NationStates Jolt Archive

I doubt anyone will ever raise the funds for one of these IRL, so I thought I'd make one online.

This thread is dedicated to all the victims of Capitalism, past, present and future. Communism may be dead, but Capitalism is forever.

No, I'm not a communist. Not even close. :rolleyes:
But I do believe in Equal Time on the platform. :D

If ANYONE mocks this I'll remind you that Victims of Capitalism would include Employees of Enron and WorldCom

May (insert diety(s)/none here) Fill their Wallets once Agian!

RIP
Enron
WorldCom

*hands Tactical Grace a box of cookies*

Good on you, man.

It would also include the workers exploited during the Industrial Revolution and the "Gilded Age."

and don't forget all the wars fought for money

It would also include the workers exploited during the Industrial Revolution and the "Gilded Age."

Not to mention the child slavery... Err, "labor".

Not to mention the child slavery... Err, "labor".
I would have included that as part of worker exploitation in general, but it is good to recognize that as well.

I agree fully with a memorial to those who perished due to Capitalism. We can put it right next to the memorial for those who perished due to Communism.

I agree fully with a memorial to those who perished due to Capitalism. We can put it right next to the memorial for those who perished due to Communism.

Difference is, an asterisk (*) is needed for "Communism", because the form of it that was practiced so widely is Totalitarianism, and often had state-sponsored Capitalism. It was hardly true Communism.

I see a trend a comin'.

I see a trend a comin'.
I see lots of threads getting locked, but probably not this one.

I see lots of threads getting locked, but probably not this one.
I see a bad moon rising. I depart you now.

Well if you say that the "Communist" states are not really capitalists, then you can say that the "Capitalist" states aren't really Capitalist. So for the sake of political correctness, you must put an asterisk by Capitalist, too!

All the things have mentioned did not happen because of capitalsim. That kind of thing has been going since the begining of time. All wars are fought over money or resource control anyway.

Parthini']Well if you say that the "Communist" states are not really capitalists, then you can say that the "Capitalist" states aren't really Capitalist. So for the sake of political correctness, you must put an asterisk by Capitalist, too!

Wow, is anybody else's head spinning after reading this? :p

Yes, that's quite true. However, it's far moreso for the "Communism" most of you people rail against.

All the things have mentioned did not happen because of capitalsim. That kind of thing has been going since the begining of time. All wars are fought over money or resource control anyway.
The explotation of workers in factories run according to capitalistic economic theory isn't connected to capitalism? :confused:

All the things have mentioned did not happen because of capitalsim. That kind of thing has been going since the begining of time. All wars are fought over money or resource control anyway.

This isn't about war, bucko.

It's about the extremely poor treatment of workers (see the Industrial Age and the Guilded Age for preference), the exploitation of the lower classes, and the misuse of resources for the gains of only a few people.

Did it ever occur to you people that those workers CHOSE to work in those factories? Capitalism is the best system invented. You have to work for everything, and an ideal Capitalist state has little welfare, only for the disabled who CAN'T work.

Did it ever occur to you people that those workers CHOSE to work in those factories? Capitalism is the best system invented. You have to work for everything, and an ideal Capitalist state has little welfare, only for the disabled who CAN'T work.

Haha, yeah, right. All those poor coal miners chose that task above all others, and those kids chose to be lumberjacks and steelworkers.

They literally had no other choice (the same can be said for many low-wage workers today). Why else would a child work 18-hour shifts in Pittsburgh (among other places, though Pitt was the center of it all) steel mills? Why else would a child, no older than 9 on the average, work in a coal mine?

I'd love to hear your reason.

There is nothing about the capitalist system that is any less harsh than communism, when an entire section of society becomes surplus to requirements. The result is always the same, unnecessary people living in a slum.

Did it ever occur to you people that those workers CHOSE to work in those factories? Capitalism is the best system invented. You have to work for everything, and an ideal Capitalist state has little welfare, only for the disabled who CAN'T work.
Actually that was not always the case. Britain for example passed laws allowing companies to forcably relocate unemployed individuals in the rural contryside to work in their factories. For children, orphanages would often set up systems were they would have them provide labor in local factories. Further more the laws were passed establishing a MINIMUM-workday of ten hours, for workers in certain feilds, since the employers couldn't get the workers to work long enough hours for them to make an adiquate(sp) profit.

It's about the extremely poor treatment of workers (see the Industrial Age and the Guilded Age for preference), the exploitation of the lower classes, and the misuse of resources for the gains of only a few people.

Capitalism brought us through those ages, in spite of the efforts of those in power at the time.

The powerful cannot stop a capitalistic society from progressing.

There is nothing about the capitalist system that is any less harsh than communism, when an entire section of society becomes surplus to requirements. The result is always the same, unnecessary people living in a slum.

I really hope you're kidding. If not, I shall lose a great deal of respect for you.

What, exactly, is this "Communism" you speak of, where everyone is living in slums?

Actually that was not always the case. Britain for example passed laws allowing companies to forcably relocate unemployed individuals in the rural contryside to work in their factories. For children, orphanages would often set up systems were they would have them provide labor in local factories. Further more the laws were passed establishing a MINIMUM-workday of ten hours, for workers in certain feilds, since the employers couldn't get the workers to work long enough hours for them to make an adiquate(sp) profit.

But that isn't capitalism, capitalism is based on free market principles. How can you scream that "Communism is good because all those Communist governments in history weren't real Communist governments" and yet point to a non-capitalist occurance to condemn capitalism?

This hypocrisy boggles the mind..

Capitalism brought us through those ages, in spite of the efforts of those in power at the time.

The powerful cannot stop a capitalistic society from progressing.

Exactly, but my point is that pure Capitalism, as it was in the Guilded Age, is absolutely awful. Even still, there are remnants of it, though mostly in developing countries (though at the hands of American corporations).

Workers being killed in South American Coca Cola plants, anyone?

Exactly, but my point is that pure Capitalism, as it was in the Guilded Age, is absolutely awful. Even still, there are remnants of it, though mostly in developing countries (though at the hands of American corporations).

Workers being killed in South American Coca Cola plants, anyone?
That wasn't pure capitalism, much like the Soviet Union wasn't pure "communism".
Can't we all just get drunk together?

In capitalism wealth creation is maximised and the economy is always efficient. It may not be a perfect solution but it is a good starting point for a perfect solution.

Communism on the other hand..

I really hope you're kidding. If not, I shall lose a great deal of respect for you.

What, exactly, is this "Communism" you speak of, where everyone is living in slums?
Who said anything about everyone? Especially to the extent that you place it in italics?

But that isn't capitalism, capitalism is based on free market principles. How can you scream that "Communism is good because all those Communist governments in history weren't real Communist governments" and yet point to a non-capitalist occurance to condemn capitalism?
Because capitalists do the samething ;) However, this shows what happens when you have a "free market" where there aren't restrictions in place to keep "capitalists" from exploiting the worker or using their influence to manipulating the goverment.

I see a trend a comin'.
I've never seen a thread started by an Ex-Mod get locked. Being a Mod kind of gives you a golden ticket. ;)

In capitalism wealth creation is maximised and the economy is always efficient. It may not be a perfect solution but it is a good starting point for a perfect solution.

Communism on the other hand..
Your right it is a good starting point... its nesecary for the eventual development of a more democratic communist society, where the economy isn't in the hands of an olgiarchy ;)

you have a "free market" where there aren't restrictions in place to keep "capitalists" from exploiting the worker or using their influence to manipulating the goverment.
Sorry Psyker but that's illogical. A market is not free when that happens. Only when parties are completely free to enter into transactions is it free. Capitalism is based on perfect competition.

Sorry Psyker but that's illogical. A market is not free when that happens. Only when parties are completely free to enter into transactions is it free. Capitalism is based on perfect competition.
Yes, but thats as likely to happen as a perfect communist society, people are just to prone to curruption and greed, which is why a ballanced mix of the two is nesecary.

Your right it is a good starting point... its nesecary for the eventual development of a more democratic communist society, where the economy isn't in the hands of an olgiarchy ;)

Communism is an utterly illogical economic system that does not allow one to maximise their gains or even to own private property. It is completely inefficent.

To see evidence of the inefficiency of Communism you can just look at how in the Soviet Union farmer fed bread to livestock, a frightful waste of resources.

Your right it is a good starting point... its nesecary for the eventual development of a more democratic communist society, where the economy isn't in the hands of an olgiarchy ;)

No, Communism just enables the oligarchy to get in to power, resulting in an economic condition that is only little improved over what had existed before, and is equally corrupt and oppressive. Communism just doesn't work.

Exactly, but my point is that pure Capitalism, as it was in the Guilded Age, is absolutely awful. Even still, there are remnants of it, though mostly in developing countries (though at the hands of American corporations).

Workers being killed in South American Coca Cola plants, anyone?

Actually, mostly pure capitalism (pure capitalism is impossible, at least for the foreseeable future) is far better than this government ran capitalism we have right now.

When we get to a point where governments cease to decide when to be capitalist, and actually let the economy be free, things will get better.

Yes, but thats as likely to happen as a perfect communist society, people are just to prone to curruption and greed, which is why a ballanced mix of the two is nesecary.

Greed has nothing to do with it. As long as the government provides regulation for anti-competitive practises then a fairly efficient Capitalist system will develop.

Besides, why the double standards? If you want to compare Capitalism in practise than I will compare Communism in practise, and we both know Communism has far more blood on its hands. Stick either to theory or practise, don't mix the two for your own political agenda.

Communism is an utterly illogical economic system that does not allow one to maximise their gains or even to own private property. It is completely inefficent.

To see evidence of the inefficiency of Communism you can just look at how in the Soviet Union farmer fed bread to livestock, a frightful waste of resources.
Except as capitalists say in regards to the "Gilded Age" and the "Robber Barrons" that ain't an example of the actual system, but a curupted form. More specificaly it is an irresponsible response to my post, which pointed out that a capitalist, and industrial, establishment was nesecary to the sucess of a communist revolution, neither of which were present in Russia at the time of the revolution.

Except as capitalists say in regards to the "Gilded Age" and the "Robber Barrons" that ain't an example of the actual system, but a curupted form. More specificaly it is an irresponsible response to my post, which pointed out that a capitalist, and industrial, establishment was nesecary to the sucess of a communist revolution, neither of which were present in Russia at the time of the revolution.

If there is a well established capitalist system with a developed, modern industrial economy, why would they want to impose communism and destroy what capitalism had created? That seems like one of the reasons why it didn't work.

Capitalism is based on perfect competition.

No, capitalism is based on property rights and economic freedom.

Capitalism is a moral system, not a "what works best" system. We are just lucky that it actually does work best.

Except as capitalists say in regards to the "Gilded Age" and the "Robber Barrons" that ain't an example of the actual system, but a curupted form. More specificaly it is an irresponsible response to my post, which pointed out that a capitalist, and industrial, establishment was nesecary to the sucess of a communist revolution, neither of which were present in Russia at the time of the revolution.

I'm sorry but innefficiency is most certainly an example of the "actual system" of Communism.

In Communism there exists no insentive at all to maximise wealth. This leads to absurd examples such as the farmer feeding bread to cattle, simply because the centrally set price makes this more logical then feeding the cows grain.

Only in a competitive market, where the market sets the price, is efficiency achieved.

No, capitalism is based on property rights and economic freedom.

Capitalism is a moral system, not a "what works best" system. We are just lucky that it actually does work best.

Clearly defined property rights and economic freedom along with knowledge allow competitiveness, so I don't see your point. They lead to praeto efficient outcomes, at least in theory.

Greed has nothing to do with it. As long as the government provides regulation for anti-competitive practises then a fairly efficient Capitalist system will develop.

Besides, why the double standards? If you want to compare Capitalism in practise than I will compare Communism in practise, and we both know Communism has far more blood on its hands. Stick either to theory or practise, don't mix the two for your own political agenda.
:rolleyes: I'm merely swiching between the two as needed to adress the issue, in theory both systems in their pure form are good. IN reality they are inavetably currupted, to benefit those in power, be they Stalin or the Robber Barons. Which is why a ballance is need between the two to see that we don't have a repeat of the explotation workers faced during the Industrial Age, before they were able to see the establishment of Labor Laws, laws which some "free market" advocates are calling for the repeal of.

Alright, this is where I wash my hands and leave this thread. I simply cannot stand the sterile-minded "debating" that's happening here.

1: You people need to read up on things.

2: You people need to read up on things, and

3: You people need to read up on things.

Seriously, I cannot say this enough: Your idea of Communism has been hopelessly skewed by Western (mostly American) anti-Socialist propaganda. It's not even close to what you think it is. I beg of you to open your minds... To see how things really are.

*walks away*

I'm merely swiching between the two as needed to adress the issue, in theory both systems in their pure form are good.
I've already explained a fundamental flaw in the theory of Communism, the lack of incentive. Where is your counter-argument? What problems do you have with Capitalism in theory? Certainly none as serious as this one.

Clearly defined property rights and economic freedom along with knowledge allow competitiveness, so I don't see your point. They lead to praeto efficient outcomes, at least in theory.

All I am saying is that the efficiencies of the free market are a reprecussion of capitalism not a root of it, and that capitalism as a system has no moral basis in competition.

Potaria if you aren't clever enough to understand the topic then by all means leave, I don't need some fool to tell me I need to read up on how great Communism is when you can't even mount a coherent counter-argument. Your condecending attitude is simply amazing.

Alright, this is where I wash my hands and leave this thread. I simply cannot stand the sterile-minded "debating" that's happening here.

1: You people need to read up on things.

2: You people need to read up on things, and

3: You people need to read up on things.

Seriously, I cannot say this enough: Your idea of Communism has been hopelessly skewed by Western (mostly American) anti-Socialist propaganda. It's not even close to what you think it is. I beg of you to open your minds... To see how things really are.

*walks away*

Awww yes, the old, "you don't agree with me so you must not know anything about the topic" tactic. I have been defeated.

I'm sorry but innefficiency is most certainly an example of the "actual system" of Communism.

In Communism there exists no insentive at all to maximise wealth. This leads to absurd examples such as the farmer feeding bread to cattle, simply because the centrally set price makes this more logical then feeding the cows grain.

Only in a competitive market, where the market sets the price, is efficiency achieved.
Your right, and "capitalism" during the industrial revolution was quite effective, and it still is why do you think so many companies go to areas where there are no labor laws, because it makes them more money which is their end ojective. Yet "Free Market" advocates claim that some "invisible hand" is suppose to prevent this.

All I am saying is that the efficiencies of the free market are a reprecussion of capitalism not a root of it, and that capitalism as a system has no moral basis in competition.

Okay, I can accept that. If capitalism does have a moral basis, I think you can only say it is to do what is in your interests. When this combines with a perfectly competitve economy it leads to the most efficient possible outcome. Would you agree?

Alright, this is where I wash my hands and leave this thread. I simply cannot stand the sterile-minded "debating" that's happening here.

1: You people need to read up on things.

2: You people need to read up on things, and

3: You people need to read up on things.

Seriously, I cannot say this enough: Your idea of Communism has been hopelessly skewed by Western (mostly American) anti-Socialist propaganda. It's not even close to what you think it is. I beg of you to open your minds... To see how things really are.

*walks away*
I have opened my mind, I have read Marx, and I have rejected communism resoundly, rather I support a competitive free market (anti-trust laws are key here).

Okay, I can accept it. If capitalism does have a moral basis, I think you can only say it is to do what is in your interests. When this combines with a perfectly competitve economy it leads to the most efficient possible outcome. Would you agree?
Not to mention the most beneficia possible outcome as well, with both producers and consumers receiving just compensation for the expenditure of their resources.

Your right, and "capitalism" during the industrial revolution was quite effective, and it still is why do you think so many companies go to areas where there are no labor laws, because it makes them more money which is their end ojective. Yet "Free Market" advocates claim that some "invisible hand" is suppose to prevent this.

Adam Smith did not say that. He said that in a competitive market where everyone acts in their interests the "free hand" will guide to the most efficient outcome, maximising wealth. This is completely true.

