aren't likely to attack groups. does this fact make the rape her fault? no, but it does mean it probably could have been avoided. similiarly poor peole can make decsios. they can buy that tv for 1000 dolars or they can put it as a down payment on a house, they can go to the techicnal college or drink all day. so on. a


My friend, you can dress it up and call it what you will. You can read Mises, and Rand from dusk till dawn. You can go to bed everynight, resting easy, knowing that capitalism is ultimately perfect, and socialism inherently flawed. That is your right, and clearly you exersise it well.


ideally both are perfect, however both invovle humans so they are flawed.

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 12:14 PM
I feel like I just sat through one of those two hour "trade foreign currency" infomercials after that last post. Whoever it was up above that commented that Mises is essentially just using the same, old, tired "rebuttles" to the socialist altnerative except in slightly fancier language was absolutley correct. Just as you, Tigerman, are really just masutrbating to the same old myths of capitalism.

Your entire tirade comes down to this:


The decision maker is the most important person when wealth creation is the goal. That's why all those people who decide to drink, drug and dance the hoochie koo ahould not be deciding how Bill Gates will be investing his money.

In this simple excerpt we find two very common tools used by the ardent capitalists: a) the glorification of the "individual" and b) the idea that the poor are poor because the poor are lazy/dumb or any combination or the two.

Let's face reality for one second however, the market does not exist. There is simply no such thing; it is a completely invented and artificial construct. As such, to speak of the market giving "feedback" is like asking a door knob to evalute and university thesis. What does exist, however, are workers and bosses. People who create, and people who exploit. It's that simple.

The fact is, capitalism is not some great embodiment of human ingenuity. If that were the case, the greatest minds of humanity would have been the capitalists. But they weren't. They were the poor, miserable, and brilliant minds who became the artists, the scientisits, the philosophers and those who refused to see an elborate pyramid scheme as something virtueous or something to behold.

There is nothing noble about capitalism, or the capitalist. Men like Bill Gates are held up as these icons, to say that anyone, with the right idea can be like him. But the reality is, the vast, vast, vast majority of capitalisms wealth isn't created by the inventors turned industrialists. It is "created" by white, buisness men trading stocks from NYC to Tokyo. The vast majority of inventors don't become billionaires, because they get essentially cheated out of their labour by people who buy the "copyrights" from them.

Thus, libertarianism is nothing more than a pipe dream. A refusal to admit that capitalism exists and succeeds because only one cold, carnal fact. And that is that is inherently corrupt system, this institutionlization of greed is defended and propogated by the gun, through nothing more than violence.

Capitalism does not work without a state, because no rationale, thinking human being with even a shred of mental capacity would willingly work for 8 dollars an hour, for 9 hours a day, in a unsafe working conditions only to go home to a smelly one bedroom apartment in the worst part of town. It's simply a lie, there is no other way of putting it.

Capitalism is a system that fails on a daily basis. It has failed billions of people, as we speak. And this failed system only continues to exist because the people it happens to benefit also, as part of the bragain, happen to have a monopoly on all political, and physical means of power in the world.

The only definition by which capitalism can be called a success is to do precisley what Tigerman has done here. Glorify the mythical individual, the Bill Gates, the idol in the temple of gold. Glorify him because, look, look how successful he has been! It is by the same rationality that we can call rape a "successful" system; because look how pleasureable it is for the rapist!

And to top it all of, you insult and degrade the victim. The hussy who "had it coming". Why? Because if she were smarter, she wouldn't have been a rape victim/working class schmoe!

My friend, you can dress it up and call it what you will. You can read Mises, and Rand from dusk till dawn. You can go to bed everynight, resting easy, knowing that capitalism is ultimately perfect, and socialism inherently flawed. That is your right, and clearly you exersise it well.

