my judgement of capitalism

[danyboy27]

so far, its been 23 year since i live in a capitalist society, there is stuff i like or dont mind about it, and there is stuff i stand against.

against:
-the destruction of hestetics trought progress. i dont know you but i sortof liked the stuff that have been manufactured in the 30s, beautiful sculpted things, there was a sense of esthetic that dosnt seem to exist anymore. it feel like capitalism always try to develop cheap things that look fat ugly.

-basics values lost their meaning in the name of economic progress. it seem that people are loosing the basic ethics and values that used to be verry important. Stuff like free speech, refuse the unnaceptable and stand against it, it seem to have dispeared. yes it does exist again, but it didnt seem that important today, honesty lost its meaning a lot, respect for elderly peoples.

for or dont mind:
-having big shot owning mean of productions. Seriously, if i am well paid and respected i dont fucking care.

-competition. then again, i dont really mind, basicly beccause it give incentive to create more.

-hard to find luxury good. i dont mind beccause somehow, luxury goods are fun when you dont have them everyday.

that my presonnal process of capitalism

[IcarusAngel]

The social situations in your "don't mind list" are some of the worst aspects of capitalism.

Having the "big shots," big wigs, or fat cats own everything essentially amounts to a form of tyranny. Big brother is no longer big government, it's big business. They are the ones destroying the creativity of architecture and limiting free-speech to the corporations. These corporations came to power before most of us were even born and thus few people ever had a "choice" in structuring them, just like most people don't have a choice in sturcturing their government (although at least in democratic governments, you can vote).

I believe in competition, but I believe in fair competition. "Competition" in capitalism is having a race where one guy starts at the starting line hundreds of yards back and the other guy starts five feet away from the finish line.

It's not even that, though. The guy five feet away wins, and the other guy starves to death.

That's capitalism - and it's sick, and it's disgusting, and it's wrong, it's morally wrong and unethical.

[#FF0000]

That's capitalism - and it's sick, and it's disgusting, and it's wrong, it's morally wrong and unethical.

Not to mention inefficient and unstable, as demonstrated by all those who starve and hunger, and the inevitable market collapses.

[Self-Owner]

Not to mention inefficient and unstable, as demonstrated by all those who starve and hunger, and the inevitable market collapses.


“It’s beautiful to see the amount and quality of food here, the choices, the possibilities. Meanwhile, people are hungry in Cuba, scraping to get by, obsessing about where they’ll find dinner. I have to be careful with all this great food. If I keep eating, I won’t be able to run anymore and I’ll get out of shape.”

–Reinier Alcántara, a Cuban soccer player who defected last week while his team was in Washington, DC., recounts (http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/soccer/general/view/2008_10_14_Cuban_soccer_player_Reinier_Alcantara_d efects__plans_to_play_pro_soccer/srvc=home&position=recent) his emotional first visit to a grocery store in the U.S.

[Trystan]

“It’s beautiful to see the amount and quality of food here, the choices, the possibilities. Meanwhile, people are hungry in Cuba, scraping to get by, obsessing about where they’ll find dinner. I have to be careful with all this great food. If I keep eating, I won’t be able to run anymore and I’ll get out of shape.”

–Reinier Alcántara, a Cuban soccer player who defected last week while his team was in Washington, DC., recounts (http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/soccer/general/view/2008_10_14_Cuban_soccer_player_Reinier_Alcantara_d efects__plans_to_play_pro_soccer/srvc=home&position=recent) his emotional first visit to a grocery store in the U.S.

The trade embargo doesn't help the place, does it?

[Pogue]

“It’s beautiful to see the amount and quality of food here, the choices, the possibilities. Meanwhile, people are hungry in Cuba, scraping to get by, obsessing about where they’ll find dinner. I have to be careful with all this great food. If I keep eating, I won’t be able to run anymore and I’ll get out of shape.”