I have opened my mind, I have read Marx, and I have rejected communism resoundly, rather I support a competitive free market (anti-trust laws are key here).

Well, coming back into the thread (it sucks when General only has one good thread), I'll say this: Marx, while he had a few good ideas, was mostly off his rocker with his political theories.

Communism isn't about a revolution started by the working class. It's not about controlling everyone's life and/or lifestyles. Don't buy into the Marxist bullshit, for everyone's sake.

Seriously, I cannot say this enough: Your idea of Communism has been hopelessly skewed by Western (mostly American) anti-Socialist propaganda. It's not even close to what you think it is. I beg of you to open your minds... To see how things really are.


Every single Communist nation in the entire history of the movement (except Spain, which was so fractured by civil war that it was hard to consider it truly unified) has been an oppressive, corrupt totalitarian regime that concentrated power in the hands of a party oligarchy that was equally or more repressive than the aristocratic regime they replaced.

That is how things really are; Communism doesn't work in practice on any but the smallest scale, but in reality any ideology could work on a small scale. It has noble ideas, but those ideas were easily perverted by self interest.

Not to mention the most beneficia possible outcome as well, with both producers and consumers receiving just compensation for the expenditure of their resources.

And really that is the crucial point, isn't it? No one is saying that capitalism is perfect. But it does lead to an outcome where no one can be made better off without making someone worse off. This is at the very least a great start.

Compare with capitalism. The centrally set prices mean the economy is inefficent from the word go.

Awww yes, the old, "you don't agree with me so you must not know anything about the topic" tactic. I have been defeated.

Heh, no, not quite. You've shown that you think of Communism as only being the Stalinist sort, and that it couldn't possibly be anything else.

Well, coming back into the thread (it sucks when General only has one good thread), I'll say this: Marx, while he had a few good ideas, was mostly off his rocker with his political theories.

Communism isn't about a revolution started by the working class. It's not about controlling everyone's life and/or lifestyles. Don't buy into the Marxist bullshit, for everyone's sake.
I'm saying I've rejected the concept of collective ownership of the means of production. Besides being unjust, it creates all sorts of allocative problems that are enought o drive anyone nuts.

Well, coming back into the thread (it sucks when General only has one good thread), I'll say this: Marx, while he had a few good ideas, was mostly off his rocker with his political theories.

Communism isn't about a revolution started by the working class. It's not about controlling everyone's life and/or lifestyles. Don't buy into the Marxist bullshit, for everyone's sake.

Haha. If Communism isn't Marx than what is it?

It has noble ideas, but those ideas were easily perverted by self interest.
Which, uniquely enough, is the engine of capitalism.

Heh, no, not quite. You've shown that you think of Communism as only being the Stalinist sort, and that it couldn't possibly be anything else.

But why this double standard? If Communism isn't Soviet Russia, why is capitalism exploitation of the working class?

Heh, no, not quite. You've shown that you think of Communism as only being the Stalinist sort, and that it couldn't possibly be anything else.
It's in large-scale practice, not in theory or in a small-scale.

Which, uniquely enough, is the engine of capitalism.

Ironic isn't it that in capitalism this driving force leads to praeto efficiency due to competitiveness and in Communism it has led to brutal totalitarianism? Of course, that is in practise, in theory self-interest in Communism will lead to huge inefficiency because of lack of incentive. So both in theory and practise Communism is flawed.

I've already explained a fundamental flaw in the theory of Communism, the lack of incentive. Where is your counter-argument? What problems do you have with Capitalism in theory? Certainly none as serious as this one.
The flaw is that when applied to the real world in its pure form it becomes currupted the same as communism, one needs only look at past atempts at ablying this to see this. I don't claim that communism is perfect, but neither do I see "free market" capitalism as perfect either. They have both in the past proved to have flaws, when any attempt is made to implement them. Communism is taken over by the "party" and capitalism by select, buisness interests. Its all well and good to talk about how great something is in theory, but one needs to look at the posibility of it being succesfuly implemented. As for a flaw in pure capitalism, the first to pop to mind is that profit is the the ultimate end objective and the most effeceint(sp) method alway the best despite anyother possible morral objections, ex workers rights.

Every single Communist nation in the entire history of the movement (except Spain, which was so fractured by civil war that it was hard to consider it truly unified) has been an oppressive, corrupt totalitarian regime that concentrated power in the hands of a party oligarchy that was equally or more repressive than the aristocratic regime they replaced.

That is how things really are; Communism doesn't work in practice on any but the smallest scale, but in reality any ideology could work on a small scale. It has noble ideas, but those ideas were easily perverted by self interest.

Here we go again, eh?

1: Exactly, because they go about the process in a manner that's so wrong, it's ridiculous. First, they appoint a "Chairman" or "Premiere". Then, they take everything away from everyone. After that, they barely give anything back to the people... Giving them the bare minimum of what they need. This is not how you're supposed to shift to a Communism.

2: Not really. This is how things really are: Past Communist "nations" (funny, that) haven't succeeded, simply because the revolutionaries are power-hungry feinds. In these states, the power has never been given to the people. It's always remained in the hands of a select few, who abuse the utter fuck out of it.

Aside from some economic differences, these "Communisms" are nothing less than Fascisms. From their nationalism (again, really funny) and propaganda to their iron-fisted control of the populace... Fascism.

Adam Smith did not say that. He said that in a competitive market where everyone acts in their interests the "free hand" will guide to the most efficient outcome, maximising wealth. This is completely true.
Yes and if the most effecient system is the explotaiton of ones workers, what does that mean?

You aren't listening though Psycher. The lack of incentive is a theoretical flaw of Communism. As is the inefficiency of allocating scarce resources due to centrally determined prices. As is the lack of maximising wealth that appears in Capitalism due to government set prices.

These aren't practical problems, though they are that too. You can't say it is a failure of the system in reality. They are theoretcial problems inherent to the very theory of Communism itself!

And I stumbled across the infernal reference to "state-capitalism", a phrase that is a blatant oxymoron and a fine example of double think.

Why is this so untrue?

Because in the USSR and PRC there was no competition, which is the single most defining element of capitalism. Perhaps a superior term would be "totalitarian socialism." Which, is a true, double-think free term.

Aside from some economic differences, these "Communisms" are nothing less than Fascisms. From their nationalism (again, really funny) and propaganda to their iron-fisted control of the populace... Fascism.
Please, pleae use Fascism in the correct political sense instead of as a term for some corrupt government.

Okay, I can accept that. If capitalism does have a moral basis, I think you can only say it is to do what is in your interests. When this combines with a perfectly competitve economy it leads to the most efficient possible outcome. Would you agree?

Completely

But why this double standard? If Communism isn't Soviet Russia, why is capitalism exploitation of the working class?

Capitalism isn't pure exploitation, but it's rampant. In itself, it creates a class system that divides the populace, denies millions the right to a good life, and uses resources in a ridiculous manner (think about it: do we really need 20 different kinds of egg beaters? 100 different brands of paper clips? 200 different kinds of cars?).

"Communism", as you call it, is much worse, though. Nobody should have to live in a Dictatorship.

Actually, mostly pure capitalism (pure capitalism is impossible, at least for the foreseeable future) is far better than this government ran capitalism we have right now.

When we get to a point where governments cease to decide when to be capitalist, and actually let the economy be free, things will get better.



Do you even know how corporations work? They talk to their competitors about maximizing profits for all groups, by lowering durability and quality and by raising prices. Considering their monopoly over the market (which pure capitalism is most likely to do, look at the 20's, look at the rail monopolies and steel monopolies, this is the product of the free-market) prices go up, while quality and entreprenuers go. Remember when America was much more free-market? Our economy sucked for everyone but Mr. Rockefeller. You're infinitely more illogical than us communists are, at least we don't say "oh yeah, everything will get better if you just free up the market!" without backing ourselves up.

Every single Communist nation in the entire history of the movement (except Spain, which was so fractured by civil war that it was hard to consider it truly unified) has been an oppressive, corrupt totalitarian regime that concentrated power in the hands of a party oligarchy that was equally or more repressive than the aristocratic regime they replaced.

That is how things really are; Communism doesn't work in practice on any but the smallest scale, but in reality any ideology could work on a small scale. It has noble ideas, but those ideas were easily perverted by self interest.
But thats the scale its suppose to work on. It isn't suppose to be impamented as a form of goverment that is socialism, which is supose to act as a either gradual(sp) or revolutionary transfer process between capitalism and communism, where goverment inits current form would cease to exist, and things would be organized into small communes.

Please, pleae use Fascism in the correct political sense instead of as a term for some corrupt government.

Yes, of course, but if you look at it, they're not much different. That's my point.

Yes and if the most effecient system is the explotaiton of ones workers, what does that mean?

If it is the most efficient, ie if it is perfectly competitve, you can't really call it exploitation. All parties enter into the transaction because they have the absolute most they can possibily gain from that transaction. They increase their wealth by the maximum possible amount.

Of course, in reality even when this is so it can lead to unacceptable levels of income inequality. That is why I advocate a mixed economy with social welfare, so that eventually the poorer workers can make their labour more valuable and earn more. But it is still based on Capitalism, the best possible starting point.

And I stumbled across the infernal reference to "state-capitalism", a phrase that is a blatant oxymoron and a fine example of double think.

Why is this so untrue?

Because in the USSR and PRC there was no competition, which is the single most defining element of capitalism. Perhaps a superior term would be "totalitarian socialism." Which, is a true, double-think free term.


If production is being endeavored on for the economic benefit of the country, and products from this country are being sold to other countries, then this is state-capitalism. It'd be like if America rented our military out to other countries. State-capitalism.

But thats the scale its suppose to work on. It isn't suppose to be impamented as a form of goverment that is socialism, which is supose to act as a either gradual(sp) or revolutionary transfer process between capitalism and communism, where goverment inits current form would cease to exist, and things would be organized into small communes.

Exactly. That's not to say that cities will simply die out, but they will be different.

They are theoretcial problems inherent to the very theory of Communism itself!
And the invisible hand is the theoretical flaw in Smith's argument, no matter which way you spin it.
Prisoner's Dilemma? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma)

Yes and if the most effecient system is the explotaiton of ones workers, what does that mean?
No, that's not at all what that means. This means that there is a demand for workers and there is a supply of workers. Excluding the presence collusion (which is inherently anti-competitive and uncapitalistic, not to mention illegal), firms will attempt to attract more skilled workers by paying their employees more. It's just a simple supply-demand curve.

If production is being endeavored on for the economic benefit of the country, and products from this country are being sold to other countries, then this is state-capitalism. It'd be like if America rented our military out to other countries. State-capitalism.

Exactly. Just like the U.S.S.R.

It had no competition, right, but they still exported millions of tons of raw materials and finished products to other countries for the benefit of its own... Well, the benefit of its leaders.

Heh, no, not quite. You've shown that you think of Communism as only being the Stalinist sort, and that it couldn't possibly be anything else.

I know communism as an idea where all property is owned collectively, whereas all people have undivided legal right to all property within society. This means that no individual has any more claim to property than another, and that distribution is determined by a democratically voted upon utility applied to personal need.

Or we can get into anarcho-communism, where it is assumed that the people, through love of equality, will continue to institute more and more socialist policies through a democratic government, until they reach a point of full altruism and the now unnecessary government withers away.

Both of these are untenable ideas.

Yes, of course, but if you look at it, they're not much different. That's my point.
I understand, but still.

And the invisible hand is the theoretical flaw in Smith's argument, no matter which way you spin it.
Prisoner's Dilemma? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma)
Hm? I don't get it? What the hell does that have to do with the invisible hand?

This almost seems like how my creationist acquiantance uses the second law of thermodynamics as an argument against evolution.

It's just a simple supply-demand curve.
Except firms can't know the Marginal Product of Labour, workers can vary their MPL, and thus no demand nor a supply curve can ever be created.

Then, they take everything away from everyone.
This is a central tennant of Communism, it is a theoretical and practical imperative of the ideology.

Aside from some economic differences, these "Communisms" are nothing less than Fascisms.
You are unnessarily confusing the distinction between what is an economic system (Capitalism, Communism) and political systems (Fascism). Please don't do this. If you want to debate that Communism is a fine system in theory you must adress its weak points on economic theory, not throw out your strawman that it also failed by becoming totalitarian.

I understand, but still.

Yeah, but then, look at it this way: Some people in this thread, who I need not mention, are doing the same for the real Communism. Well, pretty much the same.

You get my point.

And the invisible hand is the theoretical flaw in Smith's argument, no matter which way you spin it.
Prisoner's Dilemma? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma)


Brilliant! Game theory wins again!

But game theory refers to oligopolies, not perfectly competitive markets. In the long term game theory dictates firms will raise their prices, but we aren't talking about a perfectly competitive market are we? We are talking about an oligopoly, so where is the relevance?

If it is the most efficient, ie if it is perfectly competitve, you can't really call it exploitation. All parties enter into the transaction because they have the absolute most they can possibily gain from that transaction. They increase their wealth by the maximum possible amount.

Of course, in reality even when this is so it can lead to unacceptable levels of income inequality. That is why I advocate a mixed economy with social welfare, so that eventually the poorer workers can make their labour more valuable and earn more. But it is still based on Capitalism, the best possible starting point.
But those social welfare structures you refer to are a socialist/communist idea, in that the early socialists/communists were some of the first to advocate these ideas, making the system you refer to a mix of the two, combining the "best" of both systems, which has been what I at least have been trying to promote. My problem is realy only with the claim that capitalism in its "free market" form is "perfect."

This is a central tennant of Communism, it is a theoretical and practical imperative of the ideology.


You are unnessarily confusing the distinction between what is an economic system (Capitalism, Communism) and political systems (Fascism). Please don't do this. If you want to debate that Communism is a fine system in theory you must adress its weak points on economic theory, not throw out your strawman that it also failed by becoming totalitarian.

1: Oh please... Don't bother me with your indoctrinated propaganda bullshit.

2: You fail to see the point. Oh, how you fail. Look: The "Communism" of the states that have used it (Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea) is very close to Fascism, in the sense that the people are controlled by the government, there is no free press (it's also government-controlled and filled with lies and propaganda), the state and the military come first and foremost, and the people have few civil liberties.

If you still can't see what I'm getting at... Well, that's really just your problem, then, isn't it?

Do you even know how corporations work? They talk to their competitors about maximizing profits for all groups, by lowering durability and quality and by raising prices. Considering their monopoly over the market (which pure capitalism is most likely to do, look at the 20's, look at the rail monopolies and steel monopolies, this is the product of the free-market) prices go up, while quality and entreprenuers go. Remember when America was much more free-market? Our economy sucked for everyone but Mr. Rockefeller. You're infinitely more illogical than us communists are, at least we don't say "oh yeah, everything will get better if you just free up the market!" without backing ourselves up.

Considering that I was a finance major in college, yes I do have an idea of how corporations work. And yes I do know that the only responsibility that the management has is to maximize profits to shareholders.

But I also know that your idea of the management plans of corporations and the free market is flawed.

Firstly, corporations understand very well that price is based on the utility to the consumer, and that prices will find equilibrium so that overpriced goods will suffer lower profits.

This means that they seek to maintain quality while lowering prices. They do this by lowering costs by making the production process more efficient.

And as for the robber barons of the 20s, that was due to an underdeveloped market, and continuing government intervention and favoritism to wealthy individuals.

Firstly, corporations understand very well that price is based on the utility to the consumer, and that prices will find equilibrium so that overpriced goods will suffer lower profits.

This means that they seek to maintain quality while lowering prices. They do this by lowering costs by making the production process more efficient.

And as for the robber barons of the 20s, that was due to an underdeveloped market, and continuing government intervention and favoritism to wealthy individuals.

1: Which is exactly why corporations either make shitty products, or source their labor overseas and pay the workers next to nothing.

2: Sometimes. Usually, they just outsource.

3: More like it was due to little government intervention. There were far fewer laws against monopolies in those days. There were also fewer laws against over-pollution (there was a period when there were no laws against that. Lovely black skies at 12:00 PM in Pittsburgh on a daily basis), the mistreatment of workers, and ridiculously-low wages.

