Capitalism!

[chefranden]

1. I view Rand as something like a fundamentalist religionist. She takes capitalism to its logical end -- everything I can get and screw you. Fundamentally Capitalism is about accumulating wealth and then using that wealth to accumulate even more. That ethos necessarily means exploitation of people and resources. Under capitalism a forest is meaningless until it is a pile of lumber in a lumber yard. People are meaningless except as labor to make the forest into a pile of lumber.

 

Except that it's not like that, and neither is she.

 

Bah, Humbug! You expect me to consider this an argument? "No, Jesus is really good honest!"

[chefranden]

Ok, i'll give you that, mail is a monopoly. But in the US the government is subject to it's own laws, so it can't charge whatever it wants to deliver mail.

 

You should be careful what you say to people with computers. I almost wrecked another keyboard spewing my coffee on it.

 

You did mean this as a joke right?

[Mike D]

Ok, i'll give you that, mail is a monopoly. But in the US the government is subject to it's own laws, so it can't charge whatever it wants to deliver mail.

 

You should be careful what you say to people with computers. I almost wrecked another keyboard spewing my coffee on it.

 

You did mean this as a joke right?

I understand, yesterday I spit my coffee all over my moniter in laughter while reading the "Atheism, no thanks" post by our most recent drive-by fundie, Passing Through.

 

Anyway I see your point. In an effort to keep my posts as factual as possible, i'll amend it as follows:

 

"Ok, i'll give you that, mail is a monopoly. But in the US the government is subject to it's own laws when it feels like it, so it may actually give us a break and not charge whatever it wants to deliver mail."

 

[Asimov]

Again I can't comment on Canada but here in the US for the most part there's no competition when it comes to local phone service. Same thing with cable service. There's only one cable company here and if you don't like them, tough shit, you don't get cable then. They own all the underground cable so for someone to compete the would have to build out their own infrastructure and system. I think in some local markets where there is compeition the only reason there is, is because the government stepped in an forced them to offer leases to their competetitors on the infrastructure that they themselves own.

 

Well Shaw basically owns all cable in Canada, but there is also Satellite service as an alternative. Shaw is an amazing company, though.

 

What do you need capital for? Advertising? Gas for your car to get to the gym? That's nothing.

Depends. There's also rent to use the gym. But let's say you want to open up your own gym...millions of dollars.

 

Based on what you've said here, maybe I misunderstood before. I definitely don't advocate government ownership of anything, but I do think a certain amount of regulation is needed, such as antitrust laws which prevent the formation of monopolies in the private sector.

 

Possibly, if any law is in the best interest of individuals, then it's fine. Even stating that a company can't dump toxic garbage into someones backyard is a government regulation, because it protects the rights of people.

 

Bah, Humbug! You expect me to consider this an argument? "No, Jesus is really good honest!"

 

I don't expect you to consider that an argument, I expect you to not create straw-men out of Rand's philosophy.

[Mike D]

Depends. There's also rent to use the gym. But let's say you want to open up your own gym...millions of dollars.

True, but my point was that the capital required to get into either of these lines of business is so low that it isn't cost prohibitive for others to come in and compete. Some day you might even decide to open your own gym, and I am sure you'll have no problem getting the capital for it.

[Asimov]

Depends. There's also rent to use the gym. But let's say you want to open up your own gym...millions of dollars.

True, but my point was that the capital required to get into either of these lines of business is so low that it isn't cost prohibitive for others to come in and compete. Some day you might even decide to open your own gym, and I am sure you'll have no problem getting the capital for it.

 

How did those companies with the billions of dollars of capital start out if they needed billions of dollars of capital to do it?

[Mike D]

How did those companies with the billions of dollars of capital start out if they needed billions of dollars of capital to do it?

There's really not a simple answer for this. Most companies don't start out needing a billion dollars at the time they are formed, they start out as small companies and then they expand over time through acquisition or organic growth, which they finance through debt or by raising capital. In the case of cable, there might have been smaller local or regional cable companies that later merged to form larger companies which acquired other smaller ones, and eventually were consolidated into a monopoly. A company that needs a billion in capital at one time is likely an already existing medium to large corporation that wants to expand or enter a new market, although in rare cases it could be a new company that just started up. Either way, the more money that is needed at one time, the more difficult it is to raise the capital because of factors like the availability of capital, the risk involved, market conditions, etc. Another factor in raising capital is the ROI (return on investment) relative to the risk. If you have a choice of making 8% roi on a low risk investment vs 6% on a medium risk investment, this is a no brainer, you'll go with the 8% roi on the low risk investment. Well the same considerations go into capital. If you are trying to raise capital to compete with a monopoly, you are likely entering a mature market with not much room for potential for growth outside of stealing customers from the existing monopoly, which means a lower rate of return stacked against the risks for failure which may be high. A billion $ capital investment such as this may not be an attractive investment to capitalists and likely would be avoided for better ones.

