NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed this a lot. There is a lot of blather on these forums about "capitalism", "corporations" and the abuses that they inflict. Yet if you read it carefully, the people propunding these ideas seem to think our modern capital driven economy is a cross between the guilded age with its robber barrons and a Charles Dickens novel.

It's pretty clear that those who condemn "capitalism" in its modern form clearly have no idea what it is, how it is structured or how it works.

Now if you want to propose alternate economics systems (like the perenial favorite of the intellectually bankrupt socialism) that's fine. It's a perfectly legitimate postition. On the other hand, it seems a bit rich to then make comparisons to a system that you clearly don't understand.

Really, before people starting yelling about the abuses of corporations, they should bother to actually find out how they work, and what there function is.

I second this.

And yeah, why are there so many leftists on this stie?

http://www.limecat.net/1.jpg

And Limecat is here why?

http://www.limecat.net/1.jpg

but thats a grapefruit.

at least from what i have seen, most socialists tend to be college age students who have yet to traverse the real world and are terribly idealistic about the human animal. what makes me laugh about the typical leftist, especially from europe, is for every failure in 150 years of socialistic experimentation, apparently, it was never "real" socialism. lol. Nor do they seem to grasp the fact that socialism, has de facto won, as even the big bad US is far from a free market. anybody explain the 1.4 trillion spent in social programs in 2002 by the government as a "US IS A BAD FREE MARKET COUNTRY!" very well? the point isn;t does a lasseiz faire free market work? no, it doesn;t very well. obviously, neither does socialism. the argument should lie in WHERE between the two does it balance best? by measurement of economic standard of living and capital generation, the US is superior to Europe, to compare first world systems. to compare social equality, Europe is (though that sticky economic stagnation and society killing birth rate failure keeps coming to mind...ie unsustainable).....and a corporation exists to generate profit, and if you look at where the most medical, technological, etc. patents and creations have come from...yep, that big bad corporate influenced economy of the US has outstripped the rest of the world by two times past thirty years...our closest competitor is quickly becoming China, as it unlocks its' potential formt he shackles of....YES! MARXIST BASED COMMUNISM!

And Limecat is here why?

Because Limecat pwns all. Limecat has pointy fangs and dark matter for a heart. Limecat is the all encompassing center of the leftist universe and all shall bow before Limecat.

but thats a grapefruit.

HEATHEN!

at least from what i have seen, most socialists tend to be college age students who have yet to traverse the real world and are terribly idealistic about the human animal. what makes me laugh about the typical leftist, especially from europe, is for every failure in 150 years of socialistic experimentation, apparently, it was never "real" socialism. lol. Nor do they seem to grasp the fact that socialism, has de facto won, as even the big bad US is far from a free market. anybody explain the 1.4 trillion spent in social programs in 2002 by the government as a "US IS A BAD FREE MARKET COUNTRY!" very well? the point isn;t does a lasseiz faire free market work? no, it doesn;t very well. obviously, neither does socialism. the argument should lie in WHERE between the two does it balance best? by measurement of economic standard of living and capital generation, the US is superior to Europe, to compare first world systems. to compare social equality, Europe is (though that sticky economic stagnation and society killing birth rate failure keeps coming to mind...ie unsustainable).....and a corporation exists to generate profit, and if you look at where the most medical, technological, etc. patents and creations have come from...yep, that big bad corporate influenced economy of the US has outstripped the rest of the world by two times past thirty years...our closest competitor is quickly becoming China, as it unlocks its' potential formt he shackles of....YES! MARXIST BASED COMMUNISM!

Perhaps, but at least those college-age leftists have a basic grasp of the English language.

I've noticed this a lot. There is a lot of blather on these forums about "capitalism", "corporations" and the abuses that they inflict. Yet if you read it carefully, the people propunding these ideas seem to think our modern capital driven economy is a cross between the guilded age with its robber barrons and a Charles Dickens novel.

It's pretty clear that those who condemn "capitalism" in its modern form clearly have no idea what it is, how it is structured or how it works.

Now if you want to propose alternate economics systems (like the perenial favorite of the intellectually bankrupt socialism) that's fine. It's a perfectly legitimate postition. On the other hand, it seems a bit rich to then make comparisons to a system that you clearly don't understand.

Really, before people starting yelling about the abuses of corporations, they should bother to actually find out how they work, and what there function is.

It is much easier to win your argument when you make up the argument of the opposition, isn't it?

An attack on the growing power of corporations is not the same as an attack on capitalism. In fact, if you knew anything about economics or history you would understand that mega-corporations are inherently anti-capitalist. Large corporations seek to eliminate competition and gravitate toward monopoly. The history of late 19th century corporate America shows this natural tendency of big business. Modern corporations seek to co-opt government and indeed work toward gaining government advantages to such a point that the United States spends more money on corporate welfare than it does on welfare for the poor.

Corporatization is not the same, and in fact is directly opposed to, capitalism.

at least from what i have seen, most socialists tend to be college age students who have yet to traverse the real world and are terribly idealistic about the human animal. what makes me laugh about the typical leftist, especially from europe, is for every failure in 150 years of socialistic experimentation, apparently, it was never "real" socialism. lol.
no, there has never been true communism.

look at scandanavia, they have true socialism and are top ranked in terms of quality of life, i would say that socialism is quite the success story.

Perhaps, but at least those college-age leftists have a basic grasp of the English language.

Ha-ha good point. ;)

I've noticed this a lot. There is a lot of blather on these forums about "capitalism", "corporations" and the abuses that they inflict. Yet if you read it carefully, the people propunding these ideas seem to think our modern capital driven economy is a cross between the guilded age with its robber barrons and a Charles Dickens novel.

It's pretty clear that those who condemn "capitalism" in its modern form clearly have no idea what it is, how it is structured or how it works.

Now if you want to propose alternate economics systems (like the perenial favorite of the intellectually bankrupt socialism) that's fine. It's a perfectly legitimate postition. On the other hand, it seems a bit rich to then make comparisons to a system that you clearly don't understand.

Really, before people starting yelling about the abuses of corporations, they should bother to actually find out how they work, and what there function is.

Even if most don't, the educational system covers today's working market and not those of yesteryears or prior centuries. . . Most of what you'll see is either theoretical (it's level of compatibility with reality being the only difference from theory to theory), or something that should work (but even then, you're told that it's based on limit facts, and what happens in reality can be slightly or wildly different from what it says will happen). . .

Perhaps, but at least those college-age leftists have a basic grasp of the English language.
Perhaps this college age economic libertarian also has a good grasp of the English languge.

Seriously, you're all idiots.

We're all idiots.

The sooner we recognize this, the better... but honestly, if you were a little more humbled with your accusations maybe you could actually get somewhere with them.

Personally, I tend to sway more to the "left" in general, or at least the idea of socially responsible government. I don't see why that makes me intellectually bankrupt.

And before you go accusing me of whatever, I'm the most corrupt, extreme and least politically free nation in all Nation States and I'd wager that you sir, are stupider then most.

Long live the Red Alliance -- take that biatch!

Why is it that rightists are completely unable to grasp that some people don't like hobos in the street or people having to choose between this month's rent and medication?


generalisations, shmenerilasations

Oh and btw I'm not a leftist. I don't believe in left-right generalisations without nuances.

It is much easier to win your argument when you make up the argument of the opposition, isn't it?

An attack on the growing power of corporations is not the same as an attack on capitalism. In fact, if you knew anything about economics or history you would understand that mega-corporations are inherently anti-capitalist. Large corporations seek to eliminate competition and gravitate toward monopoly. The history of late 19th century corporate America shows this natural tendency of big business. Modern corporations seek to co-opt government and indeed work toward gaining government advantages to such a point that the United States spends more money on corporate welfare than it does on welfare for the poor.