What, do you think that these corporations just had a change of heart, or that the market "grew enough"? Hardly...

No, that's not at all what that means. This means that there is a demand for workers and there is a supply of workers. Excluding the presence collusion (which is inherently anti-competitive and uncapitalistic, not to mention illegal), firms will attempt to attract more skilled workers by paying their employees more. It's just a simple supply-demand curve.
And in areas where, a dificult to aquire, skill is not nesecary/important, such as on an assembly line?

Except firms can't know the Marginal Product of Labour, workers can vary their MPL, and thus no demand nor a supply curve can ever be created.
Firms have a demand for labor, typically of a certain level of expertise. And unless they are willing to pay a certain amount for that labor, then the labor will not work. The principles are still in play.

Beyond that my computer seems to be freaking out, and if I disappear, that doesn't mean I have run away, but that laptops need to be able to cool down more efficiently.

But those social welfare structures you refer to are a socialist/communist idea, in that the early socialists/communists were some of the first to advocate these ideas, making the system you refer to a mix of the two, combining the "best" of both systems, which has been what I at least have been trying to promote. My problem is realy only with the claim that capitalism in its "free market" form is "perfect."

I'm sorry but this is not true, social welfare is not a communist idea. Social welfare does not make the system any less efficient, it simply makes some people worse off by making transfer payments away to people society says should be better off. It mitigates the worse effect of captialism, welfare inequality, while retaining the capitalist system. The amount of social welfare needed is up to endless debate, so I digress.

Communism is far different. It leads to inefficiency because the price is not market price. Don't confuse the two, they are not even remotely similar.

And in areas where, a dificult to aquire, skill is not nesecary/important, such as on an assembly line?
People will be naturally desire to gravitate toward higher paying jobs by acquiring more skills, as a result, assembly lines, which will retain their demand will have to either develop a more efficient method of production (lean production techniques, computerization, robotics) or be willing to offer labor a greater amount of cash to keep them from seeking training in the more specialized fields.

Communism is being talked about as if it has no personal economic benefits. What is not realized is that private ownership, while it no longer exists, translates to public ownership. Meaning that no one can collect profits on your labor. You gain the full product of your own labor (or your collective group's own labor, generally the size of your production facility) without having any skimmed off by parasite business owners (because you own it). Communism can be a much more selfish system than capitalism, because it works for the selfishness of all present. It isn't altruistic, because you are paid directly according to how hard you work. If you're content with a living wage, you don't have to work as hard. If you want to work as hard as your poor capitalist-suffering bretheren, then you make more than twice as much!

Workers in a capitalist economy have no incentive to work harder (obviously) given that their efficiency will only translate into more profits for their bosses, while they make the same wage as if they worked half as quickly. Direct ownership translates to dividing the profits accordingly. Screw more efficient, I wanna get paid what I'm worth!

Hm? I don't get it? What the hell does that have to do with the invisible hand?
The Invisible Hand is the notion that, if everything acts in their best interest, the outcome will always be the best possible.
This very simple example illustrates what really is common sense: That this is simply not true.

But game theory refers to oligopolies, not perfectly competitive markets. In the long term game theory dictates firms will raise their prices, but we aren't talking about a perfectly competitive market are we? We are talking about an oligopoly, so where is the relevance?
Have you ever seen a perfectly competitive market? I haven't.
This isn't talking about oligopolies necessarily, it talks about any form of market in which the action of one firm affects the fortune of another. Whether that is monopolistic competition, imperfect competition, oligopolies, oligopsonies, or even monopolies and monopsonies is of no consequence for the principle.

I'm sorry but this is not true, social welfare is not a communist idea. Social welfare does not make the system any less efficient, it simply makes some people worse off by making transfer payments away to people society says should be better off.

Communism is far different. It leads to inefficiency because the price is not market price. Don't confuse the two, they are not even remotely similar.

Actually, Einstein (I will refer to you as such from this point on, as you have shown us that you are incredibly knowledgeable and well-read on these issues), Social Welfare was borne of Marx's political philosophies.

2: Communism Has No Economic System As Such. There is no money, and there is no market. (Remember, this is pure Communism I'm talking about. Near-Communism still has echoes of Capitalism.)

Funny. You seem to be pulling things out of your ass. Wow, that's surprising.

Yeah, but then, look at it this way: Some people in this thread, who I need not mention, are doing the same for the real Communism. Well, pretty much the same.

You get my point.
Well, when people think of "Communism" there is:
Stalinism
Trotskyism
Bolshevism
Marxism
Socialism
Maoism
Hoxhaism
Leninism
Juche

and severl others I can't remember.

Then there's pure communism (which I assume is some variant of anarcho-socialism).

Considering that I was a finance major in college, yes I do have an idea of how corporations work. And yes I do know that the only responsibility that the management has is to maximize profits to shareholders.

But I also know that your idea of the management plans of corporations and the free market is flawed.

Firstly, corporations understand very well that price is based on the utility to the consumer, and that prices will find equilibrium so that overpriced goods will suffer lower profits.

This means that they seek to maintain quality while lowering prices. They do this by lowering costs by making the production process more efficient.

And as for the robber barons of the 20s, that was due to an underdeveloped market, and continuing government intervention and favoritism to wealthy individuals.


Hahaaa!! Hilarious! There was never a period of less economic intervention in America than in the early 20th century! Oh, what wonderful prosperity, in an economy that was mainly industrialized! Hah! America underdeveloped? Government budgets that could subsidize or create favoritism? I'm laughing my lungs out!

I'm sorry but this is not true, social welfare is not a communist idea. Social welfare does not make the system any less efficient, it simply makes some people worse off by making transfer payments away to people society says should be better off. It mitigates the worse effect of captialism, welfare inequality, while retaining the capitalist system. The amount of social welfare needed is up to endless debate, so I digress.

Communism is far different. It leads to inefficiency because the price is not market price. Don't confuse the two, they are not even remotely similar.
SO redistribution of wealth is NOT an asspect of communism/socialism?

Communism is based on the value of labor as opposed to the artificial value of demand. That is how the economy works.

1: Which is exactly why corporations either make shitty products, or source their labor overseas and pay the workers next to nothing.

2: Sometimes. Usually, they just outsource.

3: More like it was due to little government intervention. There were far fewer laws against monopolies in those days. There were also fewer laws against over-pollution (there was a period when there were no laws against that. Lovely black skies at 12:00 PM in Pittsburgh on a daily basis), the mistreatment of workers, and ridiculously-low wages.

What, do you think that these corporations just had a change of heart, or that the market "grew enough"? Hardly...
Anti-competitive behaviors such as monopolization are market failures and were made illegal in the US, and the government and society considers excessive pollution a market failure, which any Smithian will tell you is a perfectly appropriate role for the government.

And do you understand the benefits of free trade? The ability to keep prices low, which is incredibly pro poor? The low prices are key in helping keep inflation down, and increase the purchasing power of the average poor person. And because their purchasing power has increased, their standard of living increase. Meanwhile they can also seek training to improve their skills and transfer to a more efficient service industry. Just like how it's working in the US.

Communism is based on the value of labor as opposed to the artificial value of demand. That is how the economy works.

Much more effective and worthwhile than the Capitalist system.

Firms have a demand for labor, typically of a certain level of expertise. And unless they are willing to pay a certain amount for that labor, then the labor will not work. The principles are still in play.
That's true. I just take exception to anything that points toward "I'll draw a graph, and that'll tell me how people should live."
Maybe that's not an ideal way to think for an Econ-Student...but there's always evolutionary economics to come home to! :D

People will be naturally desire to gravitate toward higher paying jobs by acquiring more skills, as a result, assembly lines, which will retain their demand will have to either develop a more efficient method of production (lean production techniques, computerization, robotics) or be willing to offer labor a greater amount of cash to keep them from seeking training in the more specialized fields.
And all people are given the oportunity to aquire these skills? Would it not be cheaper to simply find a new source of cheap labor than paying your workers more, ala outsourcing? Its a global market, there are millions in the developing world yearning to be exploited in conditions sinilar to Europe/America during the nineteen hundreds. So instead of ending the explotation it has only shifted.

1: Oh please... Don't bother me with your indoctrinated propaganda bullshit.
Ahh yes, those who disagree with you are indoctrinated, what a clever reply. If you don't understand that the most central tennant of Communism is the end of private ownership then I suggest you stop taking part in this conversation.


You fail to see the point. Oh, how you fail. Look: The "Communism" of the states that have used it (Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea) is very close to Fascism, in the sense that the people are controlled by the government, there is no free press (it's also government-controlled and filled with lies and propaganda), the state and the military come first and foremost, and the people have few civil liberties.
And you fail to see two points. Firstly, fascism is not synoynmous with totalitarianism. You don't understand what fascim means, basically it is at the most basic a nationalist, intolerant and militaristic system of government that is authoritarian. Both Communism and Fascism however may be totalitarian. Secondly, Communism also has economic faliures which have nothing to do with the advent of totalitarianism. One of those I have explained above, and you have ignored.


If you still can't see what I'm getting at... Well, that's really just your problem, then, isn't it?
Your condescending tone doesn't make your argument any less weak.

The Invisible Hand is the notion that, if everything acts in their best interest, the outcome will always be the best possible.
This very simple example illustrates what really is common sense: That this is simply not true.
But the key to the prisoners dilemma is that both participants are not completely informed as to the decision and situation of the other participant, which is not so in the market, where information about behaviors is widely available and the consumers are well informed.

Anti-competitive behaviors such as monopolization are market failures and were made illegal in the US, and the government and society considers excessive pollution a market failure, which any Smithian will tell you is a perfectly appropriate role for the government.

And do you understand the benefits of free trade? The ability to keep prices low, which is incredibly pro poor? The low prices are key in helping keep inflation down, and increase the purchasing power of the average poor person. And because their purchasing power has increased, their standard of living increase. Meanwhile they can also seek training to improve their skills and transfer to a more efficient service industry. Just like how it's working in the US.
Yes but it is working by shifting the explotation to other nations. Further more those may be market failures, yet they continue to happen, Wall-Mart for example, Microsoft? You can't just assume that the leaders of industry in capitalism will be any less prone to curruption than those in any other system.

Have you ever seen a perfectly competitive market? I haven't.
For example bond trading markets, etc, are almost completely praeto efficient.


This isn't talking about oligopolies necessarily, it talks about any form of market in which the action of one firm affects the fortune of another. Whether that is monopolistic competition, imperfect competition, oligopolies, oligopsonies, or even monopolies and monopsonies is of no consequence for the principle.
Yes but we are really talking about prefectly competitive markets aren't we?

Anti-competitive behaviors such as monopolization are market failures and were made illegal in the US, and the government and society considers excessive pollution a market failure, which any Smithian will tell you is a perfectly appropriate role for the government.

And do you understand the benefits of free trade? The ability to keep prices low, which is incredibly pro poor? The low prices are key in helping keep inflation down, and increase the purchasing power of the average poor person. And because their purchasing power has increased, their standard of living increase. Meanwhile they can also seek training to improve their skills and transfer to a more efficient service industry. Just like how it's working in the US.

1: Well, that's nothing I didn't already know, really...

2: You really don't see the true problem with "free" trade, do you? I'll give some points.

A: What do you think happens to the employees who make the products? Their wages are slashed, and a lot of them lose their jobs to machines, and what is becoming increasingly common, overseas workers who are paid about a tenth of what these employees were.

B: While simultaneously butt-fucking the workers. Others are made richer, while these people are made poorer.

C: ...And the standard of living for the workers decreased. Are you seeing a trend here? It's called an Inverse Relationship, which is necessary of Capitalism.

D: More like how it's notworking in the U.S... Just look at the old industrial towns and cities. What's become of the workers, who just twenty years prior had good jobs? They're stuck with either working in a service job that might pay half of what they used to make, living off their siblings'/children's/relatives' money, or they're on welfare.

Don't even say "That's not how it works!", because that's How It Works. It's not a matter of opinion or personal preference. In Capitalism, for one to have a better life, another has to have a worse life. And nowhere in the world is this more clear than the United States.

And all people are given the oportunity to aquire these skills? Would it not be cheaper to simply find a new source of cheap labor than paying your workers more, ala outsourcing? Its a global market, there are millions in the developing world yearning to be exploited in conditions sinilar to Europe/America during the nineteen hundreds. So instead of ending the explotation it has only shifted.
Beyond just simple transportation costs...

It's also more efficient to manufacture in non-labor intensive industries, which is what a service-style economy provides. Every firm desires to be more efficient and therefore more competitive. Why does Honda produce automobiles in Marysville, Ohio, why does Toyota produce cars in Alabama? It's more than a matter of cheap labor. It's a matter of overall efficiency.

Beyond that, the eventual effects of convergence on a pre-industrial society will make it so a firm can only realize short term benefits, with the eventual long-term costs being particularly negative.

And all people are given the oportunity to aquire these skills? Would it not be cheaper to simply find a new source of cheap labor than paying your workers more, ala outsourcing? Its a global market, there are millions in the developing world yearning to be exploited in conditions sinilar to Europe/America during the nineteen hundreds. So instead of ending the explotation it has only shifted.

There is no reason why, in a globalised economy, nations need rely on cheap labour indeffinitely. Instead, what they need to do is exploit their comparitive advantage in cheap labour in order to gain the wealth need to invest in their own county to improve capital. Then, by doing this their labour can become more expensive, and wages can improve. This was the case in Malaysia.

And all people are given the oportunity to aquire these skills?
No, not always. In the long run, if there's anything like equality, yes. But single peoples lives can be destroyed. I've witnessed it.

Would it not be cheaper to simply find a new source of cheap labor than paying your workers more, ala outsourcing?
One doesn't have to do with the other though.
As Globalisation progresses, the structure of the labour force will transform on the macro-level. Poor countries will become the manufacturing businesses, rich countries do services and R&D.
And as those poor countries become richer, and their populations become overqualified for simple jobs, we'll build robots!
That demands though that it is properly managed.
PLUG!: Very useful material on the issue, both for proponents and critics.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=448469

The problem I have with Communism is
a) it requires some sort of central planning. People's wants and desires are very complex, the information required to manage an entire society properly is impossible to get, and even if it were possible, it would be too much.
And even if you then had the perfect plan that would make everyone happy, one bottleneck could throw it all out the window.
b) it kills the entrepreneur. I think that having ideas and using them to make money is natural for humans - if they can't benefit from their ideas, less people will have them. But we need entrepreneurs, we really do.
"Gales of creative destruction" - in other words, are you still sad for the workers who worked in the horse&buggy industry?

But the key to the prisoners dilemma is that both participants are not completely informed as to the decision and situation of the other participant, which is not so in the market, where information about behaviors is widely available and the consumers are well informed.
Consumers? well informed? :p :p :p

Consumers? well informed? :p :p :p
Yes, actually there exists laws in captialist countries for this to occur. It is essential for competitive markets.

Ahh yes, those who disagree with you are indoctrinated, what a clever reply. If you don't understand that the most central tennant of Communism is the end of private ownership then I suggest you stop taking part in this conversation.



And you fail to see two points. Firstly, fascism is not synoynmous with totalitarianism. You don't understand what fascim means, basically it is at the most basic a nationalist, intolerant and militaristic system of government that is authoritarian. Both Communism and Fascism however may be totalitarian. Secondly, Communism also has economic faliures which have nothing to do with the advent of totalitarianism. One of those I have explained above, and you have ignored.



Your condescending tone doesn't make your argument any less weak.

1: You see the end of private ownership as the end of all things? Wow, you're certainly selfish. It's hardly different from what we already have, and in many ways, it's better.

2: UGH, get over yourself! I'm naming the things these so-called "Communist" states have in common with Fascism, and you're totally failing to see the point! They are almost identical in the way they control the population with an iron fist, and put the military and ruling party above all else. I'm not saying they're the same system, or even the same type of government. I'm just pointing out the fact that they share many things.

Is that so hard to stomach?