[Asimov]

So again this leads into discussion regarding US economic system (as was our entire discussion, Mike, about corporate entities).

 

I don't like using the US as an example because it's had a couple hundred years to develop the atrocity it created that we see now.

 

You're looking at the "billion dollars" from a pure US perspective. I'm trying to be more hypothetical in my application of laissez-faire.

[Mike D]

You're looking at the "billion dollars" from a pure US perspective. I'm trying to be more hypothetical in my application of laissez-faire.

Well we are talking about the US economic system in relation to raising capital. Wouldn't the process of raising a billion dollars in capital work the same in a laissez-faire economy as it is now in the US? Someone has a product or service they want to sell, they raise capital to finance the business and the investors reap the rewards. Isn' t that what capitalism is, whether US, Canada, or laissez-faire?

[Asimov]

Well we are talking about the US economic system in relation to raising capital. Wouldn't the process of raising a billion dollars in capital work the same in a laissez-faire economy as it is now in the US? Someone has a product or service they want to sell, they raise capital to finance the business and the investors reap the rewards. Isn' t that what capitalism is, whether US, Canada, or laissez-faire?

 

Not necessarily.

 

Essentially, it follows that people own property (land, goods or intellectual) through their own efforts (what they produce, purchase, or are given) and that they are free to use, sell, or distribute their property at their will. As long as no one is coerced (forced to do so) into selling or buying something they don't want, and that nobody's rights are trampled.

[Vigile]

Well we are talking about the US economic system in relation to raising capital. Wouldn't the process of raising a billion dollars in capital work the same in a laissez-faire economy as it is now in the US? Someone has a product or service they want to sell, they raise capital to finance the business and the investors reap the rewards. Isn' t that what capitalism is, whether US, Canada, or laissez-faire?

 

Not necessarily.

 

Essentially, it follows that people own property (land, goods or intellectual) through their own efforts (what they produce, purchase, or are given) and that they are free to use, sell, or distribute their property at their will. As long as no one is coerced (forced to do so) into selling or buying something they don't want, and that nobody's rights are trampled.

 

I'm not sure how your statement contradicts in any way the process that Mike described. Mike described for you the processes in which money is raised in a capitalist system. Not a US system.

[chefranden]

Essentially, it follows that people own property (land, goods or intellectual) through their own efforts (what they produce, purchase, or are given) and that they are free to use, sell, or distribute their property at their will. As long as no one is coerced (forced to do so) into selling or buying something they don't want, and that nobody's rights are trampled.

 

And what about the people that don't own property?

 

When the elected Government of Jacob Arbenz president of Guatemala tried to continue to buy uncultivated land for the landless poor, a program started by his predecessor, United Fruit complained to Eisenhower and Dulles. The CIA promptly engineered a coup that included aerial bombing of civilians that put a dictator back on the throne.

 

Explain, please, how your capitalism is fair to those who are not able to own property "though their own efforts." How are their rights protected? Or is it as I suspect; those without property have no rights in your system?

[Casey]

Would it? Unless these companies are coercing people into buying their products, monopolies couldn't occur. Since it's immoral to use coercion, I don't see why.

 

Yes, it would and it happens all the time. We're not talking about competing ice cream stands here. We are talking about industry where the winners lock up the means and the modes of production. At some point it becomes impossible for true competition to make a challenge to those who are most successful.

 

There is something here that I must have missed. With respect, are not anti-trust laws merely protectionism by another name? In the last quarter of the 19th Century, a deflation occurred. In some industries, the oil industry in particular, there were spectacular mergers. These produced economies of scale and the price of oil actually went down.

 

Now it's a commonplace that less efficient businesses in an industry, when faced with such a situation, desire to form cartels themselves in order to artificially raise prices or to keep prices at an artificially high level to compensate for their inefficiencies. However, voluntary cartels have a dismal history of failure. Other businesses will compete, and if they are more efficient than the cartel, they will be able to afford to charge lower prices and the cartel will eventually go under.

 

However where there is an anti-trust law, inefficient businesses can in effect use the Government to back up their own cartel and, by breaking up what they would call "monopolies", in many cases actually cause the opposite effect than the effect the law is supposed to produce.

 

From here:

 

People engage in fierce competition everyday. Entrepreneurs strive to create the next Microsoft, employees fight their way up the corporate ladder to become the next Donald Trump, and competitive athletes train their bodies to reach the level of a Lance Armstrong or Tiger Woods.

 

We can all appreciate the drive and spirit behind the competitive impulse, and we recognize that it yields productive gains for everyone. The primary motivation for businesses is profit, and if they are successful, they have not only served themselves but also society.