People are hungry in Cuba because of a trade embargo imposed by the US government, the government this guy probably loves. The US government which frequently talks about human rights in Cuba, yet supports and welcomes people who hijack planes and boats in Cuba, killing many and risking the lives of more. This guy is like that horse in Animal Farm, the female one who leaves the Farm because she loves sugar lumps too much. What was her name?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

People starve in Africa and other places while at the same time Europe and America throw away tons of perfectly edible food, while also destroying food just to keep prices artificially high. Doesn't sound like a wonderful system to me.

I'm currently eating some food from a company meeting that would have simply been thrown away otherwise. The sheer amount of waste in capitalism is not only criminally unjust, but mindbogglingly stupid. We use vital and limited resources to produce food that is never eaten, crap products that nobody truly needs, and shoddy goods that have to be constantly replaced and cannot be easily repaired. That is shooting ourselves in the foot on a truly titanic scale, and I fear that not only will it come back to bite us all in the ass, I know that when it does the world's poorest and most vulnerable will suffer the most for the crimes of those who can afford to be profligate.

[Self-Owner]

People are hungry in Cuba because of a trade embargo imposed by the US government, the government this guy probably loves. The US government which frequently talks about human rights in Cuba, yet supports and welcomes people who hijack planes and boats in Cuba, killing many and risking the lives of more. This guy is like that horse in Animal Farm, the female one who leaves the Farm because she loves sugar lumps too much. What was her name?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the trade embargo or the US government. But it's funny how there's always a good excuse why socialist countries make their people go hungry (surely it can't be because of the misaligned incentives, destruction of local knowledge and inefficient techniques that centrally dictated socialist planning entails.) I guess it's just like how the Soviet Union blamed their poor agricultural performance on worse than average weather. For 40 years straight.

Edit: Suppose you're right, and Cuba is poor because of the US refusing to trade with it. What does that say about the benefits of free trade? (hint: it helps people.) Glad to hear there's such a strong free-trade contingent on Revleft though.

[danyboy27]

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the trade embargo or the US government. But it's funny how there's always a good excuse why socialist countries make their people go hungry (surely it can't be because of the misaligned incentives, destruction of local knowledge and inefficient techniques that centrally dictated socialist planning entails.) I guess it's just like how the Soviet Union blamed their poor agricultural performance on worse than average weather. For 40 years straight.

not mentionning north korea who still blame the weather for bad agricultural performances. man you made me realized that the damn excuse they use since decades!

[Plagueround]

Glad to hear there's such a strong free-trade contingent on Revleft though.

That's twice that I've seen you insinuate we're against free trade, or that you're surprised we are generally for it. How could people who want to eventually abolish all borders be against free trade? I think you have us confused with hippie liberal types. Personally, I'm against "some free trade" based on political whims and grudges.

[Drace]

Praise thy Africa. The hungry, the dead!
Love thee free market!


Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the trade embargo or the US government. But it's funny how there's always a good excuse why socialist countries make their people go hungry (surely it can't be because of the misaligned incentives, destruction of local knowledge and inefficient techniques that centrally dictated socialist planning entails.) I guess it's just like how the Soviet Union blamed their poor agricultural performance on worse than average weather. For 40 years straight.

Oh yes tsarist Russia was lot better then the Soviet Union. Not that the political system really affects production in such ways.
I'm sure Stalin engineered those famines himself. Who else would have, God? Lolz.

[Self-Owner]

Praise thy Africa. The hungry, the dead!
Love thee free market!

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Africa/images/chart-2.gif

Has it occurred to you that there's a reason the more economically free a country is, the higher the average GDP? It's not just GDP; the same sort of picture occurs when you look at poverty indicators (the graphs aren't online but check http://www.freetheworld.com/2008/EFW2008Ch2.pdf)


Oh yes tsarist Russia was lot better then the Soviet Union. Not that the political system really affects production in such ways.
I'm sure Stalin engineered those famines himself. Who else would have, God? Lolz.