This is like saing that you feel sorry for anyone who has died of natural causes. :sniper:

No matter what you do someone is going to take advantage of it. :eek:

I.E. Enron

In a perfect world comunism would work. It only screws up when there are corruptable people in charge and their are lazy people in the work force. :rolleyes:

Actualy in a PERFECT world there would be no need for government. ;)

2: You really don't see the true problem with "free" trade, do you? I'll give some points.
You do realise that both nations gain out of free trade? They gain both consumer and producer surpluses?

A nation that sells cheap labour gains from trade. These gains of trade can be invested in labour, to increase wages and overall living standards of the nation.

You do realise that both nations gain out of free trade? They gain both consumer and producer surpluses?

A nation that sells cheap labour gains from trade. These gains of trade can be invested in labour, to increase wages and overall living standards of the nation.

1: HAH! Some people may gain, but in the end, too many suffer for what "gains" there are. This was explained in a previous post.

2: While that nation gains, the other loses. Again, this was explained in a previous post.

Inverse Relationship.

But the key to the prisoners dilemma is that both participants are not completely informed as to the decision and situation of the other participant, which is not so in the market, where information about behaviors is widely available and the consumers are well informed.
No they're not. I direct you to the field of "Information Economics".

And to name another simple illustration:

I want to sell a used car. To me it is worth $1000, because it is in such great shape.

You want to buy a used car. But you don't know whether my car is any good. Let's say that 20% of used cars are crap (let's call them "lemons", shall we? ;) ) A crap car is only worth $800 to you.

So to estimate what price you would pay, you rational individual would do a risk assessment.

80% chance that the car is good and you'd pay $1000 for it.
20% chance that the car is a lemon and you'd pay $800 for it.
Your expected price: (0.8*1000) + (0.2*800) = 800 + 160 = $960.
So you go out there, and try to buy a car for $960.

I see that and say "F*** you, my car is worth a thousand quid. I'll keep it, thanks!"

You walk off, and everyone else who has a good car says the same thing. And the only ones who agree to the sale are those with an $800-Lemon...

1: You see the end of private ownership as the end of all things? Wow, you're certainly selfish. It's hardly different from what we already have, and in many ways, it's better.
Ok, your childish insults aside yes it is a bad thing. Makes for a frightfully inefficient economy, one where people have no incentives.

UGH, get over yourself! I'm naming the things these so-called "Communist" states have in common with Fascism, and you're totally failing to see the point! They are almost identical in the way they control the population with an iron fist, and put the military and ruling party above all else. I'm not saying they're the same system, or even the same type of government. I'm just pointing out the fact that they share many things.
I agree. In practise Communism and Facism shared many things in common, namely their totalitarian nature.

This doesn't mean "Communist governemnts were Facist" that is a very poor analysis of the issue indeed.

Yes, actually there exists laws in captialist countries for this to occur. It is essential for competitive markets.
Oh, in what way? I'm not sure were refering to being informed on the same subjects.

1: HAH! Some people may gain, but in the end, too many suffer for what "gains" there are. This was explained in a previous post.

If no trade occurs no one gains.

2: While that nation gains, the other loses. Again, this was explained in a previous post.
This is just blatantly untrue. Society as a whole gains in both countries. The consumer and producer surplus increases in both countries, ie wealth is created.

Obviously you havent studied economics. It explains a lot.

For example bond trading markets, etc, are almost completely praeto efficient.
Guess what: Pareto Efficiency is a very bad measure indeed.
Let's say I own all the money in society. We're pareto efficient. The only way we can possibly improve your welfare is by hurting me.
But yes, there are a few markets that are near-perfect. Not though the majority of markets that we as every-day consumers are faced with.

Yes but we are really talking about prefectly competitive markets aren't we?
I wasn't. I know by now that perfect competition is nice for simple textbooks, but is near impossible in the real world.
One is generally much better off studying imperfect markets.
And besides, the dilemma wouldn't work in a situation where your actions couldn't affect me.

Oh, in what way? I'm not sure were refering to being informed on the same subjects.

Well for example there are organisations that provide information to consumers about products, prices, etc.

Ok, your childish insults aside yes it is a bad thing. Makes for a frightfully inefficient economy, one where people have no incentives.


I agree. In practise Communism and Facism shared many things in common, namely their totalitarian nature.

This doesn't mean "Communist governemnts were Facist" that is a very poor analysis of the issue indeed.

1: Oh, so doing work and getting paid a wage based on your labor, rather than a wage based on the market demand is a bad thing? It actually gives labor incentives to the workers so they'll work harder, whereas in Capitalism, there are no incentives. Promotions, maybe, but you're not paid for your labor.

2: It certainly doesn't mean that, however, it means that they were done completely wrong, and were almost the polar opposite of actual Communism.

Guess what: Pareto Efficiency is a very bad measure indeed.
Let's say I own all the money in society. We're pareto efficient.
Efficiency is not the end-point to a good economic system but it is definitely the best starting point. It is the point where everyones gains are maximised as much as possible without hurting anyone elses gains.

If we are going to start somewhere, let's start here, not from a position of horrendous inefficiency.

Well for example there are organisations that provide information to consumers about products, prices, etc.
And that means by default that consumers are well informed on all the maters concerned, have acess to these resources, can afford these resources, or the treatment of those employed by the company.

1: Well, that's nothing I didn't already know, really...

2: You really don't see the true problem with "free" trade, do you? I'll give some points.

A: What do you think happens to the employees who make the products? Their wages are slashed, and a lot of them lose their jobs to machines, and what is becoming increasingly common, overseas workers who are paid about a tenth of what these employees were.

B: While simultaneously butt-fucking the workers. Others are made richer, while these people are made poorer.

C: ...And the standard of living for the workers decreased. Are you seeing a trend here? It's called an Inverse Relationship, which is necessary of Capitalism.

D: More like how it's notworking in the U.S... Just look at the old industrial towns and cities. What's become of the workers, who just twenty years prior had good jobs? They're stuck with either working in a service job that might pay half of what they used to make, living off their siblings'/children's/relatives' money, or they're on welfare.

Don't even say "That's not how it works!", because that's How It Works. It's not a matter of opinion or personal preference. In Capitalism, for one to have a better life, another has to have a worse life. And nowhere in the world is this more clear than the United States.


You're wrong. I've spent the past five weeks immersing International Political Economics. I just cannot even begin to elaborate on how wrong you are.

A.) In theory this point should have already happened. The US should be an unemployed hellhole because of NAFTA, but you fail to realize that there is more to the economic equation than just fucking labor. No, they are not losing their jobs to third world employees. That is patently false.

B.) No comment. Just no fucking comment.

C.) An inverse relationship implies zero-sum, which is not so in capitalism. It is perfectly possible, and not only possible, but likely that since both parties will make efforts to their own benefit, what will result is a compromise in which they both benefit. It is not inverse. If I buy a laser mouse, I am saying that a certain amount of my labor is worth this mouse so as to avoid the annoying stickiness of a rollerball mouse. I benefit, the producer benefits.

D.) If you understood anything about what has caused this situation, it has virtually nothing to do with the "exportation of jobs." Instead it has to do with the development of more efficient methods of production, the relocation of those most involved in production. And what the hell is a service job. IT'S NOT A BURGER KING ECONOMY. IT'S A SERVICE ECONOMY. It means that people are no longer directly involved in the production of a good. They remain involved in the process in "service jobs" as programmers, mechanical maintenance, information transfers, accounting, marketing, transport and many, many other fields. My uncle was in such a situation. He lost his assembly line job, attended a community college and got a job as a specialized maintenance man at a robotic juice bottling factory, a job where he is paid more, and there are just as many employees as before, but more product is produced than if it were with actual manual labor. I live in one of these so called "industrial cities." Columbus, Ohio is now driven by a service economy. Large numbers of people are employed in the transport industry, Nationwide Insurance employs vast quantities of people, the University is an economic driver for the area, and the state government plays an important role as well. Besides some abandoned industrial blight to the South, Columbus is doing better than ever because people have taken up these higher paying service jobs.

I fail to see the vast hordes of unemployed workers, because they are taken back into the economy, just as it's supposed to work.

I see no point in continuing this argument. Your repeated use of incorrect facts is making me angry, and I have another forty pages of IPE to read to stay on schedule. Good fucking night.

Efficiency is not the end-point to a good economic system but it is definitely the best starting point.
What do you mean?
We can't choose our starting point, it is given to us by the world we live in.

My criticism was of pareto efficiency as a measure of "goodness" in general. As I said, in my world you couldn't help anyone without hurting me - we'd be pareto-efficient.

1: Oh, so doing work and getting paid a wage based on your labor, rather than a wage based on the market demand is a bad thing?
You are missing the point. You can't determine the value of your labour accurately except in a market. Anything else is inefficient.


It actually gives labor incentives to the workers so they'll work harder, whereas in Capitalism, there are no incentives.
That is just not true. In Communism no one need work harder as the prices are set. I could feed bread to my cows because it is set by the government to be cheap, cheaper than grain. Is this efficiency?

In capitalism, as a worker I have the incentive to go to school, to gain qualifications, to improve the value of my labour so that I can gain a better job. In doing so, society gains.

Promotions, maybe, but you're not paid for your labor.
You are paid the exact price the firm is willing to give for your labour, so once again you are incorrect.

It certainly doesn't mean that, however, it means that they were done completely wrong, and were almost the polar opposite of actual Communism.
Haha, no. Communism is an economic system, their is no dicatate that it need not be authoritarian. In fact, Leninist-Marxism is explicitly so.

No they're not. I direct you to the field of "Information Economics".

And to name another simple illustration:

I want to sell a used car. To me it is worth $1000, because it is in such great shape.

You want to buy a used car. But you don't know whether my car is any good. Let's say that 20% of used cars are crap (let's call them "lemons", shall we? ;) ) A crap car is only worth $800 to you.

So to estimate what price you would pay, you rational individual would do a risk assessment.

80% chance that the car is good and you'd pay $1000 for it.
20% chance that the car is a lemon and you'd pay $800 for it.
Your expected price: (0.8*1000) + (0.2*800) = 800 + 160 = $960.
So you go out there, and try to buy a car for $960.

I see that and say "F*** you, my car is worth a thousand quid. I'll keep it, thanks!"

You walk off, and everyone else who has a good car says the same thing. And the only ones who agree to the sale are those with an $800-Lemon...

And then it's my fault because I don't want to spend the money. If I want to only spend $800 I obviously don't deserve to own the car. But what if noone else wants to day $1000, then what do you do?

And that means by default that consumers are well informed on all the maters concerned, have acess to these resources, can afford these resources, or the treatment of those employed by the company.

It means simply that the market will determine the efficient price for any good, and this makes the allocation of scarce resources efficient.

-snip-
-snip-
Hey, no need to get angry.

Just look at the facts (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=448469).

What do you mean?
We can't choose our starting point, it is given to us by the world we live in.

My criticism was of pareto efficiency as a measure of "goodness" in general. As I said, in my world you couldn't help anyone without hurting me - we'd be pareto-efficient.

Well of course practically we can't, but I thought we were comparing rival economic systems?

I was simply saying pareto efficiency is a good place to start, because at least there society gains the most.

Hahaaa!! Hilarious! There was never a period of less economic intervention in America than in the early 20th century! Oh, what wonderful prosperity, in an economy that was mainly industrialized! Hah! America underdeveloped? Government budgets that could subsidize or create favoritism? I'm laughing my lungs out!

The government acted in economic matters always in favor of the business owners. The Ludlow Massacre, for example. Government tried to increase production and make more money by undermining the workers.

And then it's my fault because I don't want to spend the money. If I want to only spend $800 I obviously don't deserve to own the car. But what if noone else wants to day $1000, then what do you do?
That's what I'm saying. No one would spend $1000 because if you incorporate the risk, it would be a bad deal for you.

Now you are going to say: The sellers will have to lower their price.

But they can't. The $1000 is their marginal value of the car. It is the lowest price they would sell the car for - they'd rather keep it and derive the $999.99 worth of utility from it than sell it.

That's what I mean with Information Economics. The traditional ideas can be shaken up quite a bit if you introduce uncertainty into the equation.
By the way, this lemon problem (in case you hadn't heard) is what a guy named Akerlof won his Nobel Price for a few years ago... :D

Communism is based on the value of labor as opposed to the artificial value of demand. That is how the economy works.

And it works well because labor has a definite objective value. :rolleyes:

I am sorry, but labor is only as valuable as the utility it creates, and that is how capitalism works.

B.) No comment. Just no fucking comment.



Let me then. In no even remotely capitalist economy can someone be made poorer in a transaction. Capitalism holds as one of the most basic tennents freedom to enter freely into transactions. One would only ever do this if they increased their wealth. In other words, if I don't gain I don't trade.

Therefore, the comment is just absurdely wrong. The person who made the comment obviously has never steped foot into an economics class. You were right Andaluciae to laugh at it.

Well of course practically we can't, but I thought we were comparing rival economic systems?

I was simply saying pareto efficiency is a good place to start, because at least there society gains the most.
If you're already at pareto efficiency, arguing for any change in either direction is diffucult to justify.
I'm of the opinion that theory is only good as long as it is practically applicable - so if we were to meaningfully compare whether Communism or Anarcho-style capitalism would be better, you'd have to take our real world as a starting point.
My point would be that neither is a good idea.

If you're already at pareto efficiency, arguing for any change in either direction is diffucult to justify.
I don't understand this. The government will no doubt be taking taxes and transfer payments can be made to try to address the income inequality problems. Society will decide where these should be made.

It means simply that the market will determine the efficient price for any good, and this makes the allocation of scarce resources efficient.
What the hell does the market determining an efficent price have to do with consumers being up to dateon their facts?

That's what I'm saying. No one would spend $1000 because if you incorporate the risk, it would be a bad deal for you.

Now you are going to say: The sellers will have to lower their price.

But they can't. The $1000 is their marginal value of the car. It is the lowest price they would sell the car for - they'd rather keep it and derive the $999.99 worth of utility from it than sell it.

That's what I mean with Information Economics. The traditional ideas can be shaken up quite a bit if you introduce uncertainty into the equation.
By the way, this lemon problem (in case you hadn't heard) is what a guy named Akerlof won his Nobel Price for a few years ago... :D

Yet, the 80% should factor into the uppermost amount that I'd be willing to pay, not the amount you want to charge. If the uppermost amount I'm willing to pay is 1,500, the amount I'd be willing to pay with certainty would be like 1,875. You aren't understanding how demand works, demand is what I'm willing and able to pay, not what you charge. A pair of hockey tickets may cost me 20 dollars, but I'd be willing to pay up to 70 dollars for those tickets.

What the hell does the market determining an efficent price have to do with consumers being up to dateon their facts?
It means that people will be able to determine the price of all the other subsitutes in the market, and will therefore choose the one with the lowest price.

If you're already at pareto efficiency, arguing for any change in either direction is diffucult to justify.
I'm of the opinion that theory is only good as long as it is practically applicable - so if we were to meaningfully compare whether Communism or Anarcho-style capitalism would be better, you'd have to take our real world as a starting point.
My point would be that neither is a good idea.
here, here!

What the hell does the market determining an efficent price have to do with consumers being up to dateon their facts?

Sigh. Well, consumers and firms buying and selling at the market determine market price right? This is the invisible hand. Now, if the consumers aren't well informed they cannot make the correct decisions on how to trade, and the price will not be at equilibrium.

But I mean, this is all basic supply and demand economics. Go get a textbook on it and it should explain it very well.

You're wrong. I've spent the past five weeks immersing International Political Economics. I just cannot even begin to elaborate on how wrong you are.

Try me. I'm always up for a good laugh.

A.) In theory this point should have already happened. The US should be an unemployed hellhole because of NAFTA, but you fail to realize that there is more to the economic equation than just fucking labor. No, they are not losing their jobs to third world employees. That is patently false.

Oh, people aren't losing their jobs to third-world employees, eh? Then why is it that so many jobs are being outsourced to India, Indonesia, Malaysia (well, Malaysia's getting out of its third world grit, but it's still there, currently), and other such countries? I do understand that there's more to the economy than labor, but you're failing to see just how important labor really is.