Corporatization is not the same, and in fact is directly opposed to, capitalism.

Funny how no one addressed you.. could it be because you made the most sense? I think so :)

It is much easier to win your argument when you make up the argument of the opposition, isn't it.

An attack on the growing power of corporations is not the same as an attack on capitalism. In fact, if you knew anything about economics or history you would understand that mega-corporations are inherently anti-capitalist. Large corporations seek to eliminate competition and gravitate toward monopoly. The history of late 19th century corporate America shows this natural tendency of big business. Modern corporations seek to co-opt government and indeed work toward gaining government advantages to such a point that the United States spends more money on corporate welfare than it does on welfare for the poor.

Corporatization is not the same, and in fact is directly opposed to, capitalism.

Exactly.

I am friends with many free-market advocates, who tend to be anarchists, or at least libertarians, and are extreme capitalists. These are very small-government people. And they are opposed to corporatism and the government protecting mega-corporations via protectionist legislation, because it is inherently ANTI free market. The free market is all about the economic power lying in the hands of the consumers, who should have the freedom to do business with another company if they are disatisfied with the current company. The current US government is closer to fascism (true fascism is defined by business-controlled government) than to a free market nation. Via protectionist legislation, the government permits and even encourages the formation of harmful monopolies that are contrary to the concept of a free-market society. Hence why my friends and aquantances are opposed to the current business system of the country.

Why is it that rightists are completely unable to grasp that some people don't like hobos in the street or people having to choose between this month's rent and medication?

I think the point is that they'd not be living on the street or have to choose between rent and medication if they'd have made the right decisions in their lives.

I'm not going to pay for some dumbass drunk to live a comfy life.

First of all there has NOT been a country that was truly Socialist. Yes that is right, there has NOT been a country that has been truly Socialist. Yes there are instances were Socialisism has succeded. Ever heard of the Paris Communie of the Israeli Kibbutz.

So saying that Socialism has failed is wrong. True, no country has totally had a true Socialist society, there are numerous examples that it has worked.

I think humans are corrupt bastards. That's why I'm far left. I don't think everyone should be equal, but I think everyone should have equal opportunity. What makes me laugh is that some people seem to be under the illusion that it's just as easy for a kid growing up in Harlem to be rich as it is for someone in Beverly Hills. If you want meritocracy, you can't have people starting out ahead of one another. If a young man from a poor family gets all As in school, works hard to get himself through college, and takes the high road for his entire life, his ending position will be more or less the same as some guy whose dad was rich that got Cs in school, used his parents' money to get through college, and sat on his ass watching stock tickers and telling other people what to do for the rest of his adult life. Now, I agree that people should have to work if they want to get ahead. I also believe that it isn't fair to the working man for someone who was born on the mountain to stand there and tell him that if he wants to join the elite, all he has to do is climb it. Of course, part of what I'm saying here is that inheritance is crap. The other part though, is the intangibles. Anyone who grows up in a two-room apartment with a drunkard for a father and a mother who works all day, goes to public school in the slums, and attends college if he manages to get through it all without messing up (as long as he can get enough scholarships or work his ass off while he's studying to pay for it) does not have the same chance as a kid who grows up in a real house with a stable family and community, attends a good public or private school, and attends college with other people's money. It's not the kid's fault either. I think it's wrong to say to the kid, "well it's too bad you weren't born to rich parents. You could've made it then."

...So yeah, I'm a leftist. I believe in what I say just like you right-wingers believe in what you say. And when you attack me you can be damn sure that I'll be there to defend, just as I'd expect you to be if I started attacking you. We're both right, okay? We're both wrong. Together we create a middle road that makes for a world that isn't too radical one way or the other. I respect your views very much, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop acting as if mine are somehow inferior to yours.

First of all there has NOT been a country that was truly Socialist. Yes that is right, there has NOT been a country that has been truly Socialist. Yes there are instances were Socialisism has succeded. Ever heard of the Paris Communie of the Israeli Kibbutz.

So saying that Socialism has failed is wrong. True, no country has totally had a true Socialist society, there are numerous examples that it has worked.
The Paris Commune lasted for like two months.

The Kibbutzes were a situation of "socialism of necessity." Where the actual safety of the people living there was a very big reason in their formation.

at least from what i have seen, most socialists tend to be college age students who have yet to traverse the real world and are terribly idealistic about the human animal. what makes me laugh about the typical leftist, especially from europe, is for every failure in 150 years of socialistic experimentation, apparently, it was never "real" socialism. lol. Nor do they seem to grasp the fact that socialism, has de facto won, as even the big bad US is far from a free market. anybody explain the 1.4 trillion spent in social programs in 2002 by the government as a "US IS A BAD FREE MARKET COUNTRY!" very well? the point isn;t does a lasseiz faire free market work? no, it doesn;t very well. obviously, neither does socialism. the argument should lie in WHERE between the two does it balance best? by measurement of economic standard of living and capital generation, the US is superior to Europe, to compare first world systems. to compare social equality, Europe is (though that sticky economic stagnation and society killing birth rate failure keeps coming to mind...ie unsustainable).....and a corporation exists to generate profit, and if you look at where the most medical, technological, etc. patents and creations have come from...yep, that big bad corporate influenced economy of the US has outstripped the rest of the world by two times past thirty years...our closest competitor is quickly becoming China, as it unlocks its' potential formt he shackles of....YES! MARXIST BASED COMMUNISM!


You don't seem to know much about European politics, (but I'm not sure!)

Europe's national diversity makes it is a very interesting place to examine modern social policy.

By the standards of most, the Scandinavian countries have had an especially sucessful run at it. Also, debating the definition of "socialism" isn't going to get us anywhere but stupid. I could be wrong, but politics don't fit well into specific or narrow theories.

Modern corporations seek to co-opt government and indeed work toward gaining government advantages to such a point that the United States spends more money on corporate welfare than it does on welfare for the poor.

Corporatization is not the same, and in fact is directly opposed to, capitalism


great point, actually, and this is apparently what the US is being assaulted for, and in many instances in this particular administration is true. the broad US economy, however, does not benefit much from "corporate welfare" when you consider the tax/salary etc. of all it's employees on a broad basis, it is largely localized where corporatization is in effect. granted, if anyone wants ammo to insult the US governmental policy, the pharmaceutical, steel, and farm industries are heavily subsidized. farm for political.national security reasons, pharm rom really really good lobbying. want a really, really bad industry in the US? look at insurance. across the board horrible, and the government is complicit.

generalizations, when arguing socialism/free market are necessary, though they are wildly disparate in definition and also, again, socialism has taken root in every developed economy, the US, again, spends 1.4 trillion+ (2002)in "entitlements spending" far, far more than any corporate welfare. And, as i said, a true free market doesn;t exist in the developed world, the US apparently spends a great deal more on social spending than euros believe...more per person than any country in Europe, in fact. The debate is far more about where between the two systems does it fall.

and the Scandy countries? "socialism" can work in a homogenous, small arena. which is what the Scandiniavian countries are, and by the way, i added that the European countries definition of socialism is failing....Even Scandinavia is unsustainable, in about 10-15 years time, judging by birth rate vs expected commitments from their governments. of course, the answer by the left tends to be immigration, well, see US for the difficulties and unrealitisc expectations of immigration to sustain the system, especially considering most immigrants are low skilled and low educated. Or better yet, see the Netherlands for socio-political difficulties as well as the US.

and i apologize, i know my typing stinks, i usually have a personal assistant clean up all my typing, i suck, i know, and apologize. besides, i only get on here when on the sauce and can;t sleep, and for that, i apologize, too, lol.

another disclaimer....i have never been to europe, what i know of europe is economic statistics and geo-political commentary from the business side. i can comment on economic and welfare state staistics and ecoinomic well being, but present quality of life i have to disclose i am woefully ignorant other than what i know of ionflation adjusted standard of living statistics.

