The problem with capitalism

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by pusher robot@May 30, 2007 11:18 pm

You may be able to try another company, but they might not be the same one that owns the track/road and would therefore have more trouble. Privatisation fucking sucks.

Oooh, yeah...I'm going to have to sort of...go ahead and "disagree" there

Yeah and you can go right ahead and fuck yourself. Any British member of this forum will agree with me.

. UPS, Federal Express, DHL - all of them are almost always far better for shipping than the USPS.

Sorry, what the fuck are you on about? Think Parcel Farce vs. The Post Office (or Consignia or whatever the Government meat-flaps want to call it).

For freight, privately owned rail and privately owned trucking concerns do a perfectly good job.

And for passenger services?

The privately owned Megabus can get me from city to city for US$3 or less, while it costs me more than $3 just to take a government owned-and-operated city bus from one side of the city to the other.

Yeah and B&H buses cost me £2 for a single over just a few miles. There is no cheaper govt. alternative.

And since deregulation, airline prices have gotten much cheaper even as fuel has gotten much more expensive.

And how sustainable is that, twat?

Now maybe you were talking about infrastructure and not actual transportation service, in which case you might have a point. But private transportation does a great job, at least in the U.S.

The US can lick my fucking bollocks.

[pusher robot]

Jazzratt your fucking insults are da bomb!!!!!!!!!& #33;!!!!!

Jazzrat's insults are cowardly. I've bent over backwards to be civil and show respect even to people I strongly disagree with. If he wants to poison the well of civil discourse, I can handle it, I'm a big boy. But it's not cool, it's sad.

EDIT: I know I'm setting myself up for him to respond with some blistering insult. But it would only prove my point.

[IcarusAngel]

Insults are always the lowest thing you can result to while arguing. The person who throws the most mud usually manages to distort the debate so much that whatever you were currently discussing becomes lost. This is because the person really has the options of (1) replying to the insult, or (2) ignoring the argument all together, as its fallacious. The worst kinds of insults are where you say things like "That's the way it works, if you disagree, you're a fucking idiot" because not only is it an ad-hominem attack, but you're attaching prejudicial language to it that makes it seem as if anyone who disagrees is a moron.

The last forum I was on that was nearly all insults was Protest-Warrior. But even there I don't think ever saw people actually quote someone just to encourage them to insult with lines equivalent to "yeah, call him a stupid head again." That is really stupid, even below PW.

Politics is very complex and very entangled, you have to deal with so many situations and possible outcomes it's hard to know where to even begin, but since it affects so many people, it should thus should be taken very seriously. What's interesting is when people debate Astronomy or whatever you don't have them going, "Nu uh, there are 100 billion billion stars, you fucking idiot," but instead an explanation of why that's the current prediction.

On the privatization of public utilities, it's a very hot topic, very debatable. Even the UPS versus USPS scenario. Even one man's action can help prevent the privatization of things. Anyway, while it is true that UPS is more reliable, has better contractual options and insurance, and so on, USPS is by far the cheaper service (what the market is supposed to be doing anyway, make things really cheap) and often even speedier I've found, but definitely not more reliable. Well, who benefits the most from cheap service for letters and small packages? The poor, of course. Many people can't afford the rates of UPS to send their things.

The same is true with like private rail lines versus public, as mentioned. In public transportation, you often have buses or light rail systems that have more desolated and unpopular routes and lines. For example, you might have a route that provides access to only a few people late at night, whereas if it's privatized, since they're not making a profit from that particular route they'll just shut it down. That leaves the poor people without transportation and with the options of taking a taxi-cab limousine, or something.

Well, that may make economic sense, but it doesn't really make human sense. That person might end up on welfare or without a job, unable to provide their services to anybody. In the end, then, it may not even make economic sense in regard to state spending.

That's why in political science privatization is usually called "regressive politics" and public control is called progressive, because of the private business factor.

So again, we see another issue with no easy answers and both "human yardsticks" and "economic yardsticks" can be used as measurements justifiably.

[pusher robot]

Actually, I agree that at the very bottom end there can be a role for government subsidization for "essential" services like mail and transportation. So there can be a role for government-owned and operated services. I just disagree that (1) they are always, or even often, better than privately-run companies and that (2) government-owned and operated service monopolies are practically ever useful.