I'd highly recommend you read Seeing Like A State by James Scott (himself a socialist anarchist, I believe) which documents in excruciating detail how exactly the Soviet agricultural system (in particular, during collectivisation) was a disaster waiting to happen.

[Plagueround]

Has it occurred to you that there's a reason the more economically free a country is, the higher the average GDP?

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert on economics, but just some general observations:
It's not as simple as "the freer the market, the freer the people". You have to consider willingness of trading partners (which yes, can be influenced by the economic model), available commodities, natural disasters and diseases, and many, many other factors. In the case of Africa, one of the general biggest hits to their economies was when the majority of countries became independent from imperial governments, but no one (well, maybe stormfront) is advocating they return.
Besides, GDP isn't everything and doesn't always reflect wealth distribution. Even in the US, the GDP went up for a few years but the wealth disparity (and debt) grew.

Anything I'm missing here?

[IcarusAngel]

Self-Indoctrianted basically cited a far-right organization with connections to the Fraser institute. To see how nutty the Fraser institute's members are watch the documentary "the corporation." It's the equivalent of citing the Cato Institute or the Hoover institute - obviously, these are propaganda organizations funded by big companies, they're not meant to be taken as a serious analysis.

Numerous Latin American countries have increased their GDP while at the same time, the amount of people starving to death has increased inversely.

It's also a relative sum, or zero sum game. Some countries benefit from free-market economics, not all, such as the third world countries that have their economies opened up for exploitation. Poverty in many African countries actually increased after capitalistic policies were implemented. Because the market is always in fluctuation, the poor are hurt the most after they've been "liberalized."

In short there are more poor people than ever, and this is often noted by more liberal scholars, and agian, these right-wing "think-tanks" are lobbying groups.

You also need to think about the fact that these countries were built up by fascism or nationalistic policies.

For example, they rank Hong Kong as the freest country in the world, but it has very restricted competition with the cartels forcing companies who want to keep with the oligarchs out of business or from developing land.
Corporations have an alligence to the state as well, like in Nazi germany.

And a few of the companies are even left over from the days they were colonized by the British.

So their "economic freedom indicators" are about as truthful as libertarian claims that the internet was done by private enterprise.

[pusher robot]

Anything I'm missing here?

Yes - people generally care about absolute gains, not relative ones.

[Incendiarism]

My judgment of capitalism is that I was born poor and didn't like it

[Self-Owner]

Self-Indoctrianted basically cited a far-right organization with connections to the Fraser institute. To see how nutty the Fraser institute's members are watch the documentary "the corporation." It's the equivalent of citing the Cato Institute or the Hoover institute - obviously, these are propaganda organizations funded by big companies, they're not meant to be taken as a serious analysis.

Numerous Latin American countries have increased their GDP while at the same time, the amount of people starving to death has increased inversely.

It's also a relative sum, or zero sum game. Some countries benefit from free-market economics, not all, such as the third world countries that have their economies opened up for exploitation. Poverty in many African countries actually increased after capitalistic policies were implemented. Because the market is always in fluctuation, the poor are hurt the most after they've been "liberalized."

In short there are more poor people than ever, and this is often noted by more liberal scholars, and agian, these right-wing "think-tanks" are lobbying groups.

You also need to think about the fact that these countries were built up by fascism or nationalistic policies.

For example, they rank Hong Kong as the freest country in the world, but it has very restricted competition with the cartels forcing companies who want to keep with the oligarchs out of business or from developing land.
Corporations have an alligence to the state as well, like in Nazi germany.

And a few of the companies are even left over from the days they were colonized by the British.

So their "economic freedom indicators" are about as truthful as libertarian claims that the internet was done by private enterprise.