What, you mean Karl Marx never studied economics? I guess all those books on it he wrote were just attempts at automatic writing that were mistaken for economic studies.

yeah, Marx studied. Forgot to apply the simple standard of human nature to his theories. ECONOMIC JUSTICE is not everybody getting the same, it is being economically rewarded for your output, those to achieve more, deserve more, and to each according to their needs is just that, the basic needs, which is food, shelter and clothing. not vcr's, not spending money, not designer clothes, but the very basics. Modern interpreatations and Marx himself fails to grasp this. Marx was a philosopher, as an economist, he stunk.

another disclaimer....i have never been to europe, what i know of europe is economic statistics and geo-political commentary from the business side. i can comment on economic and welfare state staistics and ecoinomic well being, but present quality of life i have to disclose i am woefully ignorant other than what i know of ionflation adjusted standard of living statistics.

Your statistics are a bit silly too. GDP per person grew at essentially the same
rate in Europe and the United States between 1994 and 2003. Employment grew
only a hair slower in Europe, and productivity per worker hour grew slightly
faster in Europe. Germany aside, aggregate growth in Europe and the United States
over the last decade has been essentially equal.

Still, European income per capita is only about 70 percent of the U.S. average.
But here too, there is an important wrinkle. As discussed
recently by Harvard economist Olivier Blanchard, income is lower in Europe
not because workers are less productive - output per worker hour in Europe and
the United States are almost the same - but because Europeans work fewer hours.
This is not due primarily to higher unemployment or lower labor market participation,
but to a shorter work-week, longer vacations, and earlier retirement. Altogether,
Americans work 40 percent more hours over their lives than Europeans.

Between 1970 and 2000, GDP per person rose by 64% in the United States and
by 60% in France. In America, this came about because productivity per worker
rose by 38% and hours worked per worker rose by 26%. In France, it came about
because productivity rose by 83% while hours worked fell by 23%.

Where did the quality of life increase more? Maybe you should take your next
hurried vacation in France, to find out.

W.

Capitalism is based on free market. Free market is the unrestricted access of as many good and services providers to as many consumers as possible. Free market also means perfectly informed consumers who can know all the characteristics of the competing products and choose the best one for them.

Of course, a perfectly free market is impossible to get and it's mostly a theoretical construct to understand economics; but it's generally accepted that the more free a market the better, and that the government's role should be limited to keep the market as free as possible, that is the consumers informed and the players on a leveled field.

Is a market controlled by just a handful of mega-corporations free? What happens when the majority of the distribution channels are controlled by one company?

I'll let you decide.

I don't know why this forum leans so far to the left, but for me it seems a healthy counterweight to forums on frontpage.com and other sites that lean heavily to the right.

To whoever began this thread, I do not think that you are all that in touch with the realities of modern Capitalism. I personally have no problems with a free market. That's one of the reasons I like eBay ;) . But corporate policy aims for monopolized control over the markets, where the guise of privacy allows for operation outside the realm of economic or state law.

Capitalism died a long time ago, my friend, and it's been replaced by Corporate Anarchy. The oligarchial empires of today are an entire dimension away from the idealized dreams of Capitalism protagonists such as yourself. Corporate monopolies are totalitarian entities all to themselves.

Whether Gates has a stranglehold on operating systems or Stalin has a stranglehold on the grain market, in turns out the economic effects are pretty much the same, eg the supposedly 'free market' gets screwed. Just hold on to Eisenhower's prayer that Corporation and Government never ally with one another aganst Democracy.
What's that you say? They already have?? :eek:

^Heh, thats my nation right there ;)

I've noticed this a lot. There is a lot of blather on these forums about "capitalism", "corporations" and the abuses that they inflict. Yet if you read it carefully, the people propunding these ideas seem to think our modern capital driven economy is a cross between the guilded age with its robber barrons and a Charles Dickens novel.

It's pretty clear that those who condemn "capitalism" in its modern form clearly have no idea what it is, how it is structured or how it works.

Now if you want to propose alternate economics systems (like the perenial favorite of the intellectually bankrupt socialism) that's fine. It's a perfectly legitimate postition. On the other hand, it seems a bit rich to then make comparisons to a system that you clearly don't understand.

Really, before people starting yelling about the abuses of corporations, they should bother to actually find out how they work, and what there function is.

You're the one that's a fan of Ayn Rand, aren't you?
It's not so much the corporations themselves as it is the power they have, in my opinion.

I think the point is that they'd not be living on the street or have to choose between rent and medication if they'd have made the right decisions in their lives.

I'm not going to pay for some dumbass drunk to live a comfy life.you ever heard of legacies? for the purpose of argument I'll assume at least one person hasn't. here's the situation:

Your father was born in a middle-class family. he works hard,becomes a classic success story, and goes on to have you. you are a fat fuck who rides your father's fortune. did you earn the money? no.

now to contrast:

Your father was born in a middle-class family. he is lazy all his life, and never gets a job. through some miracle, he finds a woman who is attracted to him, and has you. you work desperately to afford food. did you earn this position in society? no.

so the proposal would be that we take money from the elitist fat fucks and give it to the honest, hard-working homeless. see how that works?

yes, i have heard that european argument. not the point, your statistics are a western euro apologist statistic. sorry.

GDP per person year over year, with the UK as a standard average, the US outpaced the world, in a growing population. both GDP per worker and by a bigger difference in NET productivity
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/icp0204.pdf#search='worker%20productivity%20comparisons'.....or is the UK government lying?

before you tout it as things are closer than they appear when looking that way vs NET productivity, count the US population growth and the western european population growth. Western Europe is flat to shrinking. US is growing to the point of reaching 400 million by 2040, estimated by present immigration and birth rate. the US economy per worker, per hour, and net is the most productive economy in the world, regrettably. again, if you need proof, look at a UK gov site
http://www.dti.gov.uk/about/apr/psa01.htm

you are exactly correct in stating euros are differed PER HOUR by working less hours. GDP growth per hour has been static vs Euros best, France for several years. In some industries, Euros are MORE prodcutive per hour than the US. Americans work quite a bit more, and the net difference is American worker productivity when NOT broken down to the GDP HOUR, in net, has been outpacing Western Europe since the late 60's BY A WIDE MARGIN. If you feel these statistics are sill, argue with the economist, Bloomberg reporting, WSJ and the Financial Times. And the US still outperforms Europe's most efficient PER GDP HOUR, which by the way, works approximately 14 hours a week LESS, which is France. MEANING, EVEN WITH ALL THE TIME OFF, NO MATTER HOW YOU MEASURE IT, WESTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ARE EITHER BARELY KEEPING PACE PER HOUR OR FALLING DRASTICALLY BEHIND in NET productivity. This has serious long nterm ramifications for the competitiveness of the European economies. But hey, you're outperforming Japan.

silly statistics? you just quoted the only way Western Europe has kept pace with the US in ANY way of looking at it, GDP per worker hour, which is a ridiculous thing to look at...again, shows how drastically in NET productivity Western European economies have been outperformed. you just highlighted how silly your entire dispute with me is.