But humanity marches on, and as slow as we are, as a species, to learn, as long as it takes us to really grasp on to an idea, we eventually do. And capitalism may reign for another day, or for another thousand years. But it's day will come, as it has so many times in the past. The only question is, when it comes crashing down next time as a result of the wise, brillaint capitalist minds of this world will the working people be ready, sufficiently educated to say "enough". Maybe, maybe not. You however can rest easy, also knowing, that everyone of us here at these boards will make sure to do our part in making the next time the last time.
I am an Anarcho-Capitalist so what you are seeing is the case made for a pure market economy absent any presence of the state.

Those are unusual arguements for the left to consider as most of the debate with the right centers around the proper role of the state.


You pay me a great compliment by stating that I argue a great case. I ran in provincial eklections as a the leader of the Libertarian Party of Manitoba. I like to think I know what I'm talking about.

Examine your criticism of my posts and you will see that all your arguements are based on pure emotion.

The arguements of Ludwig von Mises are a culmination of 2000 years of Classic Liberalism dating back to Aristotle. John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith are considered the Classic Liberals.

Very few individuals are blessed with the capacity for "original thought."

Ludwig von Mises is such an individual who's insights are timeless logical and rational as well. Mises is a utilitarian and Human Action is is masterpiece. Rothbard has the advantage of understanding Mises when he begins to write and elevates the arguement from Utilitarian to Natural Rights based liberty.

But the world has rejected Mises just as much as they have rejected Marx. The world has adopted Keyensian?Galbraith/Friedman economics and given Mises short shrift.

The reason is simple enough. Marx said the State had to centraly plan it all and Mises said there is no role for the state in the economy. Keynes said the State had to Intervene in order to level out the field every now and again. It is no wonder to me the politiicans adopted the advice of Keynes and Friedman.


Incorporation, Corporate subsidies, Taxation to redistribute wealth, Fractional Reserve Banking, all that is gone under a capitalist system of governace.

Everybody is free to create all the wealth they possible can for whatever reasons are important to them.

There are but 3 choices in governance said Frederic Basitiat.


1) The few plunder the many. Socialism

2) Everybody plunders everybody. Interventionism

3) Nobody plunders anybody. Liberalism.

I have chosen route 3 because I belief it to be the only system where liberty can prevail.

One does not have to think very long to reach the conclusion that two individuals working in a cooperative effort can acomplish more work than each individual working by themselves. There are just times when you need that "third arm."


No government, just you and me dividing our labors to benefit not only us both as individuals, but the entire community as well.


Anarcho-Capitalism does not promise an easy life to anyone. You have to relieve your own discomforts and that chore is easier to accomplish if the labor is divided and directed in a goals oriented direction.


If you are of a mindset that offering employment is equilivent to raping innocents then there will be no hope of truth penetrating your thoughts.

The market does not exist? Have you ever left your home? The market is present in every exchange. This is marketplace right here, in fact the most important marketplace. We are exchanging ideas.


Prices are the feedback that is need to determine what the consumers desire.

The Market is a natural phenonema. The market just arises as a place where individuals can gather to exchange the fruits of their labor. Money is but a medium of exchange. Money allows civilization to rise above the barter system.

The "social construct" that socialism enforces is called the "common storehouse."

All labor values of the community are pooled in the storehouse and some other than the producer determines the value of that individual's input.

It's called the Furhur or "superman" priciple, the belief that one man will arise and mete out all production in a fair and equal manner. This person will have to be cut from a finer cloth than the rest of us because so far as I know there has yet to be a single perfect human being walk the face of the Earth.

What you see as the weak points of capitalism are it's strengths. Only savings can be invested for growth. Any speculated capital was first saved by someone who sacrificed instant gratification for even greater later rewards. Venture Capital should always be surplus capital since 9 out of ten ventures that start fail due to a lack of capital or badly managed capital.

A man with the most brilliant mousetrap ever dreamed of has nothing and will pass with his ideas if there is no capital to fund the venture.

Who knows how many times the lightbulb was invented before Edison paid his employees to test out thousands of combinations of elements until the right combination was found? All the people of the past with the idea did not have Menlo park and the saved capitla from previous inventions to spend on further idea development.