A few fun points about your post:

1) You do realize that every time you dismiss evidence because it's 'funded by big companies' you're committing a fallacy - they even have a name for it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem). If you have a problem with economic freedom indicators (and I'm sure there are some), I'd love to hear a presentation of it. But in the meantime, it looks like you're just putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALA" because you don't like the evidence you're being told.

2) I don't think you know what inversely means.

3) There's a reason I didn't just link to GDP measures. If you check the report I linked to, and look at other measures like "number of people living on $1 a day" as correlated with economic freedom, you'll see the unsurprising fact that the more free a country is, the less poor people it has.

4) The economy is not a zero sum game. Seriously.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

If you have a problem with economic freedom indicators (and I'm sure there are some), I'd love to hear a presentation of it.
The gaping problems with those indicators are pretty obvious to anyone who takes the time to actually look into the details of what exactly they are measuring and how they measure it. Here are just a few points:

1. Economic freedom indicators - like all indicators - only compare and contrast countries and systems that exist at the present time. They might be able to prove that the system currently existing in country A is better than the one in country B, but if I don't support either of those systems, why should I care?

2. You cannot go from "X is true at the present time for countries that currently exist" to "X is always true at all times for all countries." Even if it were true that economic freedom was correlated with high GDP and a bunch of other good stuff in the year A.D. 2008, that would prove nothing about any other year. Most economic freedom indicators have only been running for 10 years or so - you expect to draw fundamental conclusions about human society after looking at a tiny period of just 10 years? And also, isn't it a convenient coincidence that the economic freedom indicators started running only after the fall of the Soviet bloc, so that data on the Soviet system is unavailable? (that's probably because your corporate friends knew that the Soviet system data would have screwed up their statistics - Eastern Europe had the lowest "economic freedom" in the world but higher standards of living than much of Asia, Africa and Latin America)

3. Contrary to what their authors claim, economic freedom indicators do not measure a country's adherence to laissez-faire. The countries with the most extensive welfare states in the world - which is to say, the Scandinavian countries and a few others in North-West Europe - apparently have some of the highest "economic freedom" scores in the world.

4. If we lived in a slave society and I took a poll to see which people were richest, it would turn out that slave owners were richer, healthier, happier, and overall better off than everyone else. Could I therefore conclude that everyone should become a slave owner? No, of course not, because slave owners were better off at the expense of everyone else. A similar argument can be made about countries: Rich countries with high economic freedom are better off at the expense of all the others.

[Demogorgon]

What does that say about the benefits of free trade? (hint: it helps people.) Glad to hear there's such a strong free-trade contingent on Revleft though.
What makes you think we are against free trade? It is perfectly fine so long as it is not being used to choke infant industries. Of course you would probably say that I am against free trade because I support protective tariffs to allow infant industries to develop and to stop already developed countries simply wiping out nascent industry in less developed countries, but I hardly think that counts as opposing it. I certainly support free trade between relatively equal countries.


Has it occurred to you that there's a reason the more economically free a country is, the higher the average GDP?
The trouble with this is that whoever is making the point gets to define what "free" is. In my experience they often simply define the richest countries as being the free ones. If we want to look at Africa, the country with the highest GDP if memory serves is Libya, I doubt even they define are going to define that as "free" given the level of state control, but the next wealthiest would be South Africa, that is usually defined as one of the most economically free in Africa, but by what measure is that being defined? South Africa has more regulation, higher taxes and so on than many other African countries, being more developed, it is able to implement them after all.

I notice that the graph you use is twisting things even further by just using sub-saharan Africa. Well it is easy to spot the richer countries there. They are the ones that are not engaged in conflict and are not ruled by warlords. That presumably is going to make it easy to classify them as "free" and hence make it easier to manipulate figures.