WOW. i come from the proverbial "wrong side of the tracks" and was employed at the age of eleven working on a farm until i was 15 and old enough to get non-farm legal employment. coming form that socio-economic level means i know that reality well, and i hate to inform you but HONEST HARD WORKING AND HOMELESS almost never go together in reality. i have yet to meet a hard worker who didn't improve him/herself, and there are programs to assist temporarily this exact sort of situation even in the bad old US. try free college tuition for anyone who earns under a threshhold, even a stipend for food and rent. educationleads to a higher salary level almost without fail. what the US does differently is there are no direct cash payouts on a permanent basis. nor should there be. any person who thinks unproductive people should be permanently on the government (read taxpayer) teat has never understood how a leech feeds. Most people, staistically in the US, are mentally ill, by the way, and that is an intirely different argument. i have felt your rage, i have been there, actually, but you don;t penalize success, either. How much taxation are you implying? every country in the western world has a progressive tax system....to what level are you proposing?

you ever heard of legacies? for the purpose of argument I'll assume at least one person hasn't. here's the situation:

Your father was born in a middle-class family. he works hard,becomes a classic success story, and goes on to have you. you are a fat fuck who rides your father's fortune. did you earn the money? no.

now to contrast:

Your father was born in a middle-class family. he is lazy all his life, and never gets a job. through some miracle, he finds a woman who is attracted to him, and has you. you work desperately to afford food. did you earn this position in society? no.

so the proposal would be that we take money from the elitist fat fucks and give it to the honest, hard-working homeless. see how that works?
So, you're saying that I don't have a right to earn loads of money to make my potential children's lives easier? It is my money after all, not societies.

And if someone is hard enough of a worker, they can work hard during their high school years, get scholarships and go to college and get into the middle class.

I don't like your logic in the slightest, you're punishing people according to your morals, and I feel that to be wrong.

If your definition of 'left' is someone in favour of civil and political rights and equalities, then I could be considered left. I'm also a European (by American standards, at least; I prefer to think of myself as British). But I'm a total supporter of capitalism. Please don't generalise.

If you really want capitalism, if you want for people to be able to become successful, if you want economics to be fair to those that work and those that don't, you have to eliminate corporatism from capitalism. You have to allow only small-scale, local and regional-level capitalism. That way, there's no way that businesses can take influence over people. And there's a lot more variety for consumers. A lot more competition. Meaning typically lower prices.

Corporations are what's wrong with capitalism. They've served as the establishment of the U.S. for a long time. And in that time, millions of people were killed and millions more have been oppressed as a result of their actions. They work against the interests of the public. And had they not been in control, this nation would have undoubtedly achieved true democracy and justice, as well. We would have been adored the world over. But it is because their interests that the world has been so divided for the past 50 years.

I've noticed this a lot. There is a lot of blather on these forums about "capitalism", "corporations" and the abuses that they inflict. Yet if you read it carefully, the people propunding these ideas seem to think our modern capital driven economy is a cross between the guilded age with its robber barrons and a Charles Dickens novel.

It's pretty clear that those who condemn "capitalism" in its modern form clearly have no idea what it is, how it is structured or how it works.

Now if you want to propose alternate economics systems (like the perenial favorite of the intellectually bankrupt socialism) that's fine. It's a perfectly legitimate postition. On the other hand, it seems a bit rich to then make comparisons to a system that you clearly don't understand.

Really, before people starting yelling about the abuses of corporations, they should bother to actually find out how they work, and what there function is.
personally, i have studied Economics for 5 years now (though i have changed to studying Politics recently) and i believe i have a pretty good grasp of how this capitalist system works. yet i do not espouse the current system's virtues: as Churchill said this is the best system so far (or something to that effect). I agree with that. Capitalism is the most practical and workable system yet - it is applicable in the real world, while other economic and political systems may only be able to exist in more 'controlled' environments or a philosopher's mind.
My own objections to the current model are on ethical grounds: capitalism is not a wholly moral construct, according to my values it is indeed immoral. i, personally, do not like the idea of 'survival of the fittest' or believe that the homeless deserve to eek out a sad existance whether they put themselves there or not.
in a 'better', more moral system (can there ever be a truly moral system?)surely there would be no homelessness, no poverty, no starving. I cannot say what this system should be, other than it should encapsulate these ideals. It should also not pander to the cause of these problems in capitalism: greed. capitalism builds on and uses human competitive nature, which is fair enough and necessary to motivate individuals; but capitalism goes further and encourages greed, outright consumerism (an obvious hallmark of the system, hence the name) and the unnecessary accumulation of 'things'. an arguably more moral system must do away with the greed.
a (very large; i forget the name) valley in California has almost perfect growing conditions for nearly all kinds of crops. it produces enough output to feed 98% of the entire world's population (i read in a tourist brochure while there in 2002). there is the greed - is this not immoral?
is this a result of capitalism? arguably, yes. through capitalism, the rich of the world will use their wealth to demand goods - in this case food - and will be able to easily outbid poorer people in poorer nations. these people are, perhaps unwittingly, rich because of their greed in the capitalist scenario, and are exploiting it at the expense of others who may actually need the food. greed and capitalism are totally linked imho.

oh and as a general aside, the economies of the western world are not all simply 'capitalist'. they are all this system to differing degrees - the USA is arguably the most free market - the most 'purely' capitalist, while economies in Europe - especially Scandinavia - tend to be capitalist but with a greater mix of central planning than the US. just wanted to say this (i have been revising for an economics exam i have on monday recently ;) )

i'm full of rants today :p

Exactly.

I am friends with many free-market advocates, who tend to be anarchists, or at least libertarians, and are extreme capitalists. These are very small-government people. And they are opposed to corporatism and the government protecting mega-corporations via protectionist legislation, because it is inherently ANTI free market. The free market is all about the economic power lying in the hands of the consumers, who should have the freedom to do business with another company if they are disatisfied with the current company. The current US government is closer to fascism (true fascism is defined by business-controlled government) than to a free market nation. Via protectionist legislation, the government permits and even encourages the formation of harmful monopolies that are contrary to the concept of a free-market society. Hence why my friends and aquantances are opposed to the current business system of the country.

You know... I tend towards the left myself, but if you went with extreme capitalism I suppose I'd be ok with it. If you want to get rid of all social programs just remember that that means the police too. If you want safety in the streets then people will just have to get together to hire private security firms. If too many people get too poor then the security firms will have to start hiring, and that will mean more jobs, and cost more money. Eventually charitable organizations will become a cheap alternative to crime fighting, of course it will be called what it really is, bribing the poor not to kill the rich and steal their stuff.

personally, i have studied Economics for 5 years now (though i have changed to studying Politics recently) and i believe i have a pretty good grasp of how this capitalist system works. yet i do not espouse the current system's virtues: as Churchill said this is the best system so far (or something to that effect). I agree with that. Capitalism is the most practical and workable system yet - it is applicable in the real world,

I think the Churchill quote was "Democracy is the worst form of government in the world, except for all the others."

Problem is capitalism is not inherently workable. It's like putting burglars on the honor system. Any sort of laws written to regulate commerce means introducing socialist elements. Minimum wage laws, child labor laws, recognition of unions etc. For commerce to work it has to be somewhat socialist. To think that pure capitalism works is to believe in a fairy tale written by Ayn Rand, which will end up even less helpful than one written by Hans Christian Anderson.

I think the Churchill quote was "Democracy is the worst form of government in the world, except for all the others.".
so it was. :headbang: i was tired...

silly statistics? you just quoted the only way Western Europe has kept pace with the US in ANY way of looking at it, GDP per worker hour, which is a ridiculous thing to look at...again, shows how drastically in NET productivity Western European economies have been outperformed. you just highlighted how silly your entire dispute with me is.

No...what I told you we're several things.

1. To draw a link between economic performance and quality of life, which is what you did, is not just silly, but meaningless. I didn't deny that the US produces more/has more money/bla bla bla, I just suggested that it was a very bad way to ascribe worth to a political system. I don't care if Europe falls behind the US in net productivity, I'm happy to say we have better things to do.