Greed is a human characteristic. It is one of the former seven deadly sins.

What about government greed in the form of taxes? The government is the greediest entity of them all. And it is government that controls all the fire power not the capitalists. The capitalist has only pursuasion and saved wealth as his tools of enticement. No one has to work for or assist the capitalist at all ever as they can choose to employ themselves in whatever capacity they chose rather than slave for any wage some capitalist will rape them over with.

Capitalism will work best without a State because there will be no legalized theft of the fruits of anybody's labor. No State ever adhered to the constitution powers the people granted it anyway so I have lost all faith in the notion of a state for the people by of and for the people. That is what does not and will never exist because those very same people are not digiliant enough to protect their own freedom. They absolve themselves of responsisbility at the first opportunity and soon afterwards get into the corrupting influences of having the ability to vote themselves largess.

Rational thinking human being have starved to death awaiting someone else to feed and cloth them throughout history, Rational human beings do what is in their best interests and if that means going to work for 8 dollars an hour nine hours a day in unsafe conditions then they will do so when the alternative is death or resorting to theft from others.

The rational human being will aspire to elevate themselves from the poverty they are mired in. It is no secret that education and entrepenuership are the key to improving one's lot in life.

Plenty of people have come to the Western Hemisphere not even knowing how to speak the language and they have turned their opportunities into wealth beyond their wildest dreams.

Equality of opportunity was all they needed to make their dreams come true.


So far as grasping ideas is concerned. The Furhur Principle is evident in throughout the history books. Whenever the central plan is put into effect the results are predicitable.

First, all disenters will have to be dealt with or the plan will fail.

Next, when everybody is entitled to an equal share from the storehouse, there will be no incentive to work any harder than absolutly need be. Why work like a horse when the glue factory is the only reward?

Socialism has failed humanity many many times across time and cultures. Dust is the result.


Capitalism, on the other hand has never been tried.


What you istake as Capitalism is clearly Interventionism when looked at under the microscope.

[red team]

Incorporation, Corporate subsidies, Taxation to redistribute wealth, Fractional Reserve Banking, all that is gone under a capitalist system of governace.

Sorry to disappoint you, but no sane economist now believe in a purely Capitalist system anymore except when hypocritically talking down to less powerful nations about "free trade" to gain an advantage for nationally based businesses. Nobody wants to commit economic suicide by having cut-throat, destructive competition within their own borders. That's for the targetted country.


3) Nobody plunders anybody. Liberalism.

With an abundance of unorganized labour and a scarcity of money in which to purchase the results of organized labour, which includes critical necessities, which group in society has an advantage in bargaining for the lowest wage in return for the highest amount of labour used in production?

Answer: the organizers of labour which also happens to be the group with the majority control of money. That sure looks like plundering the labour of those that have a scarcity of money which happens to be the workers.


I have chosen route 3 because I belief it to be the only system where liberty can prevail.

So do I, but relying on the scarcity of human labour as both a whip and a carrot to perform has it's limitations as we have seen in all the misery, violence and strife it has produced so far. And your solution is more of the same.


No government, just you and me dividing our labors to benefit not only us both as individuals, but the entire community as well.

Great, who has more power to set the wage of the transaction? It's a conflict of interest because every partner in a trading transaction wants to gain an advantage by offering less in return for more. In this case as in every case when notarised debts are traded for commodities including labour, the party with the most to gain and the least to lose for delaying for a better bargain has the most power to set the terms of trade in their favour. Again, not everybody wins, only the financial elite since they have the most power in setting terms of trade.


The market does not exist? Have you ever left your home? The market is present in every exchange. This is marketplace right here, in fact the most important marketplace. We are exchanging ideas.

The difference being that this market place has no advantage for either party being that debts are not needed for traded ideas. Ideas are intangible things that can be limitlessly shared with insignificant additional costs.

You're getting close to a solution, but I won't spoil it for you.

Hint: it has to do with computer technology, but for traditional political hucksters who don't see the potential of emerging new technologies to radically transform things, I don't hold out much hope.