If we look further at these measurements on an international level, we often see Singapore being classed as one of the most economically "free" countries (if that is correct incidentally, it kind of proves economic "freedom" does not lead to political and social freedom, but I digress). However that country has about two thirds of its economy indirectly state owned, has some of the heaviest regulation in the world and, most shocking of all for those who do these surveys, a full welfare state. How do they classify it as being so "free"? The answer so far as I can see is that the figures are manipulated.
Yes - people generally care about absolute gains, not relative ones.
Hardly, as I have pointed out over and over again, relative wealth is more significant than absolute wealth so long as we are not in a condition of absolute poverty. The reason being, the effects of social stratification on society.

To illustrate though, I was reading about Ancient Rome and there was a spot of emphasis on the extraordinary wealth of Julius Caesar, by some measures, he may well have been the richest man who ever lived. But when i think about it, I may be better off than him in absolute terms. I have so many things he could never have dreamed of, electricity, computers, medicine and so forth. Am I really in a wealthier state than him though?

[Plagueround]

Yes - people generally care about absolute gains, not relative ones.

Care to explain that, or is that just another Pusher Strawman quip?

[pusher robot]

Care to explain that, or is that just another Pusher Strawman quip?

Sure.

Consider two scenarios involving two people, X and Y, and X gets to choose the scenario. Y is a person X has never met and knows nothing about.

Scenario 1: X gets $50, Y gets $200
Scenario 2: X gets $10, Y gets $10

Empirically, people placed in the position of X will choose the first scenario because $50>$10 (absolute gains), even though the ratio of $50:$200 is smaller than $10:$10 (relative gains).

[Demogorgon]

Sure.

Consider two scenarios involving two people, X and Y, and X gets to choose the scenario. Y is a person X has never met and knows nothing about.

Scenario 1: X gets $50, Y gets $200
Scenario 2: X gets $10, Y gets $10

Empirically, people placed in the position of X will choose the first scenario because $50>$10 (absolute gains), even though the ratio of $50:$200 is smaller than $10:$10 (relative gains).

Notwithstanding the fact that your argument is not relevant to society (where we are not completely independent actors that never meet), assertions like this have been heavily tested in game theory and in fact people seem to have considerable inequity aversion.

[pusher robot]

Notwithstanding the fact that your argument is not relevant to society (where we are not completely independent actors that never meet), assertions like this have been heavily tested in game theory and in fact people seem to have considerable inequity aversion.

Not that I've seen. People are willing to pay for spite, e.g., choosing the lower-paying but more equal scenario, but only when (a) the participants are aware of each other, (b) the inequality is extreme, and (c) the absolute cost is low. To demonstrate, imagine the same scenarios as I previously listed, and imagine that X would be willing to give up the $40 just to keep Y from gaining $190, out of outrage against the unfairness. Now multiply all the figures by one million. How many people do you think are really going to throw away 40 million dollars out of spite?

I am aware of the game theory experiments you refer to, but I haven't seen any where the absolute cost of non-cooperation is greater than a few bucks.

[IcarusAngel]

A few fun points about your post:

1) You do realize that every time you dismiss evidence because it's 'funded by big companies' you're committing a fallacy - they even have a name for it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem). If you have a problem with economic freedom indicators (and I'm sure there are some), I'd love to hear a presentation of it. But in the meantime, it looks like you're just putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALA" because you don't like the evidence you're being told.

First of all, it isn't an ad-hominem fallacy. An ad-hominem attack is a personal attack in place of argument.

I was merely noting the heavily biased study; noting something can nevery be a fallacy or else people wouldn't be able to discuss subjects.

Noting that this is a think tank, and a non-academic source, is indeed important and such a citation would be looked down upon in any academic setting. This is all true. And I did know the problem of it.


2) I don't think you know what inversely means.

In mathematics it means in the opposite direction, which is what it means according to the dictionary. When I say increased inversely I mean it was increasing in the opposite direction.


3) There's a reason I didn't just link to GDP measures. If you check the report I linked to, and look at other measures like "number of people living on $1 a day" as correlated with economic freedom, you'll see the unsurprising fact that the more free a country is, the less poor people it has.