2. Population growth is a strange thing to bring up. You are right, Europe does have a stable population, and its a good thing too, because it means sustainable development is much easier. In fact - a controlled population generally indicates that the nation in question is more developed.

3. If you look at statistics a little more carefully than you did, you'd realise my point was then when you look at statistics which tell you something about how people actually live, like actual hours, average employee turnover, social equality, welfare provision and social mobility, Europe wins hands down.

BUT:

Its very easy to find statistics where either Europe or the US looks better - we could throw those back at each other for days. The issue is to decide what's important, and what sort of society you want to live in. I'm happy to be a European, but that isn't to say that everyone would be. I certainly know that I'd rather be poor, or black, or gay, in Europe.

W.

It's pretty clear that those who condemn "capitalism" in its modern form clearly have no idea what it is, how it is structured or how it works.
What is it then that produced Bhopal? That lead to the collapse of Enron, the Great Depression or the constant allegations of corporate fraud, corruption and concepts such as “golden handshakes” at five times what the lowest waged employee receives. Further more what is it that lead to the introduction of Child Labour Laws in Britain, the aged pension in Germany or concept of the “living wage” in Australia?

Capitalism! If people were truly ignorant about the functioning’s of capitalism then why oppose it? Surely it’s an inevitable and unavoidable fact of life and everyone should learn to shut up and deal with it? Obviously it is the ignorant that banded together as the Group of 21 in Mexico, which go up against corporate HIV and AIDS pharmaceutical producers and protest the reduction of media ownership laws.

That sort of statement is dismissive and attempts to label all opposition as being misguided. Your patronisation is not welcome. Capitalism is a bastard of a system and even Adam Smith could see this. The only good aspect is the concept of a market, the automatic price adjustment for goods in relation to their demand and supply.

Now if you want to propose alternate economics systems (like the perennial favourite of the intellectually bankrupt socialism) that's fine. It's a perfectly legitimate position. On the other hand, it seems a bit rich to then make comparisons to a system that you clearly don't understand.

If a person cannot understand a system then how can they make comparisons? It might be one thing to call socialism intellectually bankrupt but it’s certainly not going far enough to call capitalism morally bankrupt. The pomposity of that statement should hurt the mind of any well balanced individual.

Really, before people starting yelling about the abuses of corporations, they should bother to actually find out how they work, and what there function is.

Actually I can think of one socialist player who uses corporations as the keystone to their economy and have been very successful in this approach. I suggest youo ask SeOCC how a corporation works. The function of a corporation is like that of any business, to maximise profit. A corporation is free of worker control and directed by an elite who not always professional or responsible leading to the creation of various economic, social and environmental carnage in the quest for satisfying stockholders who are unconnected to the actions of the corporation or the flight of its workforce. Anyone who is going to cheerlead corporatism should first smother themselves with a pillow for three minutes, enough to kill most of their emotional impulses.

So, you're saying that I don't have a right to earn loads of money to make my potential children's lives easier? It is my money after all, not societies.

And if someone is hard enough of a worker, they can work hard during their high school years, get scholarships and go to college and get into the middle class.

I don't like your logic in the slightest, you're punishing people according to your morals, and I feel that to be wrong.

1] According to zero sum economics any money you make is money someone else is losing so in actual fact the money you make is societies unless you have taken the time to actually print your own legal tender. If you’re a plumber for example then your income is derived from that which other people make, if you’re a business CEO of a stock investment company your wage is derived from the income of other people who either give it to your company to invest or as the lost wage of the workers of those companies you invested in who lost wage becomes “profit”. So unless you run the mint on Fatu Hive your money very much so derives from society no matter who you are.

2] Nobody should have to pass a scholarship to enter a university. In my opinion the US tertiary education system is horrific because it’s primarily about balancing staying alive and studying where I think education should be universally accessible and some minimum support given to students so they can focus on their education and develop as well adjusted and balanced young people.
PS: I can just imagine every kid in a ghetto going “yippee, if I work like a dog all my life I might be able to claw myself into the Middle Classes, the peak of any young person’s aspiration.”

3] Yes many pro-capitalists find logic disturbing, best to just take another Panadol. Anyway you’re advocating the punishment of more people then you will ever know through your moral convictions about capitalism being so great when in fact 80% live in condition neither you or I would ever want to face in our lives. I gravely doubt that about 5.2 billion people are there because they’re lazy…

What is it then that produced Bhopal? That lead to the collapse of Enron, the Great Depression or the constant allegations of corporate fraud, corruption and concepts such as “golden handshakes” at five times what the lowest waged employee receives. Further more what is it that lead to the introduction of Child Labour Laws in Britain, the aged pension in Germany or concept of the “living wage” in Australia?

Capitalism! If people were truly ignorant about the functioning’s of capitalism then why oppose it? Surely it’s an inevitable and unavoidable fact of life and everyone should learn to shut up and deal with it? Obviously it is the ignorant that banded together as the Group of 21 in Mexico, which go up against corporate HIV and AIDS pharmaceutical producers and protest the reduction of media ownership laws.

That sort of statement is dismissive and attempts to label all opposition as being misguided. Your patronisation is not welcome. Capitalism is a bastard of a system and even Adam Smith could see this. The only good aspect is the concept of a market, the automatic price adjustment for goods in relation to their demand and supply.



You, sir, prove my point. You clearly believe that there is some single J.P. Morgan type figure hunched behind a desk, controlling chemical companies and laughing manaically as he oppresses children.

It's the twenty first century, and that's not how corporations work.

To take one example, you complain about "golden parachutes." Corporations hand those out to people who earn them, it's not some kind of clever "imperialist capitalist" trick to opress the worker. The modern system of public company ownership punishes corporations where managment indulges self dealing much more effectively than any government could. But you don't know that because you don't really understand how large publicly held corportations are run.

1] According to zero sum economics any money you make is money someone else is losing so in actual fact the money you make is societies unless you have taken the time to actually print your own legal tender. If you’re a plumber for example then your income is derived from that which other people make, if you’re a business CEO of a stock investment company your wage is derived from the income of other people who either give it to your company to invest or as the lost wage of the workers of those companies you invested in who lost wage becomes “profit”. So unless you run the mint on Fatu Hive your money very much so derives from society no matter who you are.

2] Nobody should have to pass a scholarship to enter a university. In my opinion the US tertiary education system is horrific because it’s primarily about balancing staying alive and studying where I think education should be universally accessible and some minimum support given to students so they can focus on their education and develop as well adjusted and balanced young people.
PS: I can just imagine every kid in a ghetto going “yippee, if I work like a dog all my life I might be able to claw myself into the Middle Classes, the peak of any young person’s aspiration.”

3] Yes many pro-capitalists find logic disturbing, best to just take another Panadol. Anyway you’re advocating the punishment of more people then you will ever know through your moral convictions about capitalism being so great when in fact 80% live in condition neither you or I would ever want to face in our lives. I gravely doubt that about 5.2 billion people are there because they’re lazy…

Economics is not zero sum, thank god. Otherwise we'd still be living in caves.

Exactly.