B.) No comment. Just no fucking comment.

Ah, I see that you know it's true, then.

C.) An inverse relationship implies zero-sum, which is not so in capitalism. It is perfectly possible, and not only possible, but likely that since both parties will make efforts to their own benefit, what will result is a compromise in which they both benefit. It is not inverse. If I buy a laser mouse, I am saying that a certain amount of my labor is worth this mouse so as to avoid the annoying stickiness of a rollerball mouse. I benefit, the producer benefits.

While the laborer suffers. No matter what the case, the laborer will suffer in Capitalism.

D.) If you understood anything about what has caused this situation, it has virtually nothing to do with the "exportation of jobs." Instead it has to do with the development of more efficient methods of production, the relocation of those most involved in production. And what the hell is a service job. IT'S NOT A BURGER KING ECONOMY. IT'S A SERVICE ECONOMY. It means that people are no longer directly involved in the production of a good. They remain involved in the process in "service jobs" as programmers, mechanical maintenance, information transfers, accounting, marketing, transport and many, many other fields. My uncle was in such a situation. He lost his assembly line job, attended a community college and got a job as a specialized maintenance man at a robotic juice bottling factory, a job where he is paid more, and there are just as many employees as before, but more product is produced than if it were with actual manual labor. I live in one of these so called "industrial cities." Columbus, Ohio is now driven by a service economy. Large numbers of people are employed in the transport industry, Nationwide Insurance employs vast quantities of people, the University is an economic driver for the area, and the state government plays an important role as well. Besides some abandoned industrial blight to the South, Columbus is doing better than ever because people have taken up these higher paying service jobs.

A large amount of unemployment is due to outsourcing, and it's continuing to grow. It's not the main problem (the main problem is corporations getting more "efficient"...), but it's getting there.

I say jobs like Burger King and such because that's what most of the newly-created service jobs are. Be it in supermarkets, gas stations, convenience stores, fast food, what have you. The wages are still shit compared to what these people used to make.

Columbus is one of the few success stories, though. Just look at a lot of Pennsylvania --- urban wreckage (Pittsburgh), slums that used to be working-class neighborhoods (Johnstown, Pittsburgh, Allentown, Bethlehem), and an overall sense of depression and urban decay (this has occured in many places. Detroit, Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia, among others).

One city may rise due to the influx of higher-paying jobs, but another city will fall.

I fail to see the vast hordes of unemployed workers, because they are taken back into the economy, just as it's supposed to work.

I see no point in continuing this argument. Your repeated use of incorrect facts is making me angry, and I have another forty pages of IPE to read to stay on schedule. Good fucking night.

1: One wonders why our unemployment rate is so high these days. Hmm, I guess that's just a glitch in the system. These people must've been absorbed by a huge influx of new jobs, and our data's just incorrect. :rolleyes:

2: Harsh, man, harsh!

It means that people will be able to determine the price of all the other subsitutes in the market, and will therefore choose the one with the lowest price.
So the market's determing prices based on suppy and demand, tells the Consumer of all the the diferent competing products, grants them acess to this information, and fills them in on all the other important info on making an informed decision?

Sigh. Well, consumers and firms buying and selling at the market determine market price right? This is the invisible hand. Now, if the consumers aren't well informed they cannot make the correct decisions on how to trade, and the price will not be at equilibrium.

But I mean, this is all basic supply and demand economics. Go get a textbook on it and it should explain it very well.
Yes, thats obvious I don't get why you assume the consumer is well informed on all the intricses involved in every purchase they make.

Let me then. In no even remotely capitalist economy can someone be made poorer in a transaction. Capitalism holds as one of the most basic tennents freedom to enter freely into transactions. One would only ever do this if they increased their wealth. In other words, if I don't gain I don't trade.

Therefore, the comment is just absurdely wrong. The person who made the comment obviously has never steped foot into an economics class. You were right Andaluciae to laugh at it.

1: It's not about transactions. It's about not getting paid for the labor you're doing... Getting screwed because your overlords want to increase their profit margins.

2: Well, any comment can be absurdly wrong if you take it the wrong way.

While the laborer suffers. No matter what the case, the laborer will suffer in Capitalism.
Emotive nonesense. In capitalism the labourer will be paid exactly the value that his or her labour is worth competitiely. They will also gain the most possible increase in wealth. This gives insentive for labourers to improve the value of their labour.

That's what I'm saying. No one would spend $1000 because if you incorporate the risk, it would be a bad deal for you.

Now you are going to say: The sellers will have to lower their price.

But they can't. The $1000 is their marginal value of the car. It is the lowest price they would sell the car for - they'd rather keep it and derive the $999.99 worth of utility from it than sell it.

That's what I mean with Information Economics. The traditional ideas can be shaken up quite a bit if you introduce uncertainty into the equation.
By the way, this lemon problem (in case you hadn't heard) is what a guy named Akerlof won his Nobel Price for a few years ago... :D

Why is the utility different for the seller and buyer? Why doesn't the risk equate into the sellers valuation as well?

1: It's not about transactions. It's about not getting paid for the labor you're doing... Getting screwed because your overlords want to increase their profit margins.

Arggh! Are all Communists political ideolgues without any fundamental understanding of economics?

How do you think we should determine the value of labour? There really is two ways. Either through the market, due to transactions between labourers and firms, which is efficient, or by the government, which is inefficient.

Emotive nonesense. In capitalism the labourer will be paid exactly the value that his or her labour is worth competitiely. They will also gain the most possible increase in wealth. This gives insentive for labourers to improve the value of their labour.

Therein lies the problem. Their labor isn't ever worth what it's really worth. It's worth what the market says it's worth, and often, that's usually not nearly enough. And, for a lot of people, it's way more than they should ever be paid.

And no, they won't have any incentive to work harder, because their harder work won't (or will rarely) get them better pay.

Pay based on market demand is absolutely ridiculous, and it's extremely exploitive.

I don't understand this. The government will no doubt be taking taxes and transfer payments can be made to try to address the income inequality problems. Society will decide where these should be made.
Sure, problem is merely when the validity of transfer payments themselves is being questioned. Which happens often enough around here. :)

Yet, the 80% should factor into the uppermost amount that I'd be willing to pay, not the amount you want to charge. If the uppermost amount I'm willing to pay is 1,500, the amount I'd be willing to pay with certainty would be like 1,875. You aren't understanding how demand works, demand is what I'm willing and able to pay, not what you charge. A pair of hockey tickets may cost me 20 dollars, but I'd be willing to pay up to 70 dollars for those tickets.
Just assume there are two seperate goods: Good Cars and Lemons.
The marginal utility both the buyer and the seller get (ie the point where demand and supply curves intersect) is at $1000 and $800 repsectively. They are the very last point where an agreement could be made.
I think you misunderstand how a market sets its price if you think that your willingness to pay has any other importance other than whether or not you accept the market price, dictated by the intersect of buyer's and seller's utility.
Of course, my example wasn't perfect, because with used cars sold privately there is always an aspect of negotiation - there is no certain market price, other than that 1990 Nissan Pulsar Hatchbacks should fetch about $960 - leaving those with good cars not selling them.

That is an example of people not taking the necessary measures to inform themselves, instead of not having the ability to inform themselves. All comers have the ability to inspect the car and make an educated decision on its value.
Not all people do make an educated decision. They either
a) don't have the necessary skills (ie they don't know much about cars)
b) they'd have to pay for an evaluation, which distorts the price they'd be willing to pay overall.
Plus, even if you do all these things, you'd still be left with a risk factor. You'll notice that I already used 80/20 instead of 50/50. It works with 99/1 too.

Yes, thats obvious I don't get why you assume the consumer is well informed on all the intricses involved in every purchase they make.

Well obviously it is not possible to be completely informed in most markets. But laws and organisations are set up to ensure this happens as much as possible in a free market economy, by giving the consumer information.

Arggh! Are all Communists political ideolgues without any fundamental understanding of economics?

How do you think we should determine the value of labour? There really is two ways. Either through the market, due to transactions between labourers and firms, which is efficient, or by the government, which is inefficient.

What's this with "efficiency", hmm? I see "efficiency" as a way of screwing people out of money, regardless of any "benefits" (what little there actually are). In the long run, it just ends up costing people more than it's worth.

I understand the Capitalist economic system. You don't understand the economics behind a Communist system (and behind a true Communist system, the lack thereof), and it shows.

Why is the utility different for the seller and buyer? Why doesn't the risk equate into the sellers valuation as well?
What risk? The seller is assumed to know whether or not his car is crap.
If it isn't, both buyer and seller can agree to a price of $1000.
If it is, both could agree to a price of $800.
So the seller knows whether he needs a grand or 800 quid, but the buyer doesn't. The buyer has to make a probability decision - thus lowering the price to below a grand.

1: It's not about transactions. It's about not getting paid for the labor you're doing... Getting screwed because your overlords want to increase their profit margins.

2: Well, any comment can be absurdly wrong if you take it the wrong way.
Just out of curiousity are you useing the capitalist economic model outlined in Das Kapital, if so you might want to present some of the propositions put forward in that book in regards to value an Congeiled Socialy Nesecary Abstract Labor Time, since it seems a problem has come up do to diferent definitions of value in regards to determing price and such.

and don't forget all the wars fought for money
And the wars fought for oil.

What risk? The seller is assumed to know whether or not his car is crap.
If it isn't, both buyer and seller can agree to a price of $1000.
If it is, both could agree to a price of $800.
So the seller knows whether he needs a grand or 800 quid, but the buyer doesn't. The buyer has to make a probability decision - thus lowering the price to below a grand.

And the car is either devalued through risk or evaluation costs. Interesting.

How do you think we should determine the value of labour? There really is two ways. Either through the market, due to transactions between labourers and firms, which is efficient, or by the government, which is inefficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

Therein lies the problem. Their labor isn't ever worth what it's really worth. It's worth what the market says it's worth
Your lack of knowledge is starting to astound me. Market price is the price where both the consumer and producer agree on what the lavour is worth.

and often, that's usually not nearly enough.
False. It is always enough in a free market economy, or else the labourer wouldn't have entered into the transaction.

And, for a lot of people, it's way more than they should ever be paid.
What? No one is paid more than they should ever be paid, the worker is paid only as much as the firm is willing to pay, and only as low as the worker is willing to be paid.

And no, they won't have any incentive to work harder, because their harder work won't (or will rarely) get them better pay.
The firm will only pay as much as their labour is worth, so your point is absurd.

Pay based on market demand is absolutely ridiculous, and it's extremely exploitive.
Rubbish, that's all I can say. Pay based on anything other than the market is inefficient and leads to deadweight loss to society.

Just out of curiousity are you useing the capitalist economic model outlined in Das Kapital, if so you might want to present some of the propositions put forward in that book in regards to value an Congeiled Socialy Nesecary Abstract Labor Time, since it seems a problem has come up do to diferent definitions of value in regards to determing price and such.

Nah, haven't read it yet. I'm using the current model of the United States (it has a lot of worker protection, but it still ends up screwing people one way or another), and in some cases, the Laissez Faire model, which is 100% bollocks.

Interesting.
Indeed. I guess they don't hand out Nobel Prices for nothing anymore... :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

Well obviously it is not possible to be completely informed in most markets. But laws and organisations are set up to ensure this happens as much as possible in a free market economy, by giving the consumer information.
Thats true, yet some still seem to be working with the idea that everyone involved in this matter is fully aware of all the detailes involved, from the heads of buisness, to the consumer, to the individual worker and that they are all making strictly rational decisions in all situations and are never influenced by physical, social, or more abstract nesecities.

1: One wonders why our unemployment rate is so high these days. Hmm, I guess that's just a glitch in the system. These people must've been absorbed by a huge influx of new jobs, and our data's just incorrect. :rolleyes:
The unemployment rate is not high. Where the hell did you get your info? a 5.1% unemployment rate is typical of a mature economy where firms are regularly entering and exiting the market.

And beyond that your response was to reiterate the same points you initially made.

Your reference to the urban blight in the Northeat for example, would seem to condemn my point, yet the fact is that the population of the old industrial centers are dropping, and the benefit to be had from locating ther is also dropping, whilst the benefit to be had elsewhere, by locating in smaller communities, in the south (where maintenance costs are lower due to the less harsh climate) and many other things. To put it simply, those former employees are not staying in the blighted cities, they are going elsewhere.

Most American economists have disputed [the charges that jobs are being lost to less well paid overseas competition] and attributed almost all of the relative decline in the wages of low-skilled American workers to technological changes within the American economy. Technological advances such as the computer andn economy, they have argued, significantly decreased the demand for low-skilld workers and greatly increased the demand for skilled, espescially college educated, workers...
...At the beginning of the twenty-first century , advanced econonmies are rapidly shifting from unskilled, blue-collar, labor-intensive industries to service industries and to greater reliance on skilled labor in manufacturing as well as in other aspects of economic life. This structural change parallels the shift from agriculture to manufacturing in the late nineteenth century when, as agriculture became more mechanized, superflouous farm workers migrated from the land to the factory.

Gilpin is considered the father of the field of International Political Economics, he has been referred to as the "dean of American students in the field of IPE." He is one of the most well-regarded sources of information.

If you won't take his word for it, then you're just being a blind zealot, like dumbass creationists who refuse to recognize that evolution is real.

What's this with "efficiency", hmm? I see "efficiency" as a way of screwing people out of money, regardless of any "benefits" (what little there actually are).

That is because you haven't got a damned clue. Efficiency means both greatest gain to society, no deadweight loss, greatest possible gains to every person without making anyone worse off, greatest increase in wealth to every person without making anyone worse off, best possible allocation of scarce resources.


In the long run, it just ends up costing people more than it's worth.
Rubbish, it costs exactly what its worth.



I understand the Capitalist economic system.
HAHAHAHAHA.

And beyond what Anda said, Gilpin isn't even a free-trader. He's a student of the realist model, which emphasizes the role of the state and strategic interests in trade.

What's this with "efficiency", hmm? I see "efficiency" as a way of screwing people out of money, regardless of any "benefits" (what little there actually are).
There's a number of different definitions of "efficiency". Some of them might appeal to you more than others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_%28economics%29
Check this out, and choose one. Because whether Marxist or not, efficiency is still a variable in the model.

Indeed. I guess they don't hand out Nobel Prices for nothing anymore... :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

If uncertain purchases cause markets to be squeezed out, wouldn't this simply motivate businesses to be more reputable and remove the uncertainty of purchases? Wouldn't this cause limited reliance on information for the consumer, as businesses feel market pressure when offering a risky product?

Sure, problem is merely when the validity of transfer payments themselves is being questioned. Which happens often enough around here. :)
I guess, but that argument is neither here nor there, its not what we are talking about.


I think you misunderstand how a market sets its price if you think that your willingness to pay has any other importance other than whether or not you accept the market price, dictated by the intersect of buyer's and seller's utility.
Yep, well in a perfectly competitive market no one can affect the price no matter how much one buys or sells. Therefore you will buy until you maximise your utility.


Not all people do make an educated decision. They either
a) don't have the necessary skills (ie they don't know much about cars)
Yeah, I think we might call this a failure of the market, not a problem with the concept of the market itself.


b) they'd have to pay for an evaluation, which distorts the price they'd be willing to pay overall.
Plus, even if you do all these things, you'd still be left with a risk factor. You'll notice that I already used 80/20 instead of 50/50. It works with 99/1 too.
As long as we factor in this cost though it shouldn't be a problem, if we can't it is a fialure of the market.

Your lack of knowledge is starting to astound me. Market price is the price where both the consumer and producer agree on what the lavour is worth.

Really, now... You have absolutely no understanding of a Communist system. You even flaunt it. I know what Market Price is, but you can't even begin to understand the theory of being paid for your labor, rather than for the demand of your labor.

False. It is always enough in a free market economy, or else the labourer wouldn't have entered into the transaction.