 

Yet, businesses sometimes urge the government to intervene when their competitors with the same goal pose a threat to them. This is the driving force behind antitrust legislation. The supposed purpose of antitrust is to ensure the competition necessary for a thriving market economy. In reality, it is a bludgeon used by businesses against their better-performing competitors. This is the essence of all attempts to invoke an antitrust rationale to stop mergers.

 

An example is the proposed merger of MGM Mirage and Mandalay Resort Group in Las Vegas, which would create the largest casino company in the world. This merger would give the new company control of over half the hotel rooms on "The Strip" at the most popular hotels such as MGM Grand, New York-New York, Bellagio, Treasure Island, Mirage, Mandalay Bay, Monte Carlo, Luxor, Circus Circus, and Excalibur.

 

Before it goes ahead, the merger must be cleared by the Federal Trade Commission (it is not yet on the docket). The government will probably force MGM to sell properties and holdings to meet the standard for what in their opinion constitutes fair competition. And who might favor such sales? Who might advocate delaying the merger as long as possible to prevent the emergence of a highly efficient firm dedicated to serving all consumers? The answer should be clear: lesser competitors. They are the ones with the most direct interest in the imposition of merger barriers.

 

Several local economists voiced a concern that the new company would create a monopoly that would increase hotel prices and hurt consumers. These economists, blinded by bad science, simply do not understand real competition. There is nothing wrong with one company controlling "The Strip" because they cannot force people to come to Las Vegas or stay at their hotels. Even if the hotels in this new ownership group were to charge higher prices, no one is coercing tourists to lodge at them.

 

Could we say that consumers have been "ripping off" the hotels all these years by paying the previously lower prices? In any case, higher profits always and everywhere attract new entrances into the field, which drives down profits and requires that entrepreneurs continually innovate in order to stay ahead. This innovation can take the form of higher quality and better service, but it can also mean lower prices. In fact, it is far more likely that the merger would result in lower prices, which is precisely what worries the competition.

 

A true monopoly is the government, the only entity that can use force or the threat of force to accomplish its goals. Other monopolies are businesses which have been granted a special privilege to operate by the government. The best anti-monopoly policy is one in which the government does not intervene in the affairs of business (other than enforcing property rights) and lets markets develop on their own. Adhering to flawed economic theories of efficiency and competition leads to the countless rules and regulations that hamper a true market economy—an economy based on freedom of association, property rights, and the desire to be number one.

 

Could someone explain where this reasoning goes wrong, if indeed it does?

Casey

[chefranden]

Could someone explain where this reasoning goes wrong, if indeed it does?

Casey

 

I see some flaws, but it's late I'll get to it tomorrow.

[Vigile]

Casey, I'm having a difficult time figuring out why anti trust legislation equates to protectionism. Protectionism makes industries inefficient but anti trust legislation actually creates new competition, which should create more efficiency. It seems that companies like Ma Bell, and consumers alike actually benfited from the breakup of this company that had grown so big that its efficiency curve was flattening.

[Asimov]

I'm not sure how your statement contradicts in any way the process that Mike described. Mike described for you the processes in which money is raised in a capitalist system. Not a US system.

 

You're right, sorry Mike.

[Asimov]

And what about the people that don't own property?

 

You mean nomads?

[chefranden]

People engage in fierce competition everyday. Entrepreneurs strive to create the next Microsoft, employees fight their way up the corporate ladder to become the next Donald Trump, and competitive athletes train their bodies to reach the level of a Lance Armstrong or Tiger Woods.

 

We can all appreciate the drive and spirit behind the competitive impulse, and we recognize that it yields productive gains for everyone. The primary motivation for businesses is profit, and if they are successful, they have not only served themselves but also society.

 

Yet, businesses sometimes urge the government to intervene when their competitors with the same goal pose a threat to them. This is the driving force behind antitrust legislation. The supposed purpose of antitrust is to ensure the competition necessary for a thriving market economy. In reality, it is a bludgeon used by businesses against their better-performing competitors. This is the essence of all attempts to invoke an antitrust rationale to stop mergers.

 

1. Some people engage in fierce competition everyday -- not all people. At least 3 billion people work at scraping up enough food to live for another day. Very few people get to compete with Microsoft, and an only slightly larger group gets to a point where they think that could make to the top of Trump tower and few of them make it.

 

Even if justice, economic or otherwise, is a matter of competition, present forms of competition are based on unfair advantage. IMHO, the very idea that life is about getting to be the richest guy no matter what that process does to the earth, life, and humanity is a fucked idea in the first place. It's time to think out of the Capitalistic Competition box. What if, for example, prestige and power came from how much a person gave away and did for others instead of how much a person can demand from others? How about the law of limited competition?