Prices are the feedback that is need to determine what the consumers desire.

Prices are subjectively arrived at debt values for the purpose of trade. External circumstances that can be manipulated to influence the arrived at debt values are not taken into account. A good excuse for the financially powerful to be absolved of social responsibility particularly for those who have a stranglehold on the market and therefore in a position to dictate terms of trade be it labour or consumer goods.

This does not reflect true demand for things that can be produced in abundance and with minimal labour. This include most of the products made in modern industrial society.


The Market is a natural phenonema. The market just arises as a place where individuals can gather to exchange the fruits of their labor. Money is but a medium of exchange. Money allows civilization to rise above the barter system.


The "social construct" that socialism enforces is called the "common storehouse."

All labor values of the community are pooled in the storehouse and some other than the producer determines the value of that individual's input.

It's called the Furhur or "superman" priciple, the belief that one man will arise and mete out all production in a fair and equal manner. This person will have to be cut from a finer cloth than the rest of us because so far as I know there has yet to be a single perfect human being walk the face of the Earth.

Doesn't need to be. With abundance and minimal labour, demand can be self-regulating, self-balancing. Particularly with modern information and communications technology inventory and production can be placed just in time reducing the need for middlemen, salesmanship and other non-productive activities that leeches resources from actual production. Demand can simply be determined by quantity requested.

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 19 2006, 09:35 AM

Incorporation, Corporate subsidies, Taxation to redistribute wealth, Fractional Reserve Banking, all that is gone under a capitalist system of governace.

Sorry to disappoint you, but no sane economist now believe in a purely Capitalist system anymore except when hypocritically talking down to less powerful nations about "free trade" to gain an advantage for nationally based businesses. Nobody wants to commit economic suicide by having cut-throat, destructive competition within their own borders. That's for the targetted country.


3) Nobody plunders anybody. Liberalism.

With an abundance of unorganized labour and a scarcity of money in which to purchase the results of organized labour, which includes critical necessities, which group in society has an advantage in bargaining for the lowest wage in return for the highest amount of labour used in production?

Answer: the organizers of labour which also happens to be the group with the majority control of money. That sure looks like plundering the labour of those that have a scarcity of money which happens to be the workers.


I have chosen route 3 because I belief it to be the only system where liberty can prevail.

So do I, but relying on the scarcity of human labour as both a whip and a carrot to perform has it's limitations as we have seen in all the misery, violence and strife it has produced so far. And your solution is more of the same.


No government, just you and me dividing our labors to benefit not only us both as individuals, but the entire community as well.

Great, who has more power to set the wage of the transaction? It's a conflict of interest because every partner in a trading transaction wants to gain an advantage by offering less in return for more. In this case as in every case when notarised debts are traded for commodities including labour, the party with the most to gain and the least to lose for delaying for a better bargain has the most power to set the terms of trade in their favour. Again, not everybody wins, only the financial elite since they have the most power in setting terms of trade.


The market does not exist? Have you ever left your home? The market is present in every exchange. This is marketplace right here, in fact the most important marketplace. We are exchanging ideas.

The difference being that this market place has no advantage for either party being that debts are not needed for traded ideas. Ideas are intangible things that can be limitlessly shared with insignificant additional costs.

You're getting close to a solution, but I won't spoil it for you.

Hint: it has to do with computer technology, but for traditional political hucksters who don't see the potential of emerging new technologies to radically transform things, I don't hold out much hope.


Prices are the feedback that is need to determine what the consumers desire.

Prices are subjectively arrived at debt values for the purpose of trade. External circumstances that can be manipulated to influence the arrived at debt values are not taken into account. A good excuse for the financially powerful to be absolved of social responsibility particularly for those who have a stranglehold on the market and therefore in a position to dictate terms of trade be it labour or consumer goods.

This does not reflect true demand for things that can be produced in abundance and with minimal labour. This include most of the products made in modern industrial society.