And thanks for sticking up for civil discourse.

[red team]

Originally posted by pusher robot
since deregulation, airline prices have gotten much cheaper even as fuel has gotten much more expensive.

We've got this gem here that cuts through the crap goes right to exposing the operation of Capitalism itself which is only a disguised form of slavery.

If fuel has gotten much more expensive then it logically follows that only if aircraft engines have gotten much more efficient then the plane would travel the same distance given the cost of fuel to power it.

Since aircraft engines have not gotten much more efficient then it must mean that much more money must be spent on fuel for it to travel the same distance, but since the total cost in operations is much less since the customer is charged much less, unless the airline is purposely operating on loss of profit which is ridiculous, then from a much less total operating budget the increase in fuel cost must come from the lowering of other costs like equipment quality, skills training and labour costs.

That's the "efficiency" of Capitalism for you! Make it efficient for returning profits at the cost of labour compensation and product safety.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist@May 28, 2007 05:46 am
The buick of that 'accountability' stops as far as the best way of making more profit, as opposed to the interests of whoever needs your service. If I own a big company whose interests are being threatened by my competitors, I can simply buy them over giving me back my de facto monopoly and we are back to square one.

In a capitalist community, in order for you to "buy" a competitor, that competitor would need to be willing to "sell." Hence, solving the problem is not as simple as you think.

However, it is understandable, given that socialists seem to think any threat to ITS existence, can be easily disposed.

So much of socialism seems to be based upon its faulty analysis of capitalism.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by red team+May 31, 2007 04:30 am--> (red team @ May 31, 2007 04:30 am)

pusher robot

since deregulation, airline prices have gotten much cheaper even as fuel has gotten much more expensive.

We've got this gem here that cuts through the crap goes right to exposing the operation of Capitalism itself which is only a disguised form of slavery.

If fuel has gotten much more expensive then it logically follows that only if aircraft engines have gotten much more efficient then the plane would travel the same distance given the cost of fuel to power it.

Since aircraft engines have not gotten much more efficient then it must mean that much more money must be spent on fuel for it to travel the same distance, but since the total cost in operations is much less since the customer is charged much less, unless the airline is purposely operating on loss of profit which is ridiculous, then from a much less total operating budget the increase in fuel cost must come from the lowering of other costs like equipment quality, skills training and labour costs.

That's the "efficiency" of Capitalism for you! Make it efficient for returning profits at the cost of labour compensation and product safety. [/b]

Airlines never return profit, they always operate at a loss. The question is always "how great a loss."

Your analysis of the airline industry is interesting, and cuts to the chase of socialisms analysis of capitalism

1. Air traffic remains the safest mode of transportation, and accidents HAVE NOT increased as a result of airline deregulation a quarter century ago.

2. Deregulation has made it cheaper for people to use airline service, thus more people are using it (why more people travelling by air, thus able to go farther, in a shorter period of time is considered a problem for the socialist is mysterious).

3. Compensation has increased. The problem which exists are for the older carrierrs because of their needs to pay pensions, health care ect, of older and retiring employees, whereas the newer ones do not have these pressures. But of course, these problems would exist for the socialist run airline as well.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by ZX3@May 31, 2007 01:36 pm

In a capitalist community, in order for you to "buy" a competitor, that competitor would need to be willing to "sell." Hence, solving the problem is not as simple as you think.

Under Capitalism, every capitalist has his/her price. If I own a big company and you are competing against my monopoly which I view as a threat, would you not rather take X million immediately from me rather than risk making significantly less over a longer period of time?

[pusher robot]

If fuel has gotten much more expensive then it logically follows that only if aircraft engines have gotten much more efficient then the plane would travel the same distance given the cost of fuel to power it.

Yes, that's true enough.

Since aircraft engines have not gotten much more efficient then it must mean that much more money must be spent on fuel for it to travel the same distance

But that's wrong; aircraft engines have seen substantial efficiency gains over the past several decades.

but since the total cost in operations is much less since the customer is charged much less

That's wrong too. The customer is charged less because when the airlines were regulated, they could use their monopoly position to generate large profits. Now they can't. The lower prices have come directly at the expense of profits (or net income), which are currently razor-thin or nonexistent in the airline industry.

unless the airline is purposely operating on loss of profit which is ridiculous

But many do, at least for a while.

then from a much less total operating budget the increase in fuel cost must come from the lowering of other costs like equipment quality, skills training and labour costs.