So, just because you say it's false, it is? Do you think somebody getting paid $6.50 an hour to clean toilets is enough? Do you think that some schmuck doing paperwork at a desk for 12 hours a day for $80,000 a year is just right?

What? No one is paid more than they should ever be paid, the worker is paid only as much as the firm is willing to pay, and only as low as the worker is willing to be paid.

A CEO gets paid over $1,000,000 a year for sitting at a desk and doing next to nothing, while the workers below him, be they car manufacturers or computer builders, get paid about $25,000 a year. Somebody doing no work at all gets an unbelievable salary, while the people who actually do the work get shit in comparison.

The firm will only pay as much as their labour is worth, so your point is absurd.

Ah, so we're placing a price on human decency, now, are we?

Rubbish, that's all I can say. Pay based on anything other than the market is inefficient and leads to deadweight loss to society.

More like a paycut for the suits, which would actually be a good thing.

If uncertain purchases cause markets to be squeezed out, wouldn't this simply motivate businesses to be more reputable and remove the uncertainty of purchases? Wouldn't this cause limited reliance on information for the consumer, as businesses feel market pressure when offering a risky product?
Yes, the traditional argument is that guarantees, advertising and other reputation-based things are meant to help here.
Nonetheless, it is a factor that remains of some importance - I'll tell you more once I get to do some courses more specifically on Information Economics.

But it seems like you can get to some intersting places there, because many information economists are fairly left.
Joseph Stiglitz comes to mind, I'll read his "Whither Socialism?" at some point, once I'm finished with Keynes' "General Theory" (Man, the guy has been misinterpreted! It's a scandal really).

Really, now... You have absolutely no understanding of a Communist system. You even flaunt it. I know what Market Price is, but you can't even begin to understand the theory of being paid for your labor, rather than for the demand of your labor.
I understand the theory, it is simply wrong.



So, just because you say it's false, it is? Do you think somebody getting paid $6.50 an hour to clean toilets is enough? Do you think that some schmuck doing paperwork at a desk for 12 hours a day for $80,000 a year is just right?
If the person agrees to work for that price obviously it is right. It maximises the workers gain.



A CEO gets paid over $1,000,000 a year for sitting at a desk and doing next to nothing, while the workers below him, be they car manufacturers or computer builders, get paid about $25,000 a year. Somebody doing no work at all gets an unbelievable salary, while the people who actually do the work get shit in comparison.
Yep, some people's labour is worth more than others, so why shouldn't they be paid more for it?



Ah, so we're placing a price on human decency, now, are we?
Emotive nonesense again.

I'm done with talking with you, anyone who thinks people can be made worse of in transactions in a capitalist system doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. Try understanding economics before advocating discredited economic theories.

That is because you haven't got a damned clue. Efficiency means both greatest gain to society, no deadweight loss, greatest possible gains to every person without making anyone worse off, greatest increase in wealth to every person without making anyone worse off, best possible allocation of scarce resources.



Rubbish, it costs exactly what its worth.




HAHAHAHAHA.

1: I'd like to know what you call "deadweight loss". This "efficiency" happens to make quite a few people worse off, and those people are the workers. And, the best possible allocation of scarce resources would actually be government control of the economy, but then, you just couldn't stomach that, so no, it isn't. :rolleyes:

2: Heh, you're still factoring in the workers as if they're a commodity that's to be bought and sold. You don't seem to care that they're affected by this "efficiency", nor do you seem to care that a lot of them aren't living as good lives as they could.

3: Come on, I've got all night. You can do better than that, surely?

Yeah, I think we might call this a failure of the market, not a problem with the concept of the market itself.
Agreed.
Welcome to the NS Democratic Socialist Party! :D

Personally I consider myself a Social Democrat, free market with regulations to guarrantee competitivness and social welfare to mitigate income inequality.

I'd like to know what you call "deadweight loss".
It's difficult to explain without a diagram, so I'll find one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead-weight_loss
http://www.emh.co.kr/images/dead_weight_loss.gif

Personally I consider myself a Social Democrat, free market with regulations to guarrantee competitivness and social welfare to mitigate income inequality.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418666

Yes, the traditional argument is that guarantees, advertising and other reputation-based things are meant to help here.
Nonetheless, it is a factor that remains of some importance - I'll tell you more once I get to do some courses more specifically on Information Economics.


It seems to me that it would provide market pressure against asymmetric value, which means that, like all markets under pressure, markets with asymmetric will fail.

So capitalistic growth will cause producers and consumers to find a value equilibrium, and the consumer will cease to get screwed.

I understand the theory, it is simply wrong.

It's simply wrong because you refuse to believe that anything could actually be better than your precious Capitalism.

If the person agrees to work for that price obviously it is right. It maximises the workers gain.

Let me introduce you to Jimmy. He had to drop out of the 10th grade because his dad died three years ago, and his mom no longer had the money to support him. So, little Jimmy goes out to get a job, in hopes of completing his education. What can he get? Well, Jimmy, we're sorry, but all you can get is a minimum-wage job, because you haven't finished high school! Poor Jimmy. He won't be able to go back to school anytime in the forseeable future... Possibly ever.

Does this sound fair to you? People having to accept jobs that pay next to nothing because that's all they can get?

Yep, some people's labour is worth more than others, so why shouldn't they be paid more for it?

You can't possibly think that a desk job is worth more money than somebody risking his life in a coal mine or a steel mill... Seriously...

Yes, some labor is worth more, but my point here is that the pay is skewed toward people who don't even do the manufacturing.

Emotive nonesense again.

Well, I try my best. :D

1: I'd like to know what you call "deadweight loss".
Go to your local university and study Microeconomics. Throw away the Marx and Engles until afterwards.

This "efficiency" happens to make quite a few people worse off, and those people are the workers.
No it doesn't, it maximises gain to society.


And, the best possible allocation of scarce resources would actually be government control of the economy,
Umm, no not at all. Command economies dictate prices that aren't at equilibrium and thus don't allocate resources effectively.

Once again, take microeconomics.

Heh, you're still factoring in the workers as if they're a commodity that's to be bought and sold.
No.. their labour is a comodity bought and sold.

You don't seem to care that they're affected by this "efficiency", nor do you seem to care that a lot of them aren't living as good lives as they could.
Emotive rubbish again, Communists with wacky economic views don't have a monopoly on compasion. I actually believe that Capitalism benifits the workers the most not to mention society.

It seems to me that it would provide market pressure against asymmetric value, which means that, like all markets under pressure, markets with asymmetric will fail.

So capitalistic growth will cause producers and consumers to find a value equilibrium, and the consumer will cease to get screwed.
Generally Information Asymmetry is considered a form of market failure, and up to this point, government regulation has been the prime guarantee of eliminating risk.
I'm not sure whether abandoning all government regulations would indeed lead to what you're describing, and what the effects of that movement would be on demand and supply itself.
Again, I'd have to direct you to the relevant literature, for at the time being, that is as far as my understanding goes :( .

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418666
What are those threads for?

What are those threads for?
Hehe, Ariddia had the idea we make a mock-parliament.
Because people on these forums are always happy to find new places to throw numbers at each other, it was a fairly popular idea.
So people started political parties, and we held elections, where everyone could vote.
And now we have a parliament, where Delegates can make proposals, and they're debated and then either accepted or not.
Silly really, but fun.

I just thought our friend here would fit into the DSP quite well, so I thought I'd do a little advertising... :D

Go to your local university and study Microeconomics. Throw away the Marx and Engles until afterwards.

I don't take kindly to people throwing around the "Marxist" term. I'm not a Marxist, I never was, and I never will be. The Marxist philosophy is unreasonable, crude, and ridiculous.


No it doesn't, it maximises gain to society.

Oh, so the workers aren't part of society, eh? We can keep this "Yes it is" and "No it isn't" argument going forever, because I literally have all the time in the world.

Umm, no not at all. Command economies dictate prices that aren't at equilibrium and thus don't allocate resources effectively.

Once again, take microeconomics.

On resources... Are we talking about money, or actual Resources? I was talking about raw material resources and energy when I made that comment, and judging by your rebuttal, it seems we're somehow talking money here.

No.. their labour is a comodity bought and sold.

So, it's okay for the workers to be screwed, so long as the rest of society gains from it? That's clearly where you're headed with this.

Emotive rubbish again, Communists with wacky economic views don't have a monopoly on compasion. I actually believe that Capitalism benifits the workers the most not to mention society.

What you consider "wacky economic views" are views that you either fail to understand, or force yourself to not understand, because you don't want to agree with the EVIL PINKO COMMIES!!!!11!!1!!1.

I sincerely don't give a flying fuck about what you "believe", because there's a difference between blind belief and the truth.

It's simply wrong because you refuse to believe that anything could actually be better than your precious Capitalism.
No, its simply wrong because the price is not at the level where the quantity demanded equals the quantity supplied, and therefore it doesn't allocate resources properly.



Let me introduce you to Jimmy. He had to drop out of the 10th grade because his dad died three years ago, and his mom no longer had the money to support him. So, little Jimmy goes out to get a job, in hopes of completing his education. What can he get? Well, Jimmy, we're sorry, but all you can get is a minimum-wage job, because you haven't finished high school! Poor Jimmy. He won't be able to go back to school anytime in the forseeable future... Possibly ever.
Transfer payments. No need to introduce a whole new wacky economic doctrine that destroys the price system.

Does this sound fair to you? People having to accept jobs that pay next to nothing because that's all they can get?
If that is all their labour is worth then that is all that should be paid. Price floors will lead to a surplus of labour and unemplyment.


You can't possibly think that a desk job is worth more money than somebody risking his life in a coal mine or a steel mill... Seriously...
It is to the consumers in the labour market though, the firm.

No, its simply wrong because the price is not at the level where the quantity demanded equals the quantity supplied, and therefore it doesn't allocate resources properly.

That's just the thing, though! Communism is NOTHING LIKE CAPITALISM. The two systems are completely different. Just because something's different doesn't mean it won't work. Get it through your head: They're Nothing Alike.

Transfer payments. No need to introduce a whole new wacky economic doctrine that destroys the price system.

What you don't understand is that paying people for their labor, rather than for the market demand of said labor, is viable. Wouldn't it be nice for a change to see people actually getting decent wages for really nasty jobs? I think so.

If that is all their labour is worth then that is all that should be paid. Price floors will lead to a surplus of labour and unemplyment.

I agree. If their labor isn't worth anymore than it is, that's all they should be paid. However, their pay should be based on their actualy labor, rather than what the market (or some dumbass employer) says it "should" be.

It is to the consumers in the labour market though, the firm.

So, consumers should decide what workers get paid? That's pretty much what happens in this system, albeit indirectly. That's indirectly ruining people's lives... And indirectly keeping people's lives down in the gutter.

I don't take kindly to people throwing around the "Marxist" term. I'm not a Marxist, I never was, and I never will be. The Marxist philosophy is unreasonable, crude, and ridiculous.
You do realise that Marx and Engles developed Communist economic theory, right? How can you advocate Communism if you haven't read their Manifesto?

Oh, so the workers aren't part of society, eh? We can keep this "Yes it is" and "No it isn't" argument going forever, because I literally have all the time in the world.
Of course the workers are, they gain in a free market just like the rest of society.

On resources... Are we talking about money, or actual Resources? I was talking about raw material resources and energy when I made that comment, and judging by your rebuttal, it seems we're somehow talking money here.
Scarce resources refer to everything with value. Labour hours, products, raw materials, etc, etc. The price system is used to allocate these. An introductory microeconomics textbook will make this all clear to you.


So, it's okay for the workers to be screwed, so long as the rest of society gains from it? That's clearly where you're headed with this.
The workers aren't "screwed" they gain, and so do the firms. Everyone gains. In a free economy everyone gains the most.


What you consider "wacky economic views" are views that you either fail to understand, or force yourself to not understand, because you don't want to agree with the EVIL PINKO COMMIES!!!!11!!1!!1.
Sure, the fact that they are unsound doesn't enter into the equation at all..

I sincerely don't give a flying fuck about what you "believe", because there's a difference between blind belief and the truth.
Yep, some fool who has never studied microeconomics (which is obvious as you don't even know what a deadwieght loss is) or even Marx and Engles really knows "the truth" and the Communism is a great system...

That's just the thing, though! Communism is NOTHING LIKE CAPITALISM. The two systems are completely different. Just because something's different doesn't mean it won't work.
They may not be alike but that doesn't mean Communism defies the laws of economics. Then again, you don't even know the laws of economics so this is a moot point...


What you don't understand is that paying people for their labor, rather than for the market demand of said labor, is viable.
You can repeat this as often as you want but it doesn't make it true.


I agree. If their labor isn't worth anymore than it is, that's all they should be paid. However, their pay should be based on their actualy labor, rather than what the market (or some dumbass employer) says it "should" be.
The market determines what something is worth, not you.



So, consumers should decide what workers get paid?
Damn it, am I talking to a brick wall?! The market isn't just the consumers, it is the produces and the consumers interacting! Both determine the price by mutual agreement.

I'm done with this topic. I always knew that advocates of Communism haven't a clue about how an economy works and now I know...

You do realise that Marx and Engles developed Communist economic theory, right? How can you advocate Communism if you haven't read their Manifesto?

Yes, I do realise it, and I also realise, with good reason, that their version of Communism was hardly what it should be. You'll find that most of us aren't even close to being Marxists.

Of course the workers are, they gain in a free market just like the rest of society.

Some of them do, yes, but just as many lose due to a free market. For one to gain, one must lose.

Scarce resources refer to everything with value. Labour hours, products, raw materials, etc, etc. The price system is used to allocate these. An introductory microeconomics textbook will make this all clear to you.

Okay, now I see what you're getting at. I just wasn't exactly sure what you were saying. Case in point: More resources are wasted when multiple companies make different versions of the same product, often making multiple versions of those. It wastes labor hours and resources. Too many, in my opinion.

The workers aren't "screwed" they gain, and so do the firms. Everyone gains. In a free economy everyone gains the most.

Sure, say something enough, and eventually, it'll come true. :rolleyes:

Sure, the fact that they are unsound doesn't enter into the equation at all..

What you refer to as "unsound" is something you simply don't understand. Don't bother with a reply, because I have a damn good idea of what it'll be.

Yep, some fool who has never studied microeconomics (which is obvious as you don't even know what a deadwieght loss is) or even Marx and Engles really knows "the truth" and the Communism is a great system...

Now now, I never said I haven't studied Marx and Engels... You were the one who said that. Well, whatever suits you, I suppose.

Yes, I do realise it, and I also realise, with good reason, that their version of Communism was hardly what it should be. You'll find that most of us aren't even close to being Marxists.
You just made up your own version did you?



Some of them do, yes, but just as many lose due to a free market. For one to gain, one must lose.
No one ever losses in a free market. I'm sorry, but this is just a basic economic fact. How can you lose if you only trade when you have something to gain?

This conversation is over, I have better things to do with my time then talk with someone who doesn't even know the fundamental rules of economics.

Put down your "save the workers, capitalism kills!" placard, go to your local university, and enrol in an introductory course in microeconomics. It will do you a world of good.

Good day.

They may not be alike but that doesn't mean Communism defies the laws of economics. Then again, you don't even know the laws of economics so this is a moot point...

Laws. Laws for the Capitalist system, no less. They're not universal. And you seem to love throwing things around... Not knowing this, never having studied that. Hilarious.

You can repeat this as often as you want but it doesn't make it true.

One can say the same for you... The difference is, it'll be true in your case.

The market determines what something is worth, not you.

Again, this is the Capitalist system... Ugh, the two systems are completely different in the way they function. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Damn it, am I talking to a brick wall?! The market isn't just the consumers, it is the produces and the consumers interacting! Both determine the price by mutual agreement.

I'm done with this topic. I always knew that advocates of Communism haven't a clue about how an economy works and now I know...

1: Well, duh... I'm just saying that labor is far more important than you make it out to be.

2: Heh, you still don't know what I'm saying. I understand the requirments of a Capitalist economy, but you have no clue, literally No Clue about a Communist system. Always with your "zoOOZGMg Itzst Cant werk!!1!!11" nonsense...

