NationStates Jolt Archive

I really like the idea of workers being payed by how their fellow workers rate their inputs and efforts into society.

Actually what you are describing is capitalism. Supply, demand. etc.

Well, given the availability of loans except where the borrower might be denied a loan given poor credit history or business management skills, the only restricting factor is the individuals themselves, and their skills or lack thereof.
.
You forget all about government and business grants, internships, apprenticeships, and good ol sacrifice and savings.

You forget all about government and business grants, internships, apprenticeships, and good ol sacrifice and savings.

Yeah. Heck, take those opportunity-granting options into consideration and it becomes even harder to say that individuals are too restricted monetarily to initiate and encourage competition in a lucrative market (such as one in which the existing businesses are not competing [is oligopolizing a word?] in a cooperative effort to keep prices high).

for a naturally arising system

There is nothing "natural" about capitalism. It depends on a set of property relations that are imposed and enforced by the state.

If they get more sales, then yes, they'll benefit.

Not if their competitor reciprocates with lower prices.

If someone has no talent with which to serve society

I didn't say that.

I was pointing out that some jobs require people with certain specific, rare talents... and thus that there are natural limits on supply that impede competition.

Hopefully she reflects on why her enterprise failed and tackles a different approach or market.

Yes, yes... but economically she is probably in a rather bad place.

Unless she started out well off.

There is nothing "natural" about capitalism. It depends on a set of property relations that are imposed and enforced by the state.


Anarcho-Capitalists might argue that point, but I won't. I'll agree that certain cultures did not have an inherent concept of private ownership. However, every child I've ever met has had a firm grasp of it. And even without ownership, bartering and the exchange of favors, goods, and services has been a uniting human element throughout history. I would hesitate to conclude that the underlying principles of capitalism were imposed solely by the state, rather than eventually embraced by the state.


Not if their competitor reciprocates with lower prices.


As I said, if the prices are lowered (and they would be, in order for the first chef to stay in business) the consumers benefit. If the price is lowered so much that the new chefs give up and enter some industry more profitable, then there's no harm done.

Let's retrace the hypothetical chain of events:
1) Chef A is a good chef. People like his food. He starts charging more for it.
2) Chef B is a bad chef. People aren't buying his food. He lowers his prices to attract customers.
3) Chef A might lower his price to get back some customers, or he might keep prices high, wagering that his customers will keep paying more based on their appreciation for the quality of the food. For the sake of argument, let's say he doesn't lower prices.
4) Chef C is a good chef. He opens a restaurant and starts charging less than Chef A, and accordingly gains more customers.
5) Chef A lowers his prices to compete with Chef C.

Here are the possibilities as I see them: if Chefs A or C cut costs to lower their prices to the point that it negatively affects the quality of their food, they lose their advantage over Chef B. So they're not going to do that. If Chefs A and C manage to lower their prices to Chef B's level without affecting the quality of food, Chef B will either lower his prices, improve his food quality, or go out of business. In any case, the people are left with the fact that they're getting good food at the same low price as they used to get bad food. I don't see the downside.

You might say that this is bad for the chefs, since they're no longer getting the higher-than-normal wages for which they entered the industry... but isn't that the opposite of your argument against allowing them to specialise in the first place--that is, that they would demand special privileges for their special services? Well, I've just demonstrated how I think the market forces would drive that special privilege back down, after improving the quality of the product provided. It's a win for everybody--the people get better food, and the chef gets increased pay (at least at first) for doing a single job. And we don't need to worry about the chef going broke because he keeps lowering his prices, since if it got to that point A) there is much less incentive for new competition, and B) there is much more incentive for entrepreneurs to leave this industry for one more lucrative. It's a cycle that automatically corrects and stabilizes itself while improving quality and increasing availability of goods and services.

Of course, we can look at reality to see just how a competitive food service industry would develop. We have competing cheap, low-quality food providers, but we also have more expensive restaurants that people are willing to pay more for once in a while.


I was pointing out that some jobs require people with certain specific, rare talents... and thus that there are natural limits on supply that impede competition.


You are arguing that most people are incapable of certain, specific jobs, regardless of their opportunities in the form of education, internships, grants, or loans, plus the incentive provided by lucrative market? That's kind of a harsh assessment of humanity; what rare occupations would you suggest require natural, unlearnable talents?

Better at what?

Better for keeping the masses under your omnipresent reign? Communism.

The one for buying votes? Socialism.

The one that gives the highest potential for success as well as failure? Capitalism.

Well, in defense of the commies, neither Soviet Russia nor China are good examples of communism. Soviet Russia was a fascist "republic," and China....well, Mao was just crazy. I mean, the guy massacred Chinese PEASANTS, claiming that they were the upper class! Plus, he also swam in raw sewage and refused to brush his teeth because "if the tiger doesn't have to brush, neither do I. BWAHAHAHAHA." Think an even-creepier version of George Takei.

That being said, idealistically speaking at least, I'd posit that the best system is anarchism. It's just like every other system in existence, but no one strips you of your freedoms except yourself. The sky's the limit, which is not the case with capitalism, where everybody is forced to accept useless papers and coins as being of value; or socialism, which forces its citizens to help one another out, no matter how much you may hate them; OR communism, which is just a nice way of saying "atheistic caste system."

Anarcho-Capitalists might argue that point, but I won't.

Anarcho-capitalists attempt to escape from this by suggesting that the state can be privatized into hired gangs.