I am friends with many free-market advocates, who tend to be anarchists, or at least libertarians, and are extreme capitalists. These are very small-government people. And they are opposed to corporatism and the government protecting mega-corporations via protectionist legislation, because it is inherently ANTI free market. The free market is all about the economic power lying in the hands of the consumers, who should have the freedom to do business with another company if they are disatisfied with the current company. The current US government is closer to fascism (true fascism is defined by business-controlled government) than to a free market nation. Via protectionist legislation, the government permits and even encourages the formation of harmful monopolies that are contrary to the concept of a free-market society. Hence why my friends and aquantances are opposed to the current business system of the country.
Interesting. I like your friends. On the one hand, I'm curious why you describe your friends as thinking this way but not yourself. On the other hand, if you're not an economic libertarian, it's amazing that you understand this point of view as well as you do. You seem like a smart, open-minded person. Don't ever change. :)

I'm constantly frustrated with the way the US is permanantly idealogically attached to capitalism both by defenders and attackers of US and capitalism. If we define capitalism simply as economic freedom, it's inaccurate to associate it so closely with the US. The US of today is not the US of the industrial revolution. Every year the Heritage foundation and the Wall Street Journal publish the "index of economic freedom" that ranks different which countries by economic freedom. For the first time the US is out of the top ten. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5CCommentary%5Carchive%5C200501%5CCOM20050107d.html
I would expect that the people who published this report would much rather put the US at the #1 spot, but they can't ignore the data.

If you want to define capitalism as mercantilism, corporatism, or "whatever the US is", then please don't consider me a capitalist. If I remember right, the term "capitalism" was coined by Marx in an effort to define what he opposed. This can be problematic for free market proponents since he described it using his own economic theory which, not suprisingly, isn't entirely compatible with Austrian-school or free-market economic theory.

I think the point is that they'd not be living on the street or have to choose between rent and medication if they'd have made the right decisions in their lives.

I'm not going to pay for some dumbass drunk to live a comfy life.

How is government provided block housing and minimal hospital care a comfy life?

Economics is not zero sum, thank god. Otherwise we'd still be living in caves.

Explain that point to me since you are the economics wizard and since I am a leftist and I don't understand capitalism.

Even Singapore, an arguably right-wing darling in many respects, managed to realise that the provision of basic healthcare and no-frills housing in one form or another is critical to the stability of a society and economy.

Allowing the middle-class to be eroded away by predatory economic policies is a fundamentally bad idea for the U.S. economy, especially since it's a consumption-based system.

The less money citizens spend on grossly-inflated healthcare costs, the more they will be able to spend to bolster other industries.

UCP's laws of Capitalism


1. Technology created capitalism.

2. Only technology can transform capitalism.

Honestly you can try to modify capitalism, or even kill it, but if your economic system isn't copacetic with your technology, or the world standard in technology, you're screwed.

Explain that point to me since you are the economics wizard and since I am a leftist and I don't understand capitalism.

If it was zero sum, there would have been no growth in the standard of living. Ever.

If it was zero sum, there would have been no growth in the standard of living. Ever.

That isn't what he meant. In the long run, mints print money in order to keep up with the growth in technology and population. But what he is referring to is in the short run, when there is a stable money supply. I am not saying that he is completely correct, but your interpretation of it was very wrong.

If it was zero sum, there would have been no growth in the standard of living. Ever.

But there hasn't. Once upon a time, all the food people needed came right out of the ground to be picked and wild animals could be trapped and hunted fairly easily. You had no modern medicine to treat diseases, but that was balanced by the faced that the sparse population meant little opportunity for communicable diseases to spread.

Then population pressures forced the agricultural revolution. People did not have to do as much wandering to get their vegetables, but they had to fight off the hunting populations who said things like "if you're going to drive off the wildebeast that we eat, we'll just take the food that comes out of the land that you've co-opted and we used to live off of." More stuff available, but at the expense of people getting killed for it.

Now we have tv's and microwaves, and the jolt forums, but that's balanced out by the fact that we've got massacres over conflict diamonds, nike sweatshops, and terrorists who, if bombed into the stone age, would find it an improvement.

Take a look at Colombia. Coke dealers live like kings and it's balanced out by the population at large living like paupers under the heels of megalomaniacal psychopaths.

"Why are leftists completely unable to grasp the modern corporate form free market?"

Because most teachers, particularly at the college level, have NO idea how business and economics work and thus no ability to teach them with any degree of competence or objectivity.

To take one example, you complain about "golden parachutes." Corporations hand those out to people who earn them, it's not some kind of clever "imperialist capitalist" trick to opress the worker. The modern system of public company ownership punishes corporations where managment indulges self dealing much more effectively than any government could. But you don't know that because you don't really understand how large publicly held corportations are run.

While you may be correct in saying that there is no clever imperialist corporate trick to oppress the worker, the net result is the same.
It makes little difference to me if the giant crushing my house is malicious or thoughtless. Either way he needs a pin in his foot.

Walmart CEO's may not have a map of the United States with "X"s through all of the towns that they've bankrupted by showing up, underbidding every local business for the local custom, becoming the only source of local employment, and then having no customers other than their own employees who will be giving walmart money that they get from walmart to buy walmart stuff. Walmart may only be an incompotent parasite rather than an evil genius, but either way, it's a problem.

"Why are leftists completely unable to grasp the modern corporate form free market?"

Because most teachers, particularly at the college level, have NO idea how business and economics work and thus no ability to teach them with any degree of competence or objectivity.

Even business and ecomonics teachers? I would have thought they might know something about it......

"Why are leftists completely unable to grasp the modern corporate form free market?"

Because most teachers, particularly at the college level, have NO idea how business and economics work and thus no ability to teach them with any degree of competence or objectivity.


You're assuming that most teachers are leftists.

"Why are leftists completely unable to grasp the modern corporate form free market?"

Because most teachers, particularly at the college level, have NO idea how business and economics work and thus no ability to teach them with any degree of competence or objectivity.

I have had one teacher who has worked in financial analysis and in the corporate structure of two large firms. I had one teacher who started a single convenience store and managed it as it grew to a chain of over 20.

Personally I just don't trust anyone with power that isn't democraticaly granted and controled, be that economic or political power, their both to dangerous.

yeah, Marx studied. Forgot to apply the simple standard of human nature to his theories. ECONOMIC JUSTICE is not everybody getting the same, it is being economically rewarded for your output, those to achieve more, deserve more, and to each according to their needs is just that, the basic needs, which is food, shelter and clothing. not vcr's, not spending money, not designer clothes, but the very basics. Modern interpreatations and Marx himself fails to grasp this. Marx was a philosopher, as an economist, he stunk.

I wonder what a CEO does to get millions upon millions as a bonus on top of his already immense salary compared to a factory worker who works 40+ hours a week of back-breaking labour who makes barely enough to carve out a living.

Ontario is liberal to the extrem and is the fastest growing economy in North America...left doesn't get it ? think not.

I've noticed this a lot. There is a lot of blather on these forums about "capitalism", "corporations" and the abuses that they inflict. Yet if you read it carefully, the people propunding these ideas seem to think our modern capital driven economy is a cross between the guilded age with its robber barrons and a Charles Dickens novel.

Are you really going to try to slip that by as an argument? If you are going to claim that "if you read it carefully" an argument says something other than what it seems to say, or makes hidden assumptions, you have to tell people how you are reading it. Give us an example. Show us where to find these hidden assumptions.

It's pretty clear that those who condemn "capitalism" in its modern form clearly have no idea what it is, how it is structured or how it works.

First of all, "those who condemn 'capitalism'" is pretty inclusive. Do you mean all of us, or some of us? Which ones?

Secondly, this accusation is just as problematic as the one that comes before. If it is "pretty clear," then why do you need to point it out? Why not give us an example to show us what you mean?

Now if you want to propose alternate economics systems (like the perenial favorite of the intellectually bankrupt socialism) that's fine.

Is it? How can one propose an alternative without criticizing the status quo? Your tactic here is transparently designed to render arguments for an alternative impotent by reassuring your opponents that you will "listen" as long as they don't go about criticizing your system. I hope no one falls for this.

(By the way, would you please tell me exactly what you mean by "intellectually bankrupt"? The phrase has become so cliché that I can no longer tell if those who use it know what it means... in which case I have no idea what you do mean.)

Really, before people starting yelling about the abuses of corporations, they should bother to actually find out how they work, and what there function is.