Again, it's from a CATO like organization so all their numbers, and especially their opinions, are suspect. For example, while poverty decreased in many third world countries, they over look the fact that:

1. Global financial markets have led to greater sensitivity and vulnerability to market fluctuations.

2. International donors spent $300 billion in aid for sub-Saharan Africa between 1981 and 2001.

3. Over the same time frame, the number of Africans living on $1/day DOUBLED FROM 164 MILLION TO 313 MILLION.

4. The number of people living on less than one dollar a day in Africa is expected to rise to 340 million in the next four years.

Source: The World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz in The Economist World in 2006.

So the amount of people in poverty is on the increase in Africa.

Here are some other facts and figures:

Of the 6 billion people presently living on our plant, over 60% or 3.5-4 billion are in rural areas. [Poverty is on the increase.]



"In India alone, nearly 700 million people live in the villages. The rural population is increasing at a faster pace than their urban counterpart... [Poverty is on the increase.] ...mostly as a result of illiteracy, lack of access to birth control measures, and poverty. The pace of overall development in most countries does not keep up with the needs of this increasing population. The result is that there are more poor people in the world today than 50 years ago, and most live in rural areas.

"According to the U.N. and the World Bank, nearly 35% of the world population subsists on less than $1 in daily income. Over 50% live under $2 per day. [Poverty is on the increase] Depending on which of these two yardsticks is used for measuring poverty, there are 2-3 billion poor people in the world – a staggering number by any account. Poverty in India closely reflects these world statistics.


"In a country like India, the direct beneficiaries of [programs that are designed to help the poor] are the corrupt officials who manage/distribute the funds, and the landlords and powerbrokers in the villages who have the ability to extract the benefits. Over 90% of the agricultural land is owned and cultivated by less than 5% of the rural population. In most villages, almost all the cultivable land is owned by a handful of people, and the remaining land is owned by the government and by the poor. The poor are unable to use their land for agriculture for lack of water resources, poor soil conditions, and unavailability of credit. Hence, they do not stand to gain directly from any of the government programs."

"There are no easy answers. The real solution lies in the ownership and use of a permanent income generating asset by the poor: land. The poor people must be given the opportunity to own and develop land and gain the skills and capabilities necessary for cultivating high-value crops. "

-- Dr. Abraham George at Wharton School of Business
The GDP grew by 40% between the early 1970s and the late 1980s, but the number of poor people increased by about 13%.
But the wealth of only a few individuals in America equals the combined GDP of at least 48 countries, proving that inequality is on the rise.

Although the income dropped "only" for 200 million people between 1965 and 1980, more than 1 BILLION people experienced a drop from '83 to 91.

Thirty years ago people were in rich countries were 30 times better off than in the countries where the bottom 20% live. Today, that number has widened to 82 times better.


"Nearly 90 countries are worse off economically than they were 10

years ago, according to the Human Development Report 1996. This

year's report looks at the widening gaps between rich and poor

within countries and among continents. The report shows that

failing to put people at the centre of development puts brakes on

everybody's gains, in developing countries as well as

industrialized countries. The basic feature of the report, the

human development index, ranks countries on the basis of life

expectancy, education and basic purchasing power. Specific

indexes focus on detailed aspects of development, such as the

relationship between wealth, poverty and social investment,

employment, and the role of women.



* 89 countries are worse off economically than they were 10

years ago, leading to global polarization between haves and have

nots.

* No country can sustain high levels of economic growth

without a strong foundation of human development.

* Everyday, 6,000 new HIV infections occur, one every 15

seconds, and 90 per cent of those new infections are in

developing countries. HIV/AIDS sets back human development by

years in some countries.

* The very rich are getting richer. The assets of the world's

358 billionaires exceed the combined annual incomes of

countries accounting for nearly half 45 per cent of the world's

people.
"

http://www.un.org/popin/unfpa/dispatches/aug96.html





4) The economy is not a zero sum game. Seriously.