You say that like lowering costs is automatically a bad thing. If you can get the same quality equipment at a lower cost, why should you prefer getting it at a higher cost? Spite? Suppose an Airbus is less expensive than an equivalent Boeing. Why shouldn't the airline buy the Airbus? By doing so, they lower their costs. Why is this a bad thing?

[Tungsten]

The thing is with private companies is they all fucking suck - look at Transport for a good example.

Well guess what- nationalised companies fucking suck too. All of them.

You may be able to try another company, but they might not be the same one that owns the track/road and would therefore have more trouble. Privatisation fucking sucks.

Having different companies owning different parts of a train track is hardly essential to privatisation.

Actually most of the stuff ran on time

Evidence, please.

and, more importantly, no one was forced to pay through the fucking nose.

Do you know what nationalisation actually *is* and where these services get their money from?

Seriously fucking show one example of how private companies are better.

I never said they provided a better service. It just means only the people using the service have to pay for it, instead of everyone.

Your pork barrel shit is only popular among a small group of libertarians,

Do you even know what pork barreling *is*?

most people like to have free stuff on demand.

Especially when they know someone else is picking up the bill. What a completely evasive response. Why did you even bother posting?

Yeah and you can go right ahead and fuck yourself. Any British member of this forum will agree with me

Most of other British members aren't even old enough to remember nationalisation. Yourself included. You've known nothing else.

Sorry, what the fuck are you on about? Think Parcel Farce vs. The Post Office (or Consignia or whatever the Government meat-flaps want to call it).

Compared to what?

Yeah and B&H buses cost me £2 for a single over just a few miles. There is no cheaper govt. alternative.

You mean you want a £2-a-mile service where you pay, say, 10 pence and everyone else who didn't use the service pays the remaining £1.90? Talk about egotisitical. How old are you?

Besides, the current public transport already is government subsidised. Nationalising it wouldn't improve it one iota.

The US can lick my fucking bollocks.

They'll have to find them first.

-

That's why in political science privatization is usually called "regressive politics" and public control is called progressive, because of the private business factor.

What's progressive/regressive about it? Academia should learn to rise above such politically-rigged dialogue. I agree with you 100% about the shit-slinging. Completely worthless.

[luxemburg89]

What Tungston and Pusher Robot fail to understand is that the OI section is just here for us to amuse ourselves, you have become our verbal punchbags. Politics is a serious business, which is why capitalism exists - it lightens the mood by being an utterly stupid system.

Pusher Robot you are a pretencious twat, and i don't really care if you think even worse of me for insulting you. The fact of the matter is that you only come on this website to try and make yourself seem better than us (you aren't doing very well btw); yet when you receive insults you cannot take it.

Besides, the current public transport already is government subsidised. Nationalising it wouldn't improve it one iota.

QUOTE
The US can lick my fucking bollocks.


They'll have to find them first.

Well, it's not like the US is very good at finding anything, *cough* Nuclear weapons in Iraq *cough*. So they obviously wouldn't finding Jazz's balls, because the US are useless at finding things.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by luxemburg89@May 31, 2007 04:50 pm
What Tungston and Pusher Robot fail to understand is that the OI section is just here for us to amuse ourselves, you have become our verbal punchbags. Politics is a serious business, which is why capitalism exists - it lightens the mood by being an utterly stupid system.

So I'm merely a means to your ends. How progressive.

[luxemburg89]

Who's in the picture Pusher Robot?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by luxemburg89@May 31, 2007 05:02 pm
Who's in the picture Pusher Robot?

My avatar is Herbert F. Kornfeld.

[luxemburg89]

thank you very much.

[Tungsten]

What Tungston and Pusher Robot fail to understand is that the OI section is just here for us to amuse ourselves, you have become our verbal punchbags.

*Chuckle*

And what do you think I'm here for? To "convert" you losers? Even if I was, most of you are less than worthless and I certanly wouldn't want you on my side anyway. Just look at the level of debate that goes on here to see what I'm talking about. *cough* Jazzrat *cough*

Don't you think I realise that no amount of exposure to reality is going to change your opinions or put a stop to any of your swivel-eyed utopian lunacy? You're no different to religious cultists and the results of your actions are pretty much the same.