Capitalism works good in theory, but i have lived in "capitalist" country. I know what its like! People become wealthy and corrupt. It breeds lazyness at the top and bottom. The rich exploit the middle class and the poor exploit the middle class.

Maybe in a prefect world capitalism would work, but because of human nature the system falls apart

(:P)

Capitalism works good in theory, but i have lived in "capitalist" country. I know what its like! People become wealthy and corrupt. It breeds lazyness at the top and bottom. The rich exploit the middle class and the poor exploit the middle class.

Maybe in a prefect world capitalism would work, but because of human nature the system falls apart

(:P)
:p

You just made up your own version did you?

You don't even know the first thing about Communism and its variants, do you? And you call yourself a "Democratic Socialist"... Again, hilarious.

No one ever losses in a free market. I'm sorry, but this is just a basic economic fact. How can you lose if you only trade when you have something to gain?

This conversation is over, I have better things to do with my time then talk with someone who doesn't even know the fundamental rules of economics.

Put down your "save the workers, capitalism kills!" placard, go to your local university, and enrol in an introductory course in microeconomics. It will do you a world of good.

Good day.

1: Wow, you're completely throwing out the fact that workers often lose their jobs for no reason other than to increase profit margins. Lots of people lose in a free market. Lots.

2: Say what you will. Again, you're pulling statements out of your ass. You still have no idea of what I'm talking about.

3: Actually, I'd be more interested in shoving a pinecone up my ass. Although, I'll probably take the course just to spite you. :rolleyes:

Capitalism works good in theory, but i have lived in "capitalist" country. I know what its like! People become wealthy and corrupt. It breeds lazyness at the top and bottom. The rich exploit the middle class and the poor exploit the middle class.

Maybe in a prefect world capitalism would work, but because of human nature the system falls apart

(:P)

Haha! That's funny and clever!

Because you see, capitalism, just like communism, is based on a philosophy of moralism that promises a Utopia-like end-state in which all the problems of the world and humanity are solved!

...oh no wait, it's not.

Try again.

Laws. Laws for the Capitalist system, no less.

Guess what? The laws of supply and demand are universal, they explain human behaviour based on personal incentive, which drives everyone. Even in a Communist system markets invariably arise, even if they are black-markets.

Communism is not immune to the laws of economics, no matter what ignorant ideologues like you might like to believe.

Guess what? The laws of supply and demand are universal, they explain human behaviour. Even in a Communist system markets invariably arise, even if they are black-markets.

Communism is not immune to the laws of economics.

Of course not, but it doesn't have to adhere to the ridiculous "rules" of a free market.

Nope, wrong again. Those markets also adhere to the same basic economic principles.

Nope, wrong again. Those markets also adhere to the same basic economic principles.

So, it's impossible for a system to pay workers for their labor, eh?

I won't even get into Anarcho-Communism, because your head will probably explode...

You can't deny human behaviour, and humans will always do what is in their interest. Therfore, humans will always maximise utility. Therfore, markets will naturally arise, regardless of state-set prices.

To think otherwise is just naive.
As for anarcho-communism, I think you should try learn about basic classical economics first, you might get in over your head otherwise.

After you do study it, you will probably realise that the free-market is the best system wherby these fundamentals can be made to reach a good result for everyone.

Haha! That's funny and clever!

Because you see, capitalism, just like communism, is based on a philosophy of moralism that promises a Utopia-like end-state in which all the problems of the world and humanity are solved!

...oh no wait, it's not.

Try again.
Hehe Thanks

In certain aspects free-market capitalism does advocate a utopia like society using enlightened self-interest based private ownership and good/service transfer. Of course capitalism and even democratic socialism(small busness is still private, larger industies publicly owned, but owned by the state) are grounded much more in current reality then communism.

Capitalism is the best economic system that there is. It allows everyone the equal opportunity to succeed in life, with any business that is legal. All capitalism is the private ownership of property and the allocation of scarce goods by the price system. Private ownership encourages a sense of moral obligation that would normally not exist in a socialist or communist country. Examples are the caring for your property in present and long term, the careful regard that your property is not misused or mismanaged, and incentive to work to better your property to where it is more socially acceptable. The American dream is capitalism. Take Clinton for example, Clinton grew up in a poor neighborhood in arkansan and got a scholarship to college, later went on to be governor and even president. Where else but America could that happen?

Capitalism treats everything as a resource that must be exploited for profit. In the capitalist economy everyone must compete for these resources, and these resources end up in the hands of a small group of people (corporations for example). These people on top can basically control everyone else's lives, since these people have to earn money to survive. Even the people on top have to keep constant guard, or else they'll lose their position to other powerful competitors. No one is free in a capitalistic economy -not the wage slave or the corporate executive. A purely capitalistic economy would bring about a society in which no social, humane person would want to live in.

Let's stop using the word "communism." Communism died a long time ago. Where are the libertarian socialists and anarchists in this forum?

Because you see, capitalism, just like communism, is based on a philosophy of moralism that promises a Utopia-like end-state in which all the problems of the world and humanity are solved!
Go beyond the economic theory, and you'll find the exact same moralism. Every system has it.
You're aware what Adam Smith's actual job was, right?

The American dream is capitalism. Take Clinton for example, Clinton grew up in a poor neighborhood in arkansan and got a scholarship to college, later went on to be governor and even president. Where else but America could that happen?
Any other country in which there are universities that poor people can access. That can happen both through scholarships or through government providing free or subsidised education.

A purely capitalistic economy would bring about a society in which no social, humane person would want to live in.
Indeed, in a purely unregulated capitalistic world, the only thing that would matter is marginal utility and the money people can spend on it.
Old people? Young people? Poor People? They're left out, because even if they wanted something more than anyone else in the world, if they don't have the money to meet the seller's reservation price, they're not going to get it.
Capitalists too often disregard the wealth constraint in decision making and resource allocation.

Let's stop using the word "communism." Communism died a long time ago. Where are the libertarian socialists and anarchists in this forum?
Well, I guess I'm something of a libertarian socialist sometimes...but generally I don't go into ideology that much. If it works, that's fine, if it doesn't - then get rid of it.
And I don't know where the anarchists are...we made fun of them until they fled. ;)

I doubt anyone will ever raise the funds for one of these IRL, so I thought I'd make one online.

This thread is dedicated to all the victims of Capitalism, past, present and future. Communism may be dead, but Capitalism is forever.

No, I'm not a communist. Not even close. :rolleyes:
But I do believe in Equal Time on the platform. :D

How about adding all who have faced unfair discrimination in workplaces, like gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans (like me) as well as racial minorities....all who have been downsized while the top execs got pay hikes, workers who lost or had benefits cut while execs got pay hikes, workers who were downsized, whose jobs were shipped overseas, whose companies were bought out, and then the workers got huge pay cuts...all of this has happened to me under capitalism, which is why I hate capitalism. I always get the shit end of the stick!
Fuck Capitalism!

Well, I guess I'm something of a libertarian socialist sometimes...but generally I don't go into ideology that much. If it works, that's fine, if it doesn't - then get rid of it.
And I don't know where the anarchists are...we made fun of them until they fled. ;)

Well, most anarchists deserve that sort of treatment. ;) I guess the word "anarchy" should be rejected along with "communism."

Surely there are more libertarian socialist fellow travelers who understand that the "communism" most radical leftists desire is not the oligarchical communism that strongly resembles capitalism in the sense that economic decisions are made by a powerful group of managers?

Surely there are more libertarian socialist fellow travelers who understand that the "communism" most radical leftists desire is not the oligarchical communism that strongly resembles capitalism in the sense that economic decisions are made by a powerful group of managers?
To be honest, I don't know what most radical leftists want these days.
Anarcho-Communism or Anarcho-Syndicalism are the only alternatives that may not immediately resemble totalitarianism - but in my view anarchies always revert to some sort of government.
I've got a rough understanding of Marx and Engels, literally none of Trotsky, and even less of Lenin or Stalin. I do own Mao's little book, but there really isn't much theory in there, just moralistic "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts".

"Many people think that we should look down on "economic man," who rationally calculates costs and benefits. They believe that people should have higher motives.



Instead, I suspect that the most likely alternative to economic motivation is a worse motive: status-seeking. I believe that is more important to curb our lust for status than our lust for goods and services.


The drive for economic gain helps the individual, and, as Adam Smith famously showed, helps others. Trade and economic growth are positive-sum games, in which there can be winners without losers. Moreover, when people seek economic gains, this is usually transparent. You usually understand when you and others you transact with are trying to improve your economic well-being.



Status, on the other hand, is typically a zero-sum game, in which one person's gain comes at the expense of others. Adding to the evils of status-seeking is that people often deceive themselves and others into believing that they are doing something for a higher motive when in fact they are seeking status."

http://www.techcentralstation.com/100405A.html

With that in mind why don't we list the *real* victims of Capitalism? ^_~

1. Greek Tyrants
2. European monarchs and aristocrats
3. German Nazis
4. The Soviet Union
5. And, soon, Moslem jihadis! :D

The fact that the Left would choose to mourn these says everything we need to know about the Left. ;)

A moment of silence, for the victims of capitalism. They are far too numerous to list, so I'll mention only the millions dying in the Third World of hunger and of preventable diseases, while in rich countries surplus food is burnt, because there would be no profit in sending it to the starving, and vital medicine is withheld for the same reason.

That's capitalism. Where human lives are worth less than a teeny bit more of senseless profit.

Never forget.

Haha, yeah, right. All those poor coal miners chose that task above all others, and those kids chose to be lumberjacks and steelworkers.

They literally had no other choice (the same can be said for many low-wage workers today). Why else would a child work 18-hour shifts in Pittsburgh (among other places, though Pitt was the center of it all) steel mills? Why else would a child, no older than 9 on the average, work in a coal mine?

I'd love to hear your reason.

Wait wait wait wait, hold on...... Did anyone say the homosexual was allowed to speak? I'm sorry guys but I dont think "it" has any say in anything, since "it" is literally living in sin.

Wait wait wait wait, hold on...... Did anyone say the homosexual was allowed to speak? I'm sorry guys but I dont think "it" has any say in anything, since "it" is literally living in sin.

Uhh...?

Wait wait wait wait, hold on...... Did anyone say the homosexual was allowed to speak? I'm sorry guys but I dont think "it" has any say in anything, since "it" is literally living in sin.
Testify!

*Makes waving motion with arms up in the air*

Wait wait wait wait, hold on...... Did anyone say the homosexual was allowed to speak? I'm sorry guys but I dont think "it" has any say in anything, since "it" is literally living in sin.

Knock it off. Everyone has the same right to express themselves here, unless they are making flaming or baiting remarks -- as you are.

In capitalism wealth creation is maximised and the economy is always efficient. It may not be a perfect solution but it is a good starting point for a perfect solution.Neither maximization of wealth nor efficiency are inherently good things.


Communism is an utterly illogical economic system that does not allow one to maximise their gains or even to own private property. It is completely inefficent.There is a difference between private (or commercial) and personal property. Most communist systems would allow personal property, but not commercial property.

I've already explained a fundamental flaw in the theory of Communism, the lack of incentive. If there is a lack of incentive, those particular communist societies aren't structured properly.

Every single Communist nation in the entire history of the movement (except Spain, which was so fractured by civil war that it was hard to consider it truly unified) has been an oppressive, corrupt totalitarian regime that concentrated power in the hands of a party oligarchy that was equally or more repressive than the aristocratic regime they replaced.True. And every single capitalist nation in history has been either militarily or economically imperialistic. Does this mean capitalism is inherently imperialistic, or just that those particular nations did it wrong?

I'm saying I've rejected the concept of collective ownership of the means of production. Besides being unjust, I fail to see how collective ownership of the means of production is any more unjust than the current method, which came about only because people were systematically slaughtered and their resources taken over by a stronger group of people.

Of course, in reality even when this is so it can lead to unacceptable levels of income inequality. That is why I advocate a mixed economy with social welfare, so that eventually the poorer workers can make their labour more valuable and earn more. But it is still based on Capitalism, the best possible starting point. Well, at least I don't have to make the "work or starve" argument with you.

But the key to the prisoners dilemma is that both participants are not completely informed as to the decision and situation of the other participant, which is not so in the market, where information about behaviors is widely available and the consumers are well informed. Really? So then I could look at the tag on a piece of clothing and find out which factory that piece of clothing was made in, so I can attain information about the conditions that the workers who made that piece of clothing worked under?

The person who made the comment obviously has never steped foot into an economics class.Economics largely depends upon the conditions in a particular country. For instance, there is the principle of interest-free loans. If a society passes a law that says loans must be interest-free, the entire system of banking as we know it gets tossed out the window.

Status, on the other hand, is typically a zero-sum game, in which one person's gain comes at the expense of others.How is the status that comes from doing your job well or from being knowledgeable about a particular subject some at the expense of others?

Jello, I've gotta hand it to you --- That's a hell of a post.

Thanks for the support!

Jello, I've gotta hand it to you --- That's a hell of a post.

Thanks for the support!Thanks. <Bows.> I admit, it is rather lengthy, and I think I managed to avoid insulting people, although I was a bit sarcastic at points.

Oops, there's something that I forgot:

Capitalism is a moral systemIn the Marxists... thread, you said something to the effect of direct democracy was bad, because it gave the people making decisions a moral authority that they wouldn't ordinarily have. So which is it, is maximizing morality a good thing or a bad thing?

To be honest, I don't know what most radical leftists want these days.
Anarcho-Communism or Anarcho-Syndicalism are the only alternatives that may not immediately resemble totalitarianism - but in my view anarchies always revert to some sort of government.

As a radical leftist, I want a society where democratic decisions are made regarding the use of resources, and where people are free to be the creative people they are, and not just cogs in a massive economic machine.

Those who don't have any understanding of leftist economies outside of the U.S.S.R. or European welfare states should read up on ParEcon. Its Wikipedia article gives a good explanation of it.

*yawn*

With that in mind why don't we list the *real* victims of Capitalism? ^_~

1. Greek Tyrants
2. European monarchs and aristocrats
3. German Nazis
4. The Soviet Union
5. And, soon, Moslem jihadis! :D

The fact that the Left would choose to mourn these says everything we need to know about the Left. ;)
:rolleyes:

A moment of silence, for the victims of capitalism. They are far too numerous to list, so I'll mention only the millions dying in the Third World of hunger and of preventable diseases, while in rich countries surplus food is burnt, because there would be no profit in sending it to the starving, and vital medicine is withheld for the same reason.

That's capitalism. Where human lives are worth less than a teeny bit more of senseless profit.

Never forget.

*applauds wildly*

It would also include the workers exploited during the Industrial Revolution and the "Gilded Age."



As well as the sweat shop workers today (they're going through the exact same thing) and slave laborers,
not to mention the victims of the WW2 holocaust

Generally Information Asymmetry is considered a form of market failure, and up to this point, government regulation has been the prime guarantee of eliminating risk.
I'm not sure whether abandoning all government regulations would indeed lead to what you're describing, and what the effects of that movement would be on demand and supply itself.
Again, I'd have to direct you to the relevant literature, for at the time being, that is as far as my understanding goes :( .

You have a brain, you don't have to spout what other people think.

Do you believe I am right?

Go beyond the economic theory, and you'll find the exact same moralism. Every system has it.
You're aware what Adam Smith's actual job was, right?

It is moral by being amoral. Like a secular government, capitalism seeks to create economic freedom by not making moral judgements on the individual. So it is a passive morality, so to speak. While socialism enforces morality, it assumes that the only moral behavior is to be completely altruistic, so it is an aggressive morality.

That is how a liberal society should work, and that is how a liberal economy should work, with moral decisions made by the individual.

It is moral by being amoral. Like a secular government, capitalism seeks to create economic freedom by not making moral judgements on the individual.

The "economic freedom" that capitalism creates is quite flawed. In a capitalistic economy, an individual's opportunities to learn, work, and earn more wealth are tied closely to how much wealth that individual already has. It takes capital to create something valuable, and when a person has no capital, he is at the mercy of the rich.