Really, before people start yelling about how no one else understands them, they should make an attempt to explain what they mean. If you know how the corporation works and functions -- and you therefore understand the mistakes of its critics -- why don't you enlighten us?

Why is it that rightists are completely unable to grasp that some people don't like hobos in the street

Oh, the right doesn't want the poor in the streets. The funny thing is that they complain about the costs of welfare services even as they spend ten times as much arresting them, processing them, and housing them in prisons.

The absense of a poll in this thread leaves me unable to vote for Gary Coleman :(

An attack on the growing power of corporations is not the same as an attack on capitalism. In fact, if you knew anything about economics or history you would understand that mega-corporations are inherently anti-capitalist. Large corporations seek to eliminate competition and gravitate toward monopoly. The history of late 19th century corporate America shows this natural tendency of big business. Modern corporations seek to co-opt government and indeed work toward gaining government advantages to such a point that the United States spends more money on corporate welfare than it does on welfare for the poor.

Corporatization is not the same, and in fact is directly opposed to, capitalism.

"Eliminating competition" is actually what pretty much any business seeks. If you don't manage that somehow, you're out-competed.

But that is not the same as "inherently anti-capitalist." What you are saying is megacorporations are monopolistic. But monopolies are not anti-capitalist. A man could become wealthy and gravitate towards monopoly as well, but still be a capitalist.

Co-opting government is also something most people in general tend to want to do. Especially in a democracy. Political freedom, ya know.

Capitalism is based on free market.
No, capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production. A free market happens to be a characteristic that promotes a healthy capitalism (as it promotes a healthy distribution of goods more generally).

Personally, I prefer market socialism.

Free market is the unrestricted access of as many good and services providers to as many consumers as possible. Free market also means perfectly informed consumers who can know all the characteristics of the competing products and choose the best one for them.

Yes, it also means zero organizational costs for collective purchases.

Of course, a perfectly free market is impossible to get and it's mostly a theoretical construct to understand economics; but it's generally accepted that the more free a market the better, and that the government's role should be limited to keep the market as free as possible, that is the consumers informed and the players on a leveled field.

True, but it is also very well-accepted that the government plays the additional role of correcting for market failures that occur even in a theoretically perfect market, such as externalities and the undersupply of public goods caused by consumer freeloading.

Is a market controlled by just a handful of mega-corporations free?

No, although there are some circumstances under which a monopoly is nevertheless justifiable and even superior to a market.

You, sir, prove my point. You clearly believe that there is some single J.P. Morgan type figure hunched behind a desk, controlling chemical companies and laughing manically as he oppresses children.

It's the twenty first century, and that's not how corporations work.

To take one example, you complain about "golden parachutes." Corporations hand those out to people who earn them, it's not some kind of clever "imperialist capitalist" trick to oppress the worker. The modern system of public company ownership punishes corporations where management indulges self-dealing much more effectively than any government could. But you don't know that because you don't really understand how large publicly held corporations are run.

All I can conclude from this is that you are either aware of some anti-left conspiracy for an army of J.P. Morgan clones to descend on our gleaming financial with their “golden parachutes” and steal the food from our mouths OR you obviously never suffered and education, at the hand of an English teacher anyway. You’re lazy reading has lost my point on you and I’m sure I do understand what the foundations of capitalism are after three years of Economics. Just because somebody doesn’t like the system [I]doesn’t[/b] mean they don’t understand it.

You're assuming that most teachers are leftists.
It's a pretty safe assumption.

It's a pretty safe assumption.

Not without bloody evidence, it isn't. ;)


Could you provide me with some information that proves your idea that most teachers are leftists? Proper evidence?

What is it then that produced Bhopal? That lead to the collapse of Enron, the Great Depression or the constant allegations of corporate fraud, corruption and concepts such as “golden handshakes” at five times what the lowest waged employee receives. Further more what is it that lead to the introduction of Child Labour Laws in Britain, the aged pension in Germany or concept of the “living wage” in Australia?The collapse of Enron was caused by poor management and creative accounting.
The great depression was initially the inevitable result of monetary inflation and credit expansion from the banks and Federal government. After the stock market crashed, Hoover's interventionist rescue operations and FDR's New Deal greatly worsened the situation. See Murray N. Rothbard's America's Great Depression (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf), which is also available in hard-copy for about $30.
Allegations of corporate fraud exist because corporate fraud exists.
Corruption exists because it can.
I don't know what a "golden handshake" is.
There are to motives for enacting child labor laws. The primary is to keep children out of the labor market thereby keeping unskilled/low-skilled wages artificially high. The other is the emotional desire to eliminate the unpleasantness associated with child labor. Before you get offended by my position, at least consider why child labor is tolerated in the agriculture and entertainment industries. Basically, it and other manifestations of the social-welfare state exist because they're popular, and because some people benefit from them.


Capitalism! If people were truly ignorant about the functioning’s of capitalism then why oppose it?
That's a silly question. If I argue that capitalism is good, it's logical to expect me to assume those who disagree might be ignorant of capitalism. If I think I'm not ignorant of capitalism and judge it as a good thing, I would expect others who aren't ignorant to make a similar judgement.


...
1] According to zero sum economics any money you make is money someone else is losing so in actual fact the money you make is societies unless you have taken the time to actually print your own legal tender. If you’re a plumber for example then your income is derived from that which other people make, if you’re a business CEO of a stock investment company your wage is derived from the income of other people who either give it to your company to invest or as the lost wage of the workers of those companies you invested in who lost wage becomes “profit”. So unless you run the mint on Fatu Hive your money very much so derives from society no matter who you are.

Most modern money is not zero-sum. For example, there are far more US Dollars or Federal Reserve Notes in existance today than 80 years ago. But the amount of money in existance doesn't matter the way you think it does. You should be concerned with wealth. Wealth is not at all zero-sum. Everytime you do something productive, you create wealth. Everytime you consume something, you destroy wealth. When you construct a peanut butter and jelly sandwich from it's various ingredients, you create wealth. The sandwhich is more valuable than it's parts and whatever the difference in value is, you are that much richer than you before you made it and nobody is any poorer as a result. If you eat it, the total wealth of the sandwich is used-up or destroyed but it's probably worth it or you wouldn't have bothered buying the ingredients and making it.

In an economy where the money supply is fixed, it is still possible for wealth to increase. This is probably best identified by price deflation.

2] Nobody should have to pass a scholarship to enter a university. In my opinion the US tertiary education system is horrific because it’s primarily about balancing staying alive and studying where I think education should be universally accessible and some minimum support given to students so they can focus on their education and develop as well adjusted and balanced young people.
PS: I can just imagine every kid in a ghetto going “yippee, if I work like a dog all my life I might be able to claw myself into the Middle Classes, the peak of any young person’s aspiration.”

Actually, there's a great deal of government help available to college students in the US. There are grants and cheap loans available, as well as money paid directly to the schools. These actually keep the tutition and book prices higher than would otherwise be. Many or perhaps most university students have trouble keeping a positive checking account balance, but few are actually in danger of starving. The closest thing I have to a college degree is a certificate I got from the US Army's language school, and I don't exactly feel deprived.

I hope you aren't offended that I snipped some of your post, but I don't have constructive replies for everything you say.

But there hasn't. Once upon a time, all the food people needed came right out of the ground to be picked and wild animals could be trapped and hunted fairly easily. You had no modern medicine to treat diseases, but that was balanced by the faced that the sparse population meant little opportunity for communicable diseases to spread.