Like when doomesday preachers claim the world is going to end on a certain date; when the date arrives and the world doesn't end, they don't dissappear and go home, they just make up a different date and carry on regardless. So it is with communism. If it collapses, it's state capitalism. If it doesn't work, it's never been tried. If there's a pile of corpses at the end of it, they deserved it etc.

Yeah, whatever.

[luxemburg89]

most of you are less than worthless

Well you cannot actually be less than worthless. If you are worthless you have no worth so how can you have even less worth than being worthless? Jazzratt is, in fact, a highly intelligent member of this site as I'm sure a comrade will verify in a while. You see Jazzratt's very busy, and unfortunately doesn't want to have to waste valuable typing time on you and so can only afford the simplistic brilliance of their beautifully crafted insults.

[pusher robot]

If you are worthless you have no worth so how can you have even less worth than being worthless?

Something is less than worthless if it has a negative worth. For example, a pile of rotting garbage on your lawn is less than worthless, because it's actually worth something for you to be rid of it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Tungsten@May 31, 2007 05:19 pm

What Tungston and Pusher Robot fail to understand is that the OI section is just here for us to amuse ourselves, you have become our verbal punchbags.

*Chuckle*

And what do you think I'm here for? To "convert" you losers?

See I was considering replying to the post you made in lieu of an intelligent, coherent reply but since you've pretty much admitted you're simply a troll there's no fucking point.

Even if I was, most of you are less than worthless and I certanly wouldn't want you on my side anyway. Just look at the level of debate that goes on here to see what I'm talking about. *cough* Jazzrat *cough*

I take it you often read through debates in other parts of the forums then, if you know so damn much about our debate style? The fact we're demeaning to you and your empty-headed ****frothery is because you're a bunch of retards, we have no interest in proving shit to you until you can show you're willing to learn or at least argue intelligently and coherently (like Publius) without being bloody minded and ultimately thick as shit (like wtfm8lol). Oh yes and my username has more than one 't' in it knobgoblin.

Don't you think I realise that no amount of exposure to reality is going to change your opinions or put a stop to any of your swivel-eyed utopian lunacy? You're no different to religious cultists and the results of your actions are pretty much the same.

The sad thing is you probably do think that you're trying to "enlighten" us "lunatics" with "reality". It's a shame that your reality is, plainly, a complete fantasy made up of capitalist wishful thinking and poor excuses for excesses and inefficiency. You know there are more than a few people who have argued to me that "reality" involves a big invisible wizard in the sky who will set me on fire and never put because of who I choose to make love to. I'm afraid you can't just declare your rose-tinted world-view infallible fact without a few questioning you, or requesting that you go very far away, very quickly.

Like when doomesday preachers claim the world is going to end on a certain date; when the date arrives and the world doesn't end, they don't dissappear and go home, they just make up a different date and carry on regardless. So it is with communism. If it collapses, it's state capitalism. If it doesn't work, it's never been tried. If there's a pile of corpses at the end of it, they deserved it etc.

Wait when have we done anything similar to the "date setters"? Oh wait, we haven't you're just fond of your strawman arguments.


As for the rest of your shit, it's not even worth bothering with, considering you're just a worthless troll.

Yeah, whatever.

Given that you have nothing, logically, to gain from this I suggest you fuck off and die.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by la-troy@May 26, 2007 05:52 pm
The Government will not be automatically more accountable but it stands to reason that they will. If ulster is referring to "democratic socialism" as I think he is, his argument makes sense. The governments number one aim would be to get reelected right? so they will naturally try to run these services better. A campaign on issues is always good . If the government handles the services well they will be elected. If they do not they will not be elected as the opposing party can say "look they ran your services amok"
Hence there is more accountability than say a company or a CEO that does not necessarily need the the support of the people especially when he controls a monopoly.

But I also think he has alluded to the problem with "democratic socialism" but I believe If we apply Marx's theory of permanent revolution we can avoid this.

The issue from the point of the OIers hereabouts (or at least this one) has never been that socialists wll NOT try to do better, or that they would INTENTIONALLY try to do worse. The issue has been whether socialists have the ability to do better when trying to solve problems while using their prefered (socialist) means.