 

2. No, we can't all appreciate the drive to competition. Most of the world's life suffers the deadly side effects of comfort for the few. I have this theory that there is only so much comfort to go around and it is subject to entropy. An increase in comfort in one area necessarily means a decrease in another area*.

 

Elephants don't appreciate the competition. But I suppose that elephants don't count, even if their discomfort grows. People supposedly do count, except that we expect most of them to live on $2 or less a day and not let it bother them.

 

The very idea of giving corporations the status of person hood is a bludgeon that beats down the possibility of even limited competition for most people, because corporations can become super-persons that have control over governments even to the point of deciding what the governments can and will be even against the will of real people.

 

For Capitalism of what ever sect, efficiency is the holy word. Righteousness is "more gain at less cost". That means that Capitalism's congregations (corporations) must externalize as much cost as possible. Ideally the congregation would take (like the Federal Reserve) its gain with as close to zero cost as possible. The result of that effort to externalize all cost is readily evident in the abject poverty of the majority of the population, in endless war, global warming, pig farming mad elephants, dead zones, extinction of species, desertification, aquifer depletion, polluted ground water and so on and on.

 

I find that I'm against institutional religions of all stripes and that includes economic religions. There is nothing sacred about capital and even more there is nothing sacred about efficiency. It is probably past time to get the wisdom to stop being efficent and let everyone and everything have a life.

 

*the greater the salaries, bonuses, profits and rents for the financial ruling class engaged in ‘restructuring’ for M&As, the greater the decline in living standards for the working and middle class.

[Vigile]

Good post Chef with excellent points.

 

About the quote, I'm not sure what your point was. It sounds like spin written by Microsoft atty's.

[Casey]

1. Some people engage in fierce competition everyday -- not all people. At least 3 billion people work at scraping up enough food to live for another day. Very few people get to compete with Microsoft, and an only slightly larger group gets to a point where they think that could make to the top of Trump tower and few of them make it.

 

Well the 3 billion who work at scraping up enough food for another day are also competing in a sense, aren't they? I would submit the reason this is so is the perversion of capitalism. That is to say, the ever-expanding monetary systems that are now in place. When the US was established, it was established on the basis of limited Government according to the Jeffersonian principle, but that was allowed to erode away piece by piece until this age of Leviathan Government. Every time any Government anywhere has been given an increase in its power, it has never been satisfied, and this, I should say with respect, you have seen for yourself.

 

Even if justice, economic or otherwise, is a matter of competition, present forms of competition are based on unfair advantage. IMHO, the very idea that life is about getting to be the richest guy no matter what that process does to the earth, life, and humanity is a fucked idea in the first place. It's time to think out of the Capitalistic Competition box. What if, for example, prestige and power came from how much a person gave away and did for others instead of how much a person can demand from others?

 

It's not so much that capitalism is fucked as you would put it. Again, it's the monetary system that's fucked. Why is the Federal Reserve not subject to the anti-trust laws? If one looks at that particular monolith, it would seem to be a perfect example of " [a] company that ha grown so big that its efficiency curve [flat lined years ago]". Unfortunately, the Fed is the money machine that feeds the US Government and the corporations that batten on it with a limitless (or seemingly so) supply of intrinsically worthless paper.

 

However that same intrinsically worthless paper makes possible a vast transfer of wealth via inflation and credit expansion. Now since the US departed from the last shreds of the gold standard under Nixon, every other country has followed suit, and their central banks have all played the same tricks on their own people, and the misuse of that same intrinsically worthless paper has resulted in, as you rightly say, "endless war, global warming, pig farming mad elephants, dead zones, extinction of species, desertification, aquifer depletion, polluted ground water and so on and on." By the way chefranden, thank you for posting this; it puts my case rather eloquently.

 

The very idea of giving corporations the status of person hood is a bludgeon that beats down the possibility of even limited competition for most people, because corporations can become super-persons that have control over governments even to the point of deciding what the governments can and will be even against the will of real people.

 

Exactly so, and yet again, that's because of the monetary system. I dare say one would find that those corporations that pay the most tribute to the US Government via "campaign contributions" and such like, are very rarely, if ever, troubled by anti-trust laws, or any other laws for that matter. In fact, as has been said, they can use these to knock out other more efficient rivals. And if every now and then they have to pay some enormous fine to the Government, as was the case with your pig farmers, well as the drug barons would say, "Cost of doing business m'boy!" By the way, where do the fines they pay end up? Is the US Government proposing to share that one around a little? I think not.

 

Therefore, if the Fed was eliminated and the Government reduced in size to what the founding fathers intended, it might go a long way towards ending these problems you mention. Just my 2 cents worth.

Casey

[chefranden]

It's not so much that capitalism is fucked as you would put it...Therefore, if the Fed was eliminated and the Government reduced in size to what the founding fathers intended, it might go a long way towards ending these problems you mention. Just my 2 cents worth.