I'm not sure you understand what "standard of living" means. Life in hunter-gatherer societies was extremely difficult, violent and unpleasant. If you were a tough, lucky, and strong-willed monster of a man, you might've lived a whole 30 years, several of which would probably be in a great deal of pain waiting for broken bones to heal. This would generally be considered a lower standard of living than virtually all of Earth's modern population enjoys. The development of agriculture made life a lot more comfortable.

Millenia down the road and we have the internet, which makes much of my life much easier and more enjoyable.

Not without bloody evidence, it isn't. ;)


Could you provide me with some information that proves your idea that most teachers are leftists? Proper evidence?
Nope. I'm confident that my perception is accurate, but I don't care to attempt to prove it. Perhaps, it's pointless to make baseless claims, but sometimes I can't help myself.

Nope. I'm confident that my perception is accurate, but I don't care to attempt to prove it. Perhaps, it's pointless to make baseless claims, but sometimes I can't help myself.

Yeah, I doubt that there's anyone out there who can back up everything they say with solid evidence.

I wonder what a CEO does to get millions upon millions as a bonus on top of his already immense salary compared to a factory worker who works 40+ hours a week of back-breaking labour who makes barely enough to carve out a living.
Ideally the CEO runs the damn company, maintaining profitability by providing whatever the customers want and a price they'll pay, thereby keeping that relatively worthless factory worker employed. If he wasn't relatively worthless he could demand a better wage.

And Limecat is here why?

a lime would be too small for a cats head, unless it was one of those very nice totally british GM limes

You're assuming that most teachers are leftists.
It's a pretty safe assumption.

What is that old saying about assumptions?

I am a teacher...a leftist one at that, and I have found that most teachers, like most Americans, are not interested in ideology at all. Teachers have very little time to worry about ideology and spend most of their time focused on teaching content and skills.

Besides, just how influential do you really think teachers are in terms of politics? Since the country has turned to the right and has elected a Republican Senate, House, and President do you think that is the result of conservative teachers indoctrinating students?

"Eliminating competition" is actually what pretty much any business seeks. If you don't manage that somehow, you're out-competed.

But that is not the same as "inherently anti-capitalist." What you are saying is megacorporations are monopolistic. But monopolies are not anti-capitalist. A man could become wealthy and gravitate towards monopoly as well, but still be a capitalist.

Co-opting government is also something most people in general tend to want to do. Especially in a democracy. Political freedom, ya know.

If you wish a system of monopolies, or oligarchies of business (see Japan), with significant control of government in the hands of those oligarchies, then you are no longer a capitalist in the sense of believing in a system based upon free enterprise and competition on a fair and balanced playing field.

I'm not sure you understand what "standard of living" means. Life in hunter-gatherer societies was extremely difficult, violent and unpleasant. If you were a tough, lucky, and strong-willed monster of a man, you might've lived a whole 30 years, several of which would probably be in a great deal of pain waiting for broken bones to heal. This would generally be considered a lower standard of living than virtually all of Earth's modern population enjoys. The development of agriculture made life a lot more comfortable.

Actually, from what I have seen the most recent anthropological evidence suggests the exact opposite. We are now calling them "gatherer-hunter" societies because it appears they were much more vegetarian than we previously believed... just picking food where they found it. They also appear to have had great leisurely days, eating when necessary and sleeping most of the time.

Agrigulture introduced toil and hardship. It did not eliminate it.

Not that I want to go back to being gatherer-hunters; I happen to think that work is capable of producing good things. I just want to make sure we have the historical record straight.

Ideally the CEO runs the damn company, maintaining profitability by providing whatever the customers want and a price they'll pay, thereby keeping that relatively worthless factory worker employed. If he wasn't relatively worthless he could demand a better wage.

Actually, it is much more complicated than that. In a sense, you are correct: if the individual worker were worth more, he could demand a better wage.

However, it is also true that if most workers were not struggling for subsistence, they could demand better wages. In other words, the fact that a job means the difference between food or no food, paying rent or not, means that individual workers have virtually no bargaining position. Saying "they can go elsewhere" doesn't help, for two reasons:

(1) There are all sorts of costs associated with changing jobs. The average job search in America is 10 months. Of course, I suppose he could look for job A while still working at job B... but employers have ways of hearing about job searches, and the fear is always that one might be fired just for the attempt. Professionals, and others with something to fall back on, can bear the pressure much better than the poorest workers.

(2) The jobs for which one is qualified are likely, in a free market, to pay close to the same as the one in which one works currently -- because the people working those jobs also depend on them for their immediate subsistence.

The fact is, distribution is an independent variable in the economic equations for allocation. That means that if we started with a more equal distribution of resources, the market would tend to produce similar equality, without massive differences in wages. Thus you cannot say that a particular service is objectively "worthless," or even less valuable than another. You can only assert that a certain service is of low value given a particular distribution of incomes and resources. Under conditions of relative equality, janitors would probably have very high wages -- because this is not a very intrinsically desirable job, so you would have to pay people more to do it. Technically, that is what a "healthy" labor market looks like: the most fulfilling and intrinsically desirable jobs pay the least, while the least desirable jobs must compensate in higher pay to attract labor. (There would be some remaining pressure on the salaries for desirable jobs to the extent that they must compensate for costly education.)

The problem is that under conditions of extreme inequality, the marginal utility of the dollar is highly variable across individuals. Adam Smith and all the early capitalist theorists -- the ones who convinced people it was actually a good idea -- assumed a free market working under conditions of relative equality.

Modern capitalism attempts to correct for this (to the small extent that it does) by "balancing the scale" with collective bargaining for workers. Since the facts of drastic inequality give the employer a strong upper hand in the bargaining process, labor unions actually tip the scale back toward a healthy market, despite the claims of their critics.

EDIT: Minimum wage laws help, too. You see, employers are well aware of the irony that affects the lowest-paid workers. Due to the very high marginal utility of the dollar for these workers, the less you pay them the more desperate they become to retain their jobs.

no, there has never been true communism.

look at scandanavia, they have true socialism and are top ranked in terms of quality of life, i would say that socialism is quite the success story.

How is their economy?

Do they attract much foreign capital?

I would imagine not, with those punitive tax rates.

And what is their unemployment rate? Are they a PRODUCTIVE population?

Actually, from what I have seen the most recent anthropological evidence suggests the exact opposite. We are now calling them "gatherer-hunter" societies because it appears they were much more vegetarian than we previously believed... just picking food where they found it. They also appear to have had great leisurely days, eating when necessary and sleeping most of the time.

Agrigulture introduced toil and hardship. It did not eliminate it.

Not that I want to go back to being gatherer-hunters; I happen to think that work is capable of producing good things. I just want to make sure we have the historical record straight.

it also should be pointed out that foraging societies had longer life expectancies than agricultural people up until we got around to inventing sanitation and medicine. a 15-30 hour workweek, a lack of crowd diseases, a healthier diet, and the lack of large-scale famine worked out quite well for them. agriculture was an unmitigated disaster for everyone except the newly formed elites for thousands of years.

what i love is that the old myths about pre-agricultural people are being held by young people. where did they even hear them? it certainly wasn't an anthropology course.

How is their economy?

Do they attract much foreign capital?

I would imagine not, with those punitive tax rates.

And what is their unemployment rate? Are they a PRODUCTIVE population?

I think the point is that they have a good quality of life. Which is more important: to have happy, well treated citizens or to be an economic powerhouse?

Interesting. I like your friends. On the one hand, I'm curious why you describe your friends as thinking this way but not yourself. On the other hand, if you're not an economic libertarian, it's amazing that you understand this point of view as well as you do. You seem like a smart, open-minded person. Don't ever change. :)

I'm economically libertarian as well, although not as much as they are. They are against any government regulation at all. I support some light regulations on businesses, but far less than there are now.

It was just easier to use them as an example. And those exact viewpoints are my viewpoints as well.