The Market is a natural phenonema. The market just arises as a place where individuals can gather to exchange the fruits of their labor. Money is but a medium of exchange. Money allows civilization to rise above the barter system.


The "social construct" that socialism enforces is called the "common storehouse."

All labor values of the community are pooled in the storehouse and some other than the producer determines the value of that individual's input.

It's called the Furhur or "superman" priciple, the belief that one man will arise and mete out all production in a fair and equal manner. This person will have to be cut from a finer cloth than the rest of us because so far as I know there has yet to be a single perfect human being walk the face of the Earth.

Doesn't need to be. With abundance and minimal labour, demand can be self-regulating, self-balancing. Particularly with modern information and communications technology inventory and production can be placed just in time reducing the need for middlemen, salesmanship and other non-productive activities that leeches resources from actual production. Demand can simply be determined by quantity requested.
I'm not diappointed that you don't know about the Austrian or British Classic school of economics because every single one of those economists believe in capitalism.

Check out lewrockwell.com

Lots of University professors post their material there.

America has free trade within its border and that 200 million + strong trading block seems to prosper like no other on the planet.


Plunder needs a gun to operate. Capitalist have only money with which to entice you away from whatever it is your doing now.

I love the left......Plunder and rape of labor. When is the last time someone plindered without aggression? Women and men who are raped are aggressed against.

The capitalist sets up a factory and the "plunder and rape" victims just show up to fill out an application yet. The labor goes to the capitalist in search of employment. That is the reality. And if the applicant is hired, it is his labor that is being purchased, not the final products of which he produces. Those products are already owned by the capitalist.

How is it that all this labor has no capital? Where does capital come from? Someone has to earn and save wealth in order for there to exist investment capital. It is not the fault of the savers that the spendthrifts do not save. Little old ladies with their husbands lifelong savings in the bank is what makes the economy go round. That's where the bank gets the money to lend the Entrepeneur.

Doesn't that old lady deserve interest on her savings? The bank has to make money in order to provide a service too. You don't really believe those little old penshioned off ladies are exploiting the workers who would not have a job without the fact that she has the money saved in the bank do you? I think there is a mutual benefit to be dervied from the fact that the old ladies have money to invest and the twenty something crowd, who have not yet earned and saved any wealth, do not. The twenty somethings can choose to save their earning or they can satisfy any number of desires and wants: they can drink and drug and buy the girls drinks. Some will choose to save their money and put a down payment on a house. Soon enough two workers at the same job and same pay will not be equal at all. One will have experiance of drunkeness and women and good times and one will have $5000 in the bank.

The question begs, if the saver starts a business with his savings and wants to employee the party animal, why on earth would the party animal be entiled to own anything the saver paid for in getting a business off the ground? The saver would owe the worker a wage and that is all.

The spendthrifts ought to have the same say on how the savers spend their money as the savers had on how the spend thrift wasted their money: none, no say, nada. They are selling labor because they have no money handling skills or simply because they want to have a good time when they are young.

That saver will never be able to buy back his youth. Life is full of trade offs and it is up to the individual to decide for themselves where they will be savers or spendthrifts.

So now we know where the capitalist gets his money and why he don't owe labor anything except the agreed upon wage at which the labor will work. Every laborer has the opportunity to become a propertied citizen. A disiplined saving schedule of 10% a pay period would quickly compound. Buying shares of the company the person works for is alway an option to get in on the profits too.



Who has the "power" to set wage transaction? Well the person accepting the wage has all the power. First of all, don't ever apply for employment at the evil capitalist enterprize and you are in no danger of a capitalist ever abusing you.

It really is that simple. Create your own employment if you don't want to work for others or feel like you were raped when some capitalist pays you for the labor you did. Lot's of people do exactly that. They go into barbering, pet grooming, furnace cleaning and repair. Electricians generaly work for themselves, pipe fiters, plumbers, really, just about every trade provides for self-employment opportunities. You could even become a scavenger and reclaim garbage other toss out and you can make a living at it, lots of people do.