Casey

 

With no disrespect intended, I have to say this about that. This sounds to me just like, "well, those Christians aren't TrueChristians™.

 

The money problem is a symptom of the disease, not the disease. Even if every dollar traded were an actual gold or silver coin nothing save perhaps the speed of exploitation* would change. Money, what ever its form is not wealth any more than board-feet is a tree or even a house. Money is merely the permission slip that entitles you to a steak or porridge, a hovel or a mansion. It is the idea of needing permission to live a decent life that is the problem, not what the permission slip is.

 

There is nothing intrinsic about gold that makes it more valuable than paper or bytes when it is used as money. The idea of money is psychological smoke and mirrors. It should be no surprise that the smoke gets wispier, and mirrors less shiny. Fixing the money will do nothing. Money has been fixed many times and the fixing has never undone economic injustice.

 

*transforming everything possible into a commodity (including people) the ultimate end of which is to find a resting place in a trash heap somewhere.

[Lightbearer]

First off, let met apologize for not being on in awhile. I'm having lots of problems in the RL right now.

 

I'll address some things first in this post and get to the subject of monopolies later, because it's longer and more complicated and I have a limited time window here. But i'll say this, directly to Mike -- there is a way for laissez-faire capitalism to deal with monopolies, and the points you brought up are good and valid but as i'll explain later, there is absolutely no need or moral, legal and practical justification for anti-trust laws of any kind.

 

Now, this needs to be addressed since it generated a firestorm.

 

First Chef posted this

 

I responded by posting these three pictures --

 

 

 

 

All of which are atrocities committed by communist/socialist regimes in history and asking chef this

 

Like Asimov said, that's not what I advocate and i've stated that several times, chefranden. Look at the pictures above. Is this what you advocate, yes or no?

 

Emphasis mine.

 

Now, I got a few comments about this

 

I don't think it's accurate to state that because Chef doesn't support capitalism, he supports communism or nazism, though, if that is what you are implying.

 

and chef's response

 

Well I did answer your question as I choose to, by pointing out it's fallacious assumption. If you can't figure out if that is yes or no, it is not my look out.

No you didn't. I asked for a yes or no answer, not a smart ass attempt at an evasion. I didn't assume anything. You posted a picture which exihibits things I already explicitly stated that I don't support, so I posted some pictures too and kindly asked if you supported those. Obviously a straight and honest answer is beyond you or something. It's not a fallacious assumption at all. What I am I assuming and how is it fallacious? I didn't say "YOU SUPPORT THIS!" I asked if you did or didn't, because, I don't know how if you do or don't (can't assume something you don't know either).

 

Heres in example. You walk down the street and you see a rally of protestors arguing for or against Issue X. You walk up to the nearest person, out of curiosity and say "Do you support or not support Issue X?" the person replies "It's a fallacious assumption!"

 

You implied by your photos, that capitalism (lazy un-fair) or other wise treats people better than the systems that produced the photos. A grossly inadequate argument.

 

....

 

 

Go back and look at the poster it is plain enough. Capitalists are the people that have most of the money and most of the control, and their wealth comes from the exploitation of labor, and inequitable distribution of resourses. I have not said that having a business is necessarily being a capitalist. Capitalism is "he who has the gold makes the rules." And if you don't think that the Bushes have money and are not making the rules because of it, then you need to get out more. You don't really thing that George is President because he's the best man for the job do you?

 

Really, can you please post pictures of atrocities commited by groups attempting to establish a complete society founded laissez-faire capitalism? (Lazy un-fair? I guess you're trying to be cute but the word is french for "leave them to do", nothing to do with unfairness or laziness but everything to do with freedom, something it's opponents seem to have no respect for.) Even though capitalism has never been tried in it's best form it's still managed to free people and raised the standard of living for more people in the world then anything else, most compared to what socialism and other anti-capitalist (imperialism, tribalism, fuedalism etc) have produced.

 

Now, capitalists are people who support capitalism, or in some cases people who deal with capital goods (like bankers and stuff), but for my discussions we will use the former. The poster is nothing but Marxist propoganda, that's obvious. Everything you say after this is in the latter paragraph I quote above is again, Marxists lies, in fact, von Mises refuted Marx's exploitation theory of labor already, it's invalid. You haven't said it but you keep pointing to bad business practices as examples of capitalism, which are false, those are examples of (suprise!) bad business practices. Business = Capitalism is a Marxist fallacy and frankly chef you eat up Marxist fallacies like it's part of you daily balanced breakfast. Capitalism never says anything about whoever makes the gold rules, it says people have individual rights which are protected and not violated by anyone including that the government the people elected and voluntarily paid for. Sure the Bushes have money, but the Gates have far more and they aren't making any rules for me. The only effect Mr. Gates has on me is the fact that I use the software he and his company developed, which I greatly benefit from and I don't mind paying his company to use. And I don't think Bush is the best man for the job, that's why I didn't vote for him.

 

1. The Poster has to do with Capitalism as it is. One of many systems of exploitation of both people and the earth. Just like no argument seems to make Christianity (or other religion a good thing) no argument I've ever heard makes Capitalism a good thing.

 

2. What you don't support some sect of Capitalism? Then what are you pissed off about?

 

3. No. I didn't know there were such things. I've heard the claim in regards to some other religions, but I've never actually seen one. I'm surprised to find out that sects of Capitalism have absolutes too. Pray, name one.

 

 

1. No the poster has to do with capitalism as the Marxists want you to see it (when it was created). It's a lie, that's why its called propoganda and obviously I don't support it so posting it here makes me question why you did that in the first place and what point your were trying to make, i'll explain my point here in a second. You've never heard a good argument for capitalism because you either have never listened to one or believe to many lies and fallacies to believe a good one when you here it.

 

2. It's not a sect. It's either capitalism or not. I'm pissed about your attempts at strawmen and your constant smear tatics.

 

3. The sun will rise in the east tomorrow. That's an absolute. You either guilty or innocent of a crime, those are absolutes. You either lie or tell the truth, truth is an absolute. You're either dead or alive. Either at point A or point B. Something exists or it doesn't. A is A. These are all nice examples of absolutes.

 

The whole point I was trying to make with my pictures and the question is that it's wrong and stupid to post pictures of something hoping (or not, I don't know what your intentions were) to set up a strawman or smear the person. It wouldn't be fair if I posted those pictures and said you support them would it? That's why I asked first. If you said no then it would mean no and I and everyone else here would know where you stand when it comes to atrocities commited in the name of socialism/communism.

 

That being said, on to Woodsmokes post!

 

(1) You're making the same fallacious assumption with me as you did with Chef, LightBearer. I deliberately avoided making specific reference to any particular economic system in my post, knowing full well that doing so would lead to exactly such a response as you gave.

 

(2) I don't claim to have all or even any answers. Economics is a damn complicated topic about which I know very little, so it would be foolish of me to do so.

 

(3) What I do know, from both education and experience, is that pure capitalism in any large, modern society simply will not last. It may work for a while, but will ultimately break down just as communism did in Russia, just as fascism did in Germany, just as socialism is doing in other places, and just as capitalism has here in the U.S. Just as any "pure" system will ultimately fail in any society.

 

(4) Socialism and communism lend themselves to laziness. Capitalism lends itself to greed. Fascism and monarchy to pride, fear and hatred. Feudalism to pride and greed. There exists not a single economic system known to humanity that doesn't identify with at least one of our "base" traits.

 

(5) The reason behind this is the simplest thing in the world: human nature. We are chaotic, passionate creatures who far too often forego logic in favor of the more instinctive emotional reaction. We do things that make no sense for no good reason, reasons we forget or no reason at all. There is no structured system in existence which can accomodate for the sheer unpredictability of human behavior. There will never be a system we can't find a way to break, and once we find one you can rest assured some people will take it upon themselves to do exactly that--again, whether for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all. That's just how we humans work.

 

(6) That is why I advocate a hybrid approach, regardless of which systems one chooses to draw from for inspiration. Of course, even a mixed system is doomed to come up short in the face of human factors, but I would rather operate within a blended system which has the advantages of two or three with a minimum of the problems than a "pure" system which has all the advantages and disadvantages of one.

(I numbered your paragraphs to make it easier to address, is that okay?)

 

 

(1) Okay so I did make a bit of an assumption but I wasn't really clear on what you meant. That's why I posted the easy (did you read and understand it?) first before we got onto the whole "economic cocktail" thing. Basically, capitalism (laissez-faire) means absolutely no government intervention in the economy. Like seperation of Church and State. It's tenats or characteristics are just that, seperation of state from religion, economy, science and education. The states still there to protect you from force or fraud and uphold your individual rights. Right? It's pretty easy to place all "economic systems" into two categories based on the amount the government intervenes in the economy and the amount government upholds the rule of law and protects individual rights. My stance is that laissez-faire capitalism is the only system that does purely this and that's why it's the best, more pratical and most moral. I'll go more in depth late about how it benefits everyone who particpates in it later.

 

 

(2) Right, I don't expect you too. The only person coming remotely close to that claim around here is me. Economics is very complicated but it's like any other subject where certain theories are valid and certain theories are not and things have been proven to work, based off the data and some haven't. We need to define what "economics" is too. I prefer Reismans definition.

 

Economics has been defined in a variety of ways. In the nineteenth century it was typically defined as the science of wealth or of exchangeable wealth. In the twentieth century, it has typically been defined as the science that studies the allocation of scarce means among competing ends.

 

I define economics as the science that studies the production of wealth under a system of division of labor, that is, under a system in which the individual lives by producing, or helping to produce, just one thing or at most a very few things, and is supplied by the labor of others for the far greater part of his needs.

 

Does that help a bit?

 

(3) Your making a mistake. Unless you traveled forward in time or something then you have never seen or experience a pure capitalist society. It's never been attempted or barely even thought of. It hasn't collasped yet either, and so long as the market stays semi-free it wont because capitalism produces wealth unlike other systems which retards productions and eliminate growth (leading ultimately to a decline in the standard of living and in the case of Soviet Russia, the very value of human lives). You make a fallacy when you assume because it's pure it won't work, that's like saying because I wear shoes I will die because someone else wore shoes and died. Capitalism is contradictory to the other "pure systems" because it produces wealth and raises the standard of living and furthers human life. The other systems, like socialism, lead to death and destruction every time it's attempted.

 

(4) Capitalism lead to greed. What's wrong with greed? I mean, you can't kill someone and take their property, that's not capitalism. You have to work for what you want to trade your work for others. You can be greedy but hard-working and honest right? In fact, greed keeps us alive. If your not greedy enough to take care of yourself and value your life, where will you end up?

 

(5) Humans are rational and selfish beings. Capitalism taps into that perfectly by bringing out the best in human nature, the ability to use ones productive mind and ability to further ones life and happiness in this world. The only thing capitalism says is "Don't violate the rights of others." The rest is really up to you.

 

(6) The only problem capitalism has IS the whole mixing thing, going back to (3) about it failing, the only problem is government inteference in the economy and the culture that doesn't really support capitalism intellectually. In a way a mixing of the systems is what we have right now. We take aspects of both the free-market, and then put them together with aspects of a controlled or planned economy. Thus we have so many problems (lack of affordable housing, medical care, unemployment etc etc)

 

Capitalism makes no promises like the socialism and its utopia do. It does however give the best option and best vehicle for people to find out what to do and be able to benefit from it. Your freedom and rights are guaranteed, the rest is up to you.

 

 

 

I'd like to get to some more posts, mainly Digitalquirks objections, Mikes concerns, and Chefs lastest round of smears and strawmen but i've got no more time for tonight. If the internet works tomorrow i'll be pretty free this weekend to finish addressing things. Also, I'm not proof-reading this. Please excuse and point out any typos, it's 3:30 and that raises the probability of dumb typing quite a bit right?

 

-- Lightbearer.

[chefranden]

No you didn't. I asked for a yes or no answer, not a smart ass attempt at an evasion. I didn't assume anything. You posted a picture which exihibits things I already explicitly stated that I don't support, so I posted some pictures too and kindly asked if you supported those. Obviously a straight and honest answer is beyond you or something. It's not a fallacious assumption at all. What I am I assuming and how is it fallacious? I didn't say "YOU SUPPORT THIS!" I asked if you did or didn't, because, I don't know how if you do or don't (can't assume something you don't know either).

 

Heres in example. You walk down the street and you see a rally of protestors arguing for or against Issue X. You walk up to the nearest person, out of curiosity and say "Do you support or not support Issue X?" the person replies "It's a fallacious assumption!"

It is a fallacy to assume that because I despise one oppressive economic system, I must therefore love another kind of oppressive economic system. I don't know if you were actually a Christian or not, but you certainly have the usual all or nothing thought process

 

Again I say if you cannot deduce yes or no from my "smart assed" answer that is not my lookout. Try getting on with a real argument, instead of pursuing your hurt feelings. I already apologized for my "smart assedness" above. If that is not sufficient, then you are outa luck, 'cause that is all you are going to get.

 

Now if anyone cares to return to that post of mine they will find that there are no words saying LightBearer is for this. Now I admit that you could easily and maybe even rightly make this assumption, except that you have subsequently argued that one may not deduce anything from a posted picture. Therefore you might explain why my deduction from your pictures is fallacious while your deduction from my picture is not.

 

This request for your explanation is rhetorical not actual, since further pursuit of this matter is out of place in the coliseum, not to mention a highjack of your own thread. If you wish to pursue the matter of your honor further, PM me or start a rant about smart assed old guys in rants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You may not support these things. However these things are the logical end of Capitalism of any stripe, because some people are more mercenary than others and will not practice the accumulation of wealth fairly. But even beyond that since Capitalism is about the accumulation of wealth even relatively nice accumulators like Warren Buffet have far more control of wealth than is necessary for their and their family's well being at the expense of the many abject poor. (By the way Buffet thinks he and his class ought to be taxed far more than they are.)