Still, not "natural."

However, every child I've ever met has had a firm grasp of it.

Of owning things, yes--toys, etc. This is connected to privacy, to individuality, and is not a bad thing. The failure to recognize this is one of the reasons radical "collectivism" (I hate that word) like the Kibbutzim failed.

Of owning land? Factories in Thailand that you've never seen? Not at all.

And even without ownership, bartering and the exchange of favors, goods, and services has been a uniting human element throughout history.

Actually, for the vast majority of the time the human species has existed it has existed with radical economic equality and an internal gift economy.

Capitalism is a radical, highly unnatural break from that history.

You might say that this is bad for the chefs, since they're no longer getting the higher-than-normal wages for which they entered the industry... but isn't that the opposite of your argument against allowing them to specialise in the first place--that is, that they would demand special privileges for their special services?

You seem to think my concern here is for the chefs. Not at all.

My point is that unrestrained competition, in the long term, hurts both chefs. It makes no sense for them.

You are arguing that most people are incapable of certain, specific jobs

Yes... at least incapable of performing them anywhere near as well as a talented few.

That's kind of a harsh assessment of humanity;

Maybe. But among other things it's a very common--and rather strong--argument for specialization.

what rare occupations would you suggest require natural, unlearnable talents?

Virtually all skilled labor can be done much better by people with natural talent than those without, all else being equal.

Soviet Russia was a fascist "republic,"...
No, it wasn't.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

Not if their competitor reciprocates with lower prices.



Lower prices - better quality - both are splendid benefits of capitalism. I see no disadvantage to either.


Virtually all skilled labor can be done much better by people with natural talent than those without, all else being equal.

Umm, no - you're incorrect. Skilled labor is applied by people who have dedicated themselves to learning a skill. Unless their job entails touching their nose with their tongue nearly anyone can do it. (and even then there are plenty enough people capable of performing that act)

Skilled labor includes but is not limited to;
welding, HVAC, nursing, heavy equipment operator, etc.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30139-2004Aug24.html

Nobody is born able to do these things and the vast majority of people are not born incapable of performing them. What makes a skilled trade different from unskilled is the dedication it took to acquire the skills.

There is nothing "natural" about capitalism. It depends on a set of property relations that are imposed and enforced by the state.


You, apparently, have never been the parent of a two year old. The third word they learn behind "mama" and "dada" is "no" - and the fourth word is "MINE!"

You've never watched animals fight over an item or territory?

Nope - 'property' is a quite natural condition.

Communism.

Reactionaries are always talking about what is "natural". Slaveowners used "natural barriers" as an excuse for owning slaves. Bussinessmen of 19th century Britain used "natural barriers" as an excuse for keeping workers in the factory for 12, 14, 16 and sometimes 18 hours. Hitler justified the holocaust with "natural barriers".

The point here is not to say that capitalists are Hiterites, slaveowevers, or obnoxious bussinessmen (although they can be!). The point is to show that the concept of "natural barriers" in one moment can be used to justify capitalists and Nazism. The fact is, humanity on its road of progress is constantly overthrowing these "natural barriers". It is constantly showing that there is another way. It's called communism.

Communism.

Reactionaries are always talking about what is "natural". Slaveowners used "natural barriers" as an excuse for owning slaves. Bussinessmen of 19th century Britain used "natural barriers" as an excuse for keeping workers in the factory for 12, 14, 16 and sometimes 18 hours. Hitler justified the holocaust with "natural barriers".

The point here is not to say that capitalists are Hiterites, slaveowevers, or obnoxious bussinessmen (although they can be!). The point is to show that the concept of "natural barriers" in one moment can be used to justify capitalists and Nazism. The fact is, humanity on its road of progress is constantly overthrowing these "natural barriers". It is constantly showing that there is another way. It's called communism.

I don't think the defenders of capitalism here have been using any concept of natural barriers in its defense, but rather arguing against the argument that capitalism is blatantly unnatural and forced upon society by the state. Capitalism is natural insofar as people trade and exchange gifts and favors with each other without any government pressure to do so. The incentives are all in the exchange itself.

I think a capitolist economy with a socialist government in charge of it.

I don't think the defenders of capitalism here have been using any concept of natural barriers in its defense, but rather arguing against the argument that capitalism is blatantly unnatural and forced upon society by the state. Capitalism is natural insofar as people trade and exchange gifts and favors with each other without any government pressure to do so. The incentives are all in the exchange itself.

Capitalism in the natural replacement of fuedalism. That is the only natural thing about it. Government pressure was instrumental in starting the capitalist mode of production in the 1400s-1700s. English monarchs for example (this is only one example), made laws that forced people to work a certain amount of hours a day to increase the size of the nation's capital. Once it was ingrained, it no longer needed any such pressure.

Capitalism in the natural replacement of fuedalism. That is the only natural thing about it. Government pressure was instrumental in starting the capitalist mode of production in the 1400s-1700s. English monarchs for example (this is only one example), made laws that forced people to work a certain amount of hours a day to increase the size of the nation's capital. Once it was ingrained, it no longer needed any such pressure.

Because we know that under feudalism nobody ever worked... :rolleyes:

Government pressure was instrumental in starting the capitalist mode of production in the 1400s-1700s. English monarchs for example (this is only one example), made laws that forced people to work a certain amount of hours a day to increase the size of the nation's capital. Once it was ingrained, it no longer needed any such pressure.

So you're saying that before feudalism died out, nobