Capitalism cannot work! - It is a mathamatical impossibility

[Invader Zim]

All industry is divided into 5 different subsections. I will list 3 of them below, the other two are not really relevant to this situation: -

Primary Industry = extraction of raw materials

Secondary Industry= processing of raw materials

Tertiary Industry = Providing a service (i.e. bus, shop, library, etc)


As a country develops there is a noticeable change in major industries.

Countries reach 5 stages in there growth of economic activity, these are: -

Stage 1. The traditional society, Backward economy little economic activity. Subsistence farming and no secondary/tertiary industry. (now extinct, no country i can think of in this level)

stage2. Preconditions for take-off, signs of economic activity, a little secondary activity.

stage 3. Take off, boom. Huge amount of secondary activity increasing amount of tertiary.

stage 4. Drive to maturity. Huge rise in tertiary activity, slight drop in secondary, huge drop in primary industry.

Stage 5. High mass consumption. Very little primary secondary activity, huge tertiary activity.

As a more economically developed country (MEDC) which has reached stage 5 the UK is a fine example. In the 1900's it had 54% of people employed in manufacturing. 49% in the 1950's and only 17% in 2000.

This means that Britain has a lot of recourses imported from Less Economically developed Countries (LEDC). These are usually in level 2. When they start exporting it boosts them up to level 3. At which point they rapidly rise up the ladder until they join the MEDC's. Producing very little importing huge amounts of recourses to support there lifestyle. They now gain there money by providing services to other nations. IE finance.

Primary/secondary Industry previously located in these countries moves to other LEDC's, and the process restarts. This will eventually mean that all nations reach stage 5. With huge amounts of Tertiary industry and very little production. This means that the nations will not be able to support them selves, as they will not get the materials they need, coal, oil, food, computers etc.

The global economy will crash and all countries will return to the level of stage 1-2. This is the inevitable failure the modern economic systems.

You may think what has this got to do with capitalism. Well capitalism is the catalyst for this reaction. Corporations are driven to gain profits to please the share holders. This means they attempt to find the cheapest labour possible. Stage 5 nations have high wages to support the stage 5 lifestyle. So the corporations use LEDC nations with low wages to cheaply produce the products and materials which support the stage 5. This of course boosts the economies of the LEDC's eventually making them MEDC's at stage 5.

This is a vicious circle, and proves that capitalism WILL FAIL


(Edited by AK47 at 5:21 pm on April 4, 2003)


(Edited by AK47 at 5:53 pm on April 4, 2003)

[Hegemonicretribution]

"All industry is divided into 5 different subsections. I will list 3 of them below, the other one is not really relevant to this situation: - "

That makes 4???

[Invader Zim]

hmm well spotted deliberate error number 1 found... :P hehe. No thaks i will edit now.

[chamo]

I see someone's been doing their Business Studies;)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from happyguy on 5:58 pm on April 4, 2003
I see someone's been doing their Business Studies;)

actualy no its geography... But i researched on the internet and i cant find any one saying this theory. Perhaps i should do it as my course work next year, it would be origional at least.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Sorry bout before, I had another response, just couldn't be arsed typing..

I think that as the power is held by the top countries, they will stop that problem from happening, by keeping others down.

If there was a big crash, that is perhaps when socialism can happen, why go for the same system?

The fault with capitalism is that countries CANNOT co-exist at the top. Therefore equal oppurtunities and all other problems come in.

Capitalism is failing because it is in the interests of those in power to make it, protectionist policies keep us how we are.

[Just Joe]

pretty good post there AK.

Its just one part of the failure of Capitalism. True Capitalism, that is. Basically, the politicians have two choices. Keep regulating industry until eventually, the economy is no longer even Capitalist, but a drained, bureacratic mess. Or, let things run un-regulated and watch the economy implode. Either way, the only alternative is true Socialism.

former economics student here cappies. so lets have your best shot.

[Anonymous]

that is precisly why capitalism HAS to be replaced by socialism...

[Hegemonicretribution]

I believe that free trade could be similar to anarchy (no government controls...) Just as we want the state to eventually fade in communism and in anarchy you are already there....a lot of these would be similar, Free trade=anarchy=anarchy/communism?

[chamo]

Replacing Capitalism is not just for the good of the rights of the proletariat, it is for the good of the world on an economic basis.

[Blibblob]

AK, are you a mathematical genius?

I dont see you proving Adam Smith wrong just yet. Mathematical imposibity my ass. Try his equations, they work fine.

[Just Joe]

Todays Capitalism is to Adam Smith, what Stalins Russia was to Karl Marx.

They take there theories in name only. Smith would be appalled to see todays Capitalist system.

[Blibblob]

I know that. But his equations still work. All those long equations, about how supply directly coorolates to demand, and with math behind it. You'd have to be really bored to go through and prove them all wrong.

[kelvin90701]

This is a vicious circle, and proves that capitalism WILL FAIL

(Edited by AK47 at 5:53 pm on April 4, 2003)


You "sky is falling" warning is something to take notice. It would be stupid and arrogant to simply dismiss it.

I also counter it is not going to be communism that is going to replace capitalism. The CCCP and China has already proven the theory was just a nice thought experiment, but not a viable system.

I have no doubt there will be some kind of crash. An economic one, maybe? In my life time, maybe? The history of the world is filled with the birth and death of civilization. All civilization will eventually crash, it is a cycle. When the crash does happen, I will thank God, right-wing politics, and the NRA that I will have lots of fire power.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Blibblob on 12:05 am on April 5, 2003
AK, are you a mathematical genius?

I dont see you proving Adam Smith wrong just yet. Mathematical imposibity my ass. Try his equations, they work fine.


You do not have the faintest idea about Adam Smiths theorys. John Nash proved them wrong, Karl Marx proved them wrong, Jeramy Bentham proved them Wrong, The USA boom and bust proved them wrong.

Adam smiths theorys consist under the basis that the worker goes into a free contract with the employer, this means that the employer can treat the worker like shit and get away with it. However the worker does not have to work for the employer, they in theory will just find a better employer. This means thet the poor employer will be forced to increase wages and working conditions to get workers.

In theory this is very nice however it does not work. It does not take into account the possibility that there may only be one major employer in the area. This means that the Employer has no competition they can do what they like. Also employers can work together and have set wages and conditions, so the workers can not move to another factory as they are all the same.

Laissez Faire (another of Smiths hallowed beliefs) sucks as well. To that all i say is 1920's-30's. USA boom and bust.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from kelvin90701 on 6:01 am on April 5, 2003



This is a vicious circle, and proves that capitalism WILL FAIL

(Edited by AK47 at 5:53 pm on April 4, 2003)


I also counter it is not going to be communism that is going to replace capitalism. The CCCP and China has already proven the theory was just a nice thought experiment, but not a viable system.



If you consider it not to be a viable alternative can you suggest a better solution?

[kelvin90701]

Can I propose a better system than capitalism? No, I don't pretend to be a genius of that magnitude.

Did Marx, Mao, or Lenin propose a better system than capitalism? No

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from kelvin90701 on 9:58 am on April 5, 2003


Did Marx, Mao, or Lenin propose a better system than capitalism? No

In a forum full of communists that was not a tactful thing to say... also i would have to disagree.

[Blibblob]

Nash didn't prove him wrong, he improved on it. The gaming theory doesn't throw Adam Smith in the trash can. And Marx? I don't remember Marx proving anything wrong. His works were motivational, not really any viable PROOF in them.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Quote: from AK47 on 11:18 pm on April 4, 2003
All industry is divided into 5 different subsections. I will list 3 of them below, the other two are not really relevant to this situation: -

Primary Industry = extraction of raw materials

Secondary Industry= processing of raw materials

Tertiary Industry = Providing a service (i.e. bus, shop, library, etc)


As a country develops there is a noticeable change in major industries.

Countries reach 5 stages in there growth of economic activity, these are: -

Stage 1. The traditional society, Backward economy little economic activity. Subsistence farming and no secondary/tertiary industry. (now extinct, no country i can think of in this level)

stage2. Preconditions for take-off, signs of economic activity, a little secondary activity.

stage 3. Take off, boom. Huge amount of secondary activity increasing amount of tertiary.

stage 4. Drive to maturity. Huge rise in tertiary activity, slight drop in secondary, huge drop in primary industry.

Stage 5. High mass consumption. Very little primary secondary activity, huge tertiary activity.

As a more economically developed country (MEDC) which has reached stage 5 the UK is a fine example. In the 1900's it had 54% of people employed in manufacturing. 49% in the 1950's and only 17% in 2000.

This means that Britain has a lot of recourses imported from Less Economically developed Countries (LEDC). These are usually in level 2. When they start exporting it boosts them up to level 3. At which point they rapidly rise up the ladder until they join the MEDC's. Producing very little importing huge amounts of recourses to support there lifestyle. They now gain there money by providing services to other nations. IE finance.

Primary/secondary Industry previously located in these countries moves to other LEDC's, and the process restarts. This will eventually mean that all nations reach stage 5. With huge amounts of Tertiary industry and very little production. This means that the nations will not be able to support them selves, as they will not get the materials they need, coal, oil, food, computers etc.

The global economy will crash and all countries will return to the level of stage 1-2. This is the inevitable failure the modern economic systems.

You may think what has this got to do with capitalism. Well capitalism is the catalyst for this reaction. Corporations are driven to gain profits to please the share holders. This means they attempt to find the cheapest labour possible. Stage 5 nations have high wages to support the stage 5 lifestyle. So the corporations use LEDC nations with low wages to cheaply produce the products and materials which support the stage 5. This of course boosts the economies of the LEDC's eventually making them MEDC's at stage 5.