 

Your favorite Capitalistic sect still calls for "government protection of property" which ultimately means armies, and police who's main function is to keep the poor in their place if they should get pissed off about working to make the man richer. It is rare to find either of these institutions protecting the poor from the rich. Of course it's true that on occasion someone like Ken Lay or Duke Cunningham get the axe for their exploitation, but that is just part of the show. The people they screwed stay screwed, and the scale of economic justice stays tip to the rich side. It is no accident that the prison populations of the world are composed mostly of the poor. It is just this that the poster I posted shows.

 

At this moment in History, Capitalism is perhaps at its apex with 2% of the population owning 80% of the wealth. That much accumulation requires a great deal of protection. At this moment in History, Capitalism is piling up its skulls in lands far from the "developed nations." These piles don't make the news, because the working class that lives in close proximity to the Capitalists must not be disturbed enough to start thinking beyond the prospects of their favorite football team. Capitalist skull piles are "collateral damage," not people, collateral problems that are somehow threating or in the way of someone's bottom line. That is the end of it, what ever your views of pure and pristine capitalism may be.

[Guest drphilosopher]

You may not support these things. However these things are the logical end of Capitalism of any stripe, because some people are more mercenary than others and will not practice the accumulation of wealth fairly. But even beyond that since Capitalism is about the accumulation of wealth even relatively nice accumulators like Warren Buffet have far more control of wealth than is necessary for their and their family's well being at the expense of the many abject poor. (By the way Buffet thinks he and his class ought to be taxed far more than they are.)

 

(1) It is false that Warren Buffet's wealth was obtained at the expense of the poor. His business activity probably helped to make the poor better off.

 

(2) If Warren Buffet thinks he should be taxed more, let him donate his wealth to the government.

 

Your favorite Capitalistic sect still calls for "government protection of property" which ultimately means armies, and police who's main function is to keep the poor in their place if they should get pissed off about working to make the man richer. It is rare to find either of these institutions protecting the poor from the rich.

 

That is false. The nominal goal of most government policies is to help the poor.

 

It is no accident that the prison populations of the world are composed mostly of the poor.

 

Criminals are generally poor.

 

At this moment in History, Capitalism is piling up its skulls in lands far from the "developed nations."

 

Give specific examples or quit smearing capitalism.

 

Darrell

[Guest drphilosopher]

1. Some people engage in fierce competition everyday -- not all people. At least 3 billion people work at scraping up enough food to live for another day. Very few people get to compete with Microsoft, and an only slightly larger group gets to a point where they think that could make to the top of Trump tower and few of them make it.

 

Do those 3 billion people live in capitalist countries? I didn't think so.

 

Even if justice, economic or otherwise, is a matter of competition, present forms of competition are based on unfair advantage. IMHO, the very idea that life is about getting to be the richest guy no matter what that process does to the earth, life, and humanity is a fucked idea in the first place. It's time to think out of the Capitalistic Competition box. What if, for example, prestige and power came from how much a person gave away and did for others instead of how much a person can demand from others? How about the law of limited competition?

 

The corruption of U.S. society today is a result of the fact that prestige and power do come from how much a person gave away and did for others rather than real virtues such as the ability to build honest wealth.

 

2. No, we can't all appreciate the drive to competition. Most of the world's life suffers the deadly side effects of comfort for the few. I have this theory that there is only so much comfort to go around and it is subject to entropy. An increase in comfort in one area necessarily means a decrease in another area*.

 

You're not the first to invent that theory. It is the theory of the zero-sum-game and does not reflect reality in a free and capitalist society.

 

The very idea of giving corporations the status of person hood is a bludgeon that beats down the possibility of even limited competition for most people, because corporations can become super-persons that have control over governments even to the point of deciding what the governments can and will be even against the will of real people.

 

If there was some way of preventing corporations from gaining political power, would you drop your opposition to capitalism?

 

For Capitalism of what ever sect, efficiency is the holy word. Righteousness is "more gain at less cost". That means that Capitalism's congregations (corporations) must externalize as much cost as possible. Ideally the congregation would take (like the Federal Reserve) its gain with as close to zero cost as possible. The result of that effort to externalize all cost is readily evident in the abject poverty of the majority of the population,

 

What population?

 

in endless war, global warming,

 

Isn't CO2 good for plant growth?

 

pig farming mad elephants, dead zones, extinction of species, desertification, aquifer depletion, polluted ground water and so on and on.

 

You know, don't you, that communist countries are usually the worst polluters and that the most polluted and worst managed lands in the U.S. are government owned lands?

 

I find that I'm against institutional religions of all stripes and that includes economic religions. There is nothing sacred about capital and even more there is nothing sacred about efficiency. It is probably past time to get the wisdom to stop being efficent and let everyone and everything have a life.

 

Capitalism promotes life.

 

Darrell