Also, in a socially-minded society, there would be no aggressive morality or forced altruism. The entire psychological environment is different in a communitarian society, and competition and domination are not so prevalant as in a capitalist one. As a result, cooperation and brotherhood arise naturally, and do not have to be enforced by an elite group of coordinators.

A moment of silence, for the victims of capitalism. They are far too numerous to list, so I'll mention only the millions dying in the Third World of hunger and of preventable diseases, while in rich countries surplus food is burnt, because there would be no profit in sending it to the starving, and vital medicine is withheld for the same reason.

That's capitalism. Where human lives are worth less than a teeny bit more of senseless profit.

Never forget.

I do like all of the blame capitalism gets for deaths that would have occurred whether capitalism even existed.

Am I to understand that capitalism is the reason that countries are nationalistic and generally don't help out foreign nations?

Am I to understand that capitalism is responsible for entire Aftrican countries to be poor and disease ridden.

As far as I can tell, countries were unwilling to provide foreign aid, and other countries were generally poor and disease ridden long before capitalism arrived.

Oops, there's something that I forgot:

In the Marxists... thread, you said something to the effect of direct democracy was bad, because it gave the people making decisions a moral authority that they wouldn't ordinarily have. So which is it, is maximizing morality a good thing or a bad thing?

You can refer to another post I made just a few minutes ago.

Capitalism is moral by being eliminating moral authority, just like social liberalism is moral by eliminating moral authority.

Maximizing morality is not a bad thing, but maximizing moral authority is.

Maximizing morality is not a bad thing, but maximizing moral authority is.

Alternatives to capitalism are not automatically state-centered, and they do not all maximize moral authority.

The "economic freedom" that capitalism creates is quite flawed. In a capitalistic economy, an individual's opportunities to learn, work, and earn more wealth are tied closely to how much wealth that individual already has. It takes capital to create something valuable, and when a person has no capital, he is at the mercy of the rich.

All people are born with capital. It's called "labor", you've probably heard of it. You can invest your labor into improving labor, you can immediately spend your labor. In the end, you are ultimately determining how much capital you have.

Bill Gates, how much capital did he start with? Even though he had little physical capital he had massive amounts of value built into his labor. He then went and exchanged this labor on the market for its fair value.

Also, in a socially-minded society, there would be no aggressive morality or forced altruism. The entire psychological environment is different in a communitarian society, and competition and domination are not so prevalant as in a capitalist one. As a result, cooperation and brotherhood arise naturally, and do not have to be enforced by an elite group of coordinators.

If the society is truly socially-minded, then there is no reason to change a capitalist system, as people would no longer feel the need to protect their property, and others would be free to use it.

Otherwise, any socialist legislation is an agressive application of morality.

A moment of silence, for the victims of capitalism. They are far too numerous to list, so I'll mention only the millions dying in the Third World of hunger and of preventable diseases, while in rich countries surplus food is burnt, because there would be no profit in sending it to the starving, and vital medicine is withheld for the same reason.

That's capitalism. Where human lives are worth less than a teeny bit more of senseless profit.

Never forget.

That's right Ariddia! Let's not notice that hunger and preventable diseases were around before capitalism or that if it weren't for that nasty ole capitalism this hunger would be in the "rich countries" as well. Let's also not pay attention to the fact that the reason poor countries are poor is that they pulled stunts like stealing farms from farmers and giving those farms to Marxist politicians instead.

That's capitalism. Presuming to prosper where it prevails even after powergrubbers have ground their own people into dust. How Dare They!

Never forget.

*snicker* ^~^



How is the status that comes from doing your job well or from being knowledgeable about a particular subject some at the expense of others?

Please find a dictionary for the word "typically". :rolleyes:

That said, those who are status motivated seldom seek their status through such relatively innocent means. Note also that a number of "experts" *typically* need to seek or maintain their status by being derisive towards those they see as rivals irregardless of the merits of the situation. After all, one can seek the status of knowledge without necessarily possessing it. It's only when consequences matter that true knowledge is rewarded.

:rolleyes:

:p

While we're at it, why not have a memorial to the millions of people that were victims of communism? Maybe then, we can realize that communism will never work in the real world.

And then we can have a huge banquet celebrating the fantastic lives we're living thanks to capitalism. Afterwards, everyone can come over to my house for a jolly 'ol food burning! :D

...

What's that? Do I hear a voice of dissent?! Boris, go and take care of that scumbag -- who does he think he is, challenging my authority?

While we're at it, why not have a memorial to the millions of people that were victims of communism? Maybe then, we can realize that communism will never work in the real world.

And then we can have a huge banquet celebrating the fantastic lives we're living thanks to capitalism. Afterwards, everyone can come over to my house for a jolly 'ol food burning! :D

...

What's that? Do I hear a voice of dissent?! Boris, go and take care of that scumbag -- who does he think he is, challenging my authority?

A little late to the party, bub.

All people are born with capital. It's called "labor", you've probably heard of it. You can invest your labor into improving labor, you can immediately spend your labor. In the end, you are ultimately determining how much capital you have.

Bill Gates, how much capital did he start with? Even though he had little physical capital he had massive amounts of value built into his labor. He then went and exchanged this labor on the market for its fair value.

Many people do not have the opportunity to improve their labor, and only earn enough from that labor to purchase the goods they need to survive. If everyone had the power to invest in improving their labor, and the amount of capital that one has ultimately is self-determined, then poverty would be almost non-existant.

If the society is truly socially-minded, then there is no reason to change a capitalist system, as people would no longer feel the need to protect their property, and others would be free to use it.


If a society is truly socially-minded, and people forget about the idea of private property to the point where everything is shared, then that society is no longer capitalistic, but socialist.

Many people do not have the opportunity to improve their labor, and only earn enough from that labor to purchase the goods they need to survive. If everyone had the power to invest in improving their labor, and the amount of capital that one has ultimately is self-determined, then poverty would be almost non-existant.

The amount of physical capital is small compared to the amount of labor needed to improve one's own labor, and that is the problem. Student loans are readily available, private grants are available to those who truly reinvest their own labor.

If a society is truly socially-minded, and people forget about the idea of private property to the point where everything is shared, then that society is no longer capitalistic, but socialist.

Well, it is a combination of anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalist, as all property is still free owned apart from government, but is still shared communally. but I am saying that the only way to get there without enforcing morality is through capitalism.

The amount of physical capital is small compared to the amount of labor needed to improve one's own labor, and that is the problem. Student loans are readily available, private grants are available to those who truly reinvest their own labor.

Let's say that anyone can overcome poverty and make a comfortable living for themselves through capitalism. What then? An individual spends her life working at what is most likely an unenjoyable career, and wastes away her creative energy only to be rewarded with 48 hours of "free time" at the end of the work week. Capitalism brings about a world where many people are unhappy and unfullfilled. I believe an economy that embraces cooperation would make work much more fullfilling, and undesirable jobs could be shared equally.

Well, it is a combination of anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalist, as all property is still free owned apart from government, but is still shared communally. but I am saying that the only way to get there without enforcing morality is through capitalism.

Then we must use capitalism to subvert capitalism

Let's say that anyone can overcome poverty and make a comfortable living for themselves through capitalism. What then? An individual spends her life working at what is most likely an unenjoyable career, and wastes away her creative energy only to be rewarded with 48 hours of "free time" at the end of the work week. Capitalism brings about a world where many people are unhappy and unfullfilled. I believe an economy that embraces cooperation would make work much more fullfilling, and undesirable jobs could be shared equally.

People are going to have to work for self sufficience, no matter what. Do you think that, if we do away with capitalism, people are not going to have to work as hard?

Capitalism does nothing to discourage cooperation. Have you had a job where you had absolutely no one working with you?

As for sharing undesirable jobs equally, I could question the feasibility of that, but then I will get into an argument about whether communism is feasible, and that is pointless.

Then we must use capitalism to subvert capitalism

Have at it, take your economic freedom and make capitalism whatever you want it to be, just leave my economic freedom alone.

You can refer to another post I made just a few minutes ago.

Capitalism is moral by being eliminating moral authority, just like social liberalism is moral by eliminating moral authority.

Maximizing morality is not a bad thing, but maximizing moral authority is.
Ah, I see the difference. My rebuttal to this would be making a similar argument that I made in the Marxists... thread, so I won't do so.

Please find a dictionary for the word "typically".

That said, those who are status motivated seldom seek their status through such relatively innocent means. Note also that a number of "experts" *typically* need to seek or maintain their status by being derisive towards those they see as rivals irregardless of the merits of the situation. After all, one can seek the status of knowledge without necessarily possessing it. It's only when consequences matter that true knowledge is rewarded.Please find a dictionary for the word "relevant".

That said, in the society that most communists propose, those "relatively innocent means" are some of the few ways in which it is possible to attain status.
Certainly while it is possible to admire a doctor simply because he went to medical school, the doctors that are actually good will be the only ones who have a consistent amount of status from society. The same can be said for other knowledge groups, as well. I suppose society could hold someone in high regard who can memorize all baseball statistics from the last 50 years, but it's highly unlikely that that ability would give someone an edge when it comes to the decision-making process.

And another that I forgot from before:

You do realise that both nations gain out of free trade? Debatable. I'll give you a historical example: the Irish potato famine. There was a slight shortage of potatoes in Ireland, a few people were starving, but not too many. Then, Irish potato farmers realized that they could make more money selling their potatoes to England than if they kept them in Ireland. So they sold them to England, thus exascerbating the potato famine to the level it became. So did both nations gain out of free trade? Well, England did a little, but Ireland ultimately lost big time. In this instance, Ireland would have gained more by interfering in the free trade transaction, either by banning, or heavily taxing potato exports. There are other examples, but this is the most stark one.

Do you believe I am right?
If you ask me like thaaat....No, I do not.
In the case of the car, just to rewarm an old example, there wouldn't even be a market for used cars.
Since we don't know how it could be, we can only use what we know now. And that is that cars are being bought for $960. We thus don't even enter the market with our good used cars - and so we don't think of anything to improve the selling price of it.
It wouldn't even occur to people.

It is moral by being amoral. Like a secular government, capitalism seeks to create economic freedom by not making moral judgements on the individual. So it is a passive morality, so to speak. While socialism enforces morality, it assumes that the only moral behavior is to be completely altruistic, so it is an aggressive morality.

That is how a liberal society should work, and that is how a liberal economy should work, with moral decisions made by the individual.
So, do you know what Adam Smith's job was?
He was a moral philosopher. His system is one of morals - something that usually is being ignored by modern moral relativism.
But even if we ignore that, modern capitalism the way you see it is not "amoral". It is imposing another set of moral rules on society, not openly perhaps, but with the way the system is designed - acting against those rules is inherently bad, and you can be sure to be punished for it.
Lazyness is bad, money is the only measure of wealth, the free market is morally superior to other forms of society etc
Hell, even the justification of property rights can only be found in moral philosophy.

If you ask me like thaaat....No, I do not.
In the case of the car, just to rewarm an old example, there wouldn't even be a market for used cars.
Since we don't know how it could be, we can only use what we know now. And that is that cars are being bought for $960. We thus don't even enter the market with our good used cars - and so we don't think of anything to improve the selling price of it.
It wouldn't even occur to people.

But wouldn't the market support sellers that eliminated or greatly reduced the risk involved?

So, do you know what Adam Smith's job was?
He was a moral philosopher. His system is one of morals - something that usually is being ignored by modern moral relativism.
But even if we ignore that, modern capitalism the way you see it is not "amoral". It is imposing another set of moral rules on society, not openly perhaps, but with the way the system is designed - acting against those rules is inherently bad, and you can be sure to be punished for it.
Lazyness is bad, money is the only measure of wealth, the free market is morally superior to other forms of society etc
Hell, even the justification of property rights can only be found in moral philosophy.

I know what Adam Smith, and I know that capitalism is a moral system. I have expressed this feeling in earlier posts, that capitalism should be supported as a moral system of freedom.

First, do you believe that a secular government is more moral than a religious one, even though it makes no attempt to create a moral rule?

Second, there is no laws of capitalism saying you can't be lazy, many people get by being lazy, and nobody cares about that, not the government not the society. Secondly, money is not the only measure of wealth, money is actually just a very, very small peice of the cycle. Labor is the defining value of wealth in Adam Smith's morality, and he assumed that we must have complete ownership of our own labor to be free.

TG, you rule.

But wouldn't the market support sellers that eliminated or greatly reduced the risk involved?
But there wouldn't even be a market. It wouldn't exist in the first place...people would drive their Pulsars a bit longer and care less for them until they are lemons too, for that is the only way they can sell them and get some utility out of it.
If you start moving away from the simple linear demand and supply curves you get into situations where there can be multiple equilibria, and some can be suboptimal, yet remain forever without some sort of external shock.

That's one contention of evolutionary economics: That there is no such thing as an equilibrium. As you move from some point on the diagram, this movement itself causes the curves to change. The market will forever change, being in an area of disturbance, and the supposed efficiency may never actually come about. It's an interesting proposition to say the least.

First, do you believe that a secular government is more moral than a religious one, even though it makes no attempt to create a moral rule?
Well, what do you mean by more moral?
Any society, whether government imposed or not, has a system of moral rules. Capitalism, as a form of society, is exactly the same. In Socialism, altruism and compassion may be primary, in Greeny-World it may be harmony with the environment and artistic engagement, in Capitalism it's work and determining one's own fate.
I have to say here that I don't think there is a seperate "soul" or anything like that which may adhere, or want to adhere, to any ethical or moral principles.
We are a product of our environment, and of that only. If you are born into a communist world, you do not feel some morality imposed on you, it is simply assimilated and becomes part of your character. I guess in that respect you could call me a Marxist afterall.
That you would say "Capitalism" doesn't impose its values on people may just be a sign that you, like me, have accepted societal values and declared them somewhat universal, using them to judge other systems.

Second, there is no laws of capitalism saying you can't be lazy, many people get by being lazy, and nobody cares about that, not the government not the society.
That's not what I hear people say usually. Lazy people, or artists, or otherwise "unproductive" members of society only get by because the government helps them. At any rate, they are considered a burden either on the taxpayer or on their friends and relatives.
The system does punish you (or others) for you not working hard enough, for not being careful with your money, for being unproductive. There may not be a law against it, but surely you can see that the system itself is tilted somewhat.

Secondly, money is not the only measure of wealth, money is actually just a very, very small peice of the cycle.
Very, very small? I look out the window, and I see my neighbour driving his new BMW 1-Series away. Here, in my neighbourhood at least, money is a very central factor in people's happiness, and in the way others perceive them.
You can't help but think that in a different system, that may be different.

Labor is the defining value of wealth in Adam Smith's morality, and he assumed that we must have complete ownership of our own labor to be free.
And that, incidentally is the same thing that Marx wanted. Ironically he went the exactly opposite way.
If you as entrepreneur/capitalist pig/my boss make money of my labour, and I don't receive the full profit made from it, then you are selling a part of me - I think that's how you could summarise it.

I agree fully with a memorial to those who perished due to Capitalism. We can put it right next to the memorial for those who perished due to Communism.

We'll do it proportional to the body count. The memorial to the victems of capitalism will be 3 mm high!

We'll do it proportional to the body count. The memorial to the victems of capitalism will be 3 mm high!
Yes, because capitalist dictatorships weren't actually capitalists...

Ok let's do a body count bid. I'll open with Stalin at an estimated 50 million. Line up capitalist death tolls till you catch up and I'll throw in Mao. Take Pinochet I'll let you have that one are we into 6 didgets yet? Thought not....

If anyone is going to try to count those killed by "communism" then we may as well do the same for capitalism and it must be well into the billions. For a start we've got the first and second world wars, then we've got all those killed by European and now American imperialism (including 4 million in Vietnam and many thousands in Nicaragua) not forgetting the millions of people who starve to death or die of preventable diseases every year in the third world. In addition we must take into account the millions of communists and socialists who have murdered in the name of capitalism whether in Germany, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Indonesia or anywhere else.