This is a vicious circle, and proves that capitalism WILL FAIL


(Edited by AK47 at 5:21 pm on April 4, 2003)


(Edited by AK47 at 5:53 pm on April 4, 2003)

I haven't read all the responses to this thread, but I will later.

Great argument, but I have already tried this with some American cappies, and they just use the example of how America was economicaly on stage 5 before WWII, yet they produced all goods domesticaly. Today, they're still stage 5, but clearly using much external labour.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Blibblob on 6:43 pm on April 5, 2003
Nash didn't prove him wrong, he improved on it. The gaming theory doesn't throw Adam Smith in the trash can. And Marx? I don't remember Marx proving anything wrong. His works were motivational, not really any viable PROOF in them.


fine but the fact that millions are starving kind of proves it as well... But there ya go

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Victorcommie on 7:06 pm on April 5, 2003


I haven't read all the responses to this thread, but I will later.

Great argument, but I have already tried this with some American cappies, and they just use the example of how America was economicaly on stage 5 before WWII, yet they produced all goods domesticaly. Today, they're still stage 5, but clearly using much external labour.


But they were not... plus as soon as there nation was created it was on stage 4.


So using the USA as a viable nation of argument is stupid...

(Edited by AK47 at 9:29 pm on April 5, 2003)

[Blibblob]

The millions starving doesnt prove it doesnt work. It proves that it does work, just not how Smith wanted it.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Blibblob on 9:55 pm on April 5, 2003
The millions starving doesnt prove it doesnt work. It proves that it does work, just not how Smith wanted it.

DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND THE BASIC CONSEPT OF ADAM SMITHS THEORYS....

OBVIOUSLY NOT.

I have a very bad fucking head ache and i really cannot be bothered to explain basic economics to you but i will persevere.

Its basically the Laissez faire theory. Which means no government interfearance in buisness. But Smith applied it to his own theorys creating this idea: -

Adam smiths theorys consist under the basis that the worker goes into a free contract with the employer, this means that the employer can treat the worker like shit and get away with it. However the worker does not have to work for the employer, they in theory will just find a better employer. This means thet the poor employer will be forced to increase wages and working conditions to get workers.


As you can see by that theory there should be no poverty in a capitalist nation.

But there is poverty... Do i have to explain any more???

[Blibblob]

Adam smiths theorys consist under the basis that the worker goes into a free contract with the employer, this means that the employer can treat the worker like shit and get away with it. However the worker does not have to work for the employer, they in theory will just find a better employer. This means thet the poor employer will be forced to increase wages and working conditions to get workers.

That doesn't work though. People don't go to find a new employer, wages don't increase. Economists have one fatal flaw, they aren't psychologists. They don't understand how the mind works under conditions of exploitation. They only know how it works under the influence of money.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Blibblob on 10:14 pm on April 5, 2003

Adam smiths theorys consist under the basis that the worker goes into a free contract with the employer, this means that the employer can treat the worker like shit and get away with it. However the worker does not have to work for the employer, they in theory will just find a better employer. This means thet the poor employer will be forced to increase wages and working conditions to get workers.

That doesn't work though. People don't go to find a new employer, wages don't increase. Economists have one fatal flaw, they aren't psychologists. They don't understand how the mind works under conditions of exploitation. They only know how it works under the influence of money.

well done you have grasped the fact that Adam Smiths theorys dont work well done.

[Blibblob]

Holy shit, thats what I said at the begining. Capitalism works, but not Smith's capitalism.

"The millions starving doesnt prove it doesnt work. It proves that it does work, just not how Smith wanted it. "

(Edited by Blibblob at 5:52 pm on April 5, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Yes but all modern capitalism is based around his ideals. So if his ideas dont work then capitalism does not work.

[Tkinter1]

"Yes but all modern capitalism is based around his ideals. So if his ideas dont work then capitalism does not work."

Yes but all modern communism is based around Marxist ideals. So since his ideas have been proven to fail then communism must not work.

[Wolfie]

Look, Blibblob, The 'helping hand' theory proves everything Smith said in 'the weath of nations' to be wrong. Theres a thread on here explaining it i think.

[hazard]

of course capitalism cannot work

it is simply, if the capitalist are correct, a mode of production BETWEEN other modes of production. it replaced an older mode and will be replaced by a future mode. it is designed to fail.

and if the communists are right, it still fails. for it is the final mode of production prior to a communist mode.

(Edited by hazard at 2:13 pm on April 7, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 10:59 pm on April 6, 2003
"Yes but all modern capitalism is based around his ideals. So if his ideas dont work then capitalism does not work."