So what do you want from life? Others prefer to work for someone else. Selling labor means an eight hour day. I know an electrician who worked for himself for twenty years. He was always scrambling for the next job. Always giving estimates, doing the books. One day he just answered an ad in the paper and went to work for a bigger outfit. $22 an hour. He puts in an eight hour day instead of 16 now. He has more time for his kids and wife and actually gets to spend time at his cabin at the lake now. I went to high school with this person. We both hired on at the railway. He became an electrician and I became a Loco Engineer. I have railway specific skills and he bailed out for his own business when he could no longer stand the BS at CN Rail. He was very sucessful at his own business, but he was working himself to death and hiring others is a whole other ball of wax. He didn't want to abuse others by offering them a wage. But on and on that phone kept ringing and out the door he went to give estimates every night while doing the work during the day. After years of that he appreciates just putting in a eight hour day and letting someone else work the other 8 hours no matter how much money was involved or how rich he can get.

While I boozed away my career, he got married at 26 and bought his first house. By the time I sobered up at 30 years of age, broke, without a nickle after 12 years of railway employment, my chum was already buying his third house.

He built his wealth and I had the good time. Nowe he owns about 7 houses and that cabin at the lake. I'm still making payments because I squandered my youth and my opportunities too.

I was fird from the railroad for growing pot. I have railway specific skills. I should have taken the electricians apprentice trade but they paid Loco Engineers more back when I made my decision.

So I know where my chum got his wealth from. He did not drink and drug his wealth away but saved and sacrificed. He deserves his lot in life because he worked hard for it and no one gave him a nickle.

So there are always choices in employment. Fishing is a great self-employment job too. No one needs to work for another person if they do not want to.

So no one can be exploitied unless they agree to the exploitation as you would call it. An opportunity to gain wealth is what I would call that explotation. it all depends on what you do with your wealth. Acumulate it or squander it. The choice is yours. Squander it and you will likely be a wage slave for the rest of your life. Save that wealth and soon enough you will be able to do as you please, albiet, the self-employed often make a lot less money than working for others.

I was making $100,000 at CN Rail driving their trains. That was one hell of an explotation. Like I said I squandered most of it on wine women and song. Who do I really have to blame because I'm broke now and have learned economics as a hobby? I blame me.

Now I have never understood what social responsibility my Electrian freind had as as a self-employed person that I did not have as a railroad worker.

The purpose of him being in the Electrical field was to make money for himself and his family. That is the only purpose of his company. That is the only purpose of any company. Commerce is the word. These are commercial enterprizes. They are set up for the business of making money for the investors. They have no "social responsibility" because they are not persons but things; companies.

CN is two letters out of the alpha-bet. It is not a person with a social responsibility.

The buildings at Portage and Main are inert too. They have no responsibilities.

All companies are inert creation on paper. Paper has no social responsibility.

People have social responsibility and that is where the activism should rest. Get individuals to contribute to the cause no matter how it is they earned their money. Labor has a social responsibility too because labor is alway a person.

Middleman and saleman are "non-productive" in your eyes. That would go along with the savers, the entrepeneurs who has the idea and goals as well as the management. All non-pproductive.

Funny thing is that without a saver, there would be no one to purchase labor.

All labor is paid for with saved wealth. If labor had to wait for the item they worked on in the factory to sell, especially with no salesman or a poor one apointed by the committee, well, labor might just starve to death on the production line. Labor is paid regardless of sales as per contractual agreement. If the entrepeneur has to warehouse the products it is he who suffers until sales pick up. And if there are no more sales, the factory shuts down. Wierd eh!

All the labor in that factory could gather for years to come and the consumers reject the pet rocks you are manufacturing, well, how many pet rocks should you create when the public no longer buys them?

All the tools of capitalism that have been put in place by entrepeneurs looking to best their competition or keep prices down would vanish under the central planner. "Just in time?" Just in time for what? To be sold? At what price?

All that flies out the window.

Like social medicine here in Canada, you will wait for all those goods and services that are now all free. The factory just won't be able to keep up with orders.