Some countries have benefitted far more than others from freer trade, increasing global economic inequality with people in the some world regions falling deeper into poverty.

Scholars call this relative and zero sum gains - especially in IR. (Google it)

This isn't a Libertarian forum, self-owner, quit passing off your ignorance as "knowledge."

[Demogorgon]

If you were to get to the level of throwing away 40 million dollars (or any significant level of money for that matter), it would no longer work as a game theory experiment because it would not simply be the two players involved. 40 million after all would be an incredible gain relevant to the rest of society and the person getting a hundred and ninety million would only be one person.

Suppose you were offered the choice of being given a substantial amount of money, but the downside would be everybody else in society would be given far more so that you would be the worst off person in the world by a long shot. Would you take it? Most people wouldn't, so certainly at the extreme people will not take an absolute gain when the price is a relative loss.

[pusher robot]

Suppose you were offered the choice of being given a substantial amount of money, but the downside would be everybody else in society would be given far more so that you would be the worst off person in the world by a long shot. Would you take it? Most people wouldn't, so certainly at the extreme people will not take an absolute gain when the price is a relative loss.

You're just changing the rules of the game, because obviously in the scenario you describe inflation would adjust the value of the dollar to the point where you would be worse off absolutely, which merely reinforces my point that people care much more about absolute gains than relative ones.

[R_P_A_S]

so far, its been 23 year since i live in a capitalist society, there is stuff i like or dont mind about it, and there is stuff i stand against.

against:
-the destruction of hestetics trought progress. i dont know you but i sortof liked the stuff that have been manufactured in the 30s, beautiful sculpted things, there was a sense of esthetic that dosnt seem to exist anymore. it feel like capitalism always try to develop cheap things that look fat ugly.

-basics values lost their meaning in the name of economic progress. it seem that people are loosing the basic ethics and values that used to be verry important. Stuff like free speech, refuse the unnaceptable and stand against it, it seem to have dispeared. yes it does exist again, but it didnt seem that important today, honesty lost its meaning a lot, respect for elderly peoples.

for or dont mind:
-having big shot owning mean of productions. Seriously, if i am well paid and respected i dont fucking care.

-competition. then again, i dont really mind, basicly beccause it give incentive to create more.

-hard to find luxury good. i dont mind beccause somehow, luxury goods are fun when you dont have them everyday.

that my presonnal process of capitalism

huh? is this an oxymoron?

[danyboy27]

huh? is this an oxymoron?

you may think that when i said i had no problem with luxury good and had a problem with crap produced everywhere was an oxymoron, but its not.


some stuff are just plain luxury like a 1923 bordeau, or a superb chair with many sculpted detail inside. other are basics items but should still be done with a minimum of esthetics and quality.

i mean look at the 20s, the item manifactured at this time used by the poor where imo better in esthetics than those crappy melamin tables. at least they where made of real wood.

[Demogorgon]

You're just changing the rules of the game, because obviously in the scenario you describe inflation would adjust the value of the dollar to the point where you would be worse off absolutely, which merely reinforces my point that people care much more about absolute gains than relative ones.
Okay, alter it so that a large amount of material goods are to be given out. You get x amount, with x being a quite reasonable amount but everybody else in the world gets 100000x. Would you be satisfied with that?

[pusher robot]

Okay, alter it so that a large amount of material goods are to be given out. You get x amount, with x being a quite reasonable amount but everybody else in the world gets 100000x. Would you be satisfied with that?

What does satisfaction have to do with it? You're asking an inappropriate question. You should be asking, would you select this over an alternative where everybody gets nothing, and I would. I would in a heartbeat. Such a global increase in prosperity means that beyond my original benefit of x, I am certain to get much more than that because the value of my labor will increase greatly as well. I also get to live an a society with public goods paid for by those who have 100000x to lavish on them. So I end up benefiting, maybe not by 100000x, but by much much more than x.