Yes but all modern communism is based around Marxist ideals. So since his ideas have been proven to fail then communism must not work.


true... and your point is what?

I support the idiology of Robert Owen... Which was far more realistic than the idiology of Marx.

[Tkinter1]

And who did he base his ideals off of?


(Edited by Tkinter1 at 6:58 pm on April 7, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 4:35 pm on April 7, 2003
And who did he base his ideals off of?


(Edited by Tkinter1 at 6:58 pm on April 7, 2003)




And who did he base his ideals off of?

certainly not marx... Owen published his ideas in a Book called " A New View Of Socioty" in 1813, 5 years before Marx was even born...

how amuzing...

I take it you were trying to say that Owen based his ideas on Marx's theorys?... LOL

[Tkinter1]

He is considered to be the father of modern communism.

What did you find so impressive about Owen's theories?

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 12:23 am on April 8, 2003
He is considered to be the father of modern communism.

What did you find so impressive about Owen's theories?



they are considerably more impressive than Marx's... but it would take me hours to write a full description and im lazy and cant be bothered. So you will just have to read this Link (http://robert-owen.midwales.com/rowen/index.html#Social_Reform)

Also Marx is considered the farther of modern communism but that has failed. Robert Owens views of a successful socioty failed because they became to popular... To many people not enough recorces.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from AK47 on 10:02 pm on April 5, 2003
[quote]

I have a very bad fucking head ache and i really cannot be bothered to explain basic economics to you but i will persevere.




I have heard that excuse many times and in different forms (sorry to single you out this probably belongs on another thread):

1) Here is a list of sources, go and study it
2) It is too complicated to explain
3) Your an idiot
4) More Neo-hyphanated names and theories, etc

Richard Feynman who won a noble prize in for work in sub atomic physics once said, "If you can not explain it (atomic physics) to a janitor, then you don't understand it." The same for economics, human behavior, and communism.

[Invader Zim]

Kevin i did explain the basic economics as you will see i said

I have a very bad fucking head ache and i really cannot be bothered to explain basic economics to you but i will persevere.

I then proceded to explain the flaws in Adam Smiths theorys. I did not however explain Owens theorys so i shall change that mistake and explain it now. I have however explained it in other threads, it took me about an hour of writing. And amazingly enough at the time i could not be bothered. But now i will attempt to elighten you.

Robert Owens theorys were: -

- if a child is brought up in a healthy enviroment, away from the fatorys then they will grow up to be moral upstanding people who will partisipate more in a socioty and make it better to live in for everybody.

To get this situation he believed education was necessary. In his mill he stopped all children under the age of 10 from working and sent them to school. All the other children above the age of 10 had there hours redused from 16 to 8.

- Owen also believed that if socioty is run in a "co-operative" system (basically a socialist system) then the people will be much better off. Ever person was supported and had a role in socioty and got paid a high living wage. Where food was only sold for a price just above the amount paid for it. So it was cheep for the workers. Hense the set up of the Co-operative supermarket chain. More formaly known as the co-op. (If you live in the USA i doubt you will have heard of it.)

Owen set up his ideal socioty in New Lanark in wales.

- The common belief was that the days profits in a factory were made in the last hours of the day. Owen disagreed with this. He believed that if you treat workers well then they would be better workers, more loyal, stronger (in body), more efficent and work harder to please the employer. He was proven correct. His mill was the most benevalnt in the UK to its workers and also one of the most profitable.

Owen however was not content with this. He wanted to make his theorys on the treatment of workers, and his ideas of socioty universal. The government fat cats however were not pepared to lose the intital profits which would have to be expended to create the high quality conditions for the workers.

Owen was dishartened with the situation so he went to America to see if he would be more successful there. He bought a town in indiana called Harmony. There he set up his co-operative system based on his ideals.

Both New Lanark and Harmony were very successful, both however failed. Harmony failed because Owen returned to Britain, and left the community in the hands of his son. Who was well intentioned but did not have the skills that his farther did so the system collapsed without Owens influence. However it did work successfuly for several years.

New Lanark failed because many people went to live there, after hearing of the good conditions and high pay etc. This meant that the community could not support itself. To many people not enough recorses. This meant that Owen had to buy in large amounts of food etc, to supply his people. This was a great drain on his remaining fortune (especially after the purchase of Harmony) eventualy he ran out of money and the system was abandoned.


A quote from Owen: -

"By my own experience and reflection I had ascertained that human nature is radically good, and is capable of being trained, educated and placed from birth in such manner, that all ultimately (that is as soon as the gross errors and corruptions of the present false and wicked system are overcome and destroyed) must become united, good, wise, wealthy and happy. And I felt that to attain this glorious result, the sacrifices of the character, fortune and life of an individual was not deserving a moment's consideration. And my decision was made to overcome all opposition and to succeed or die in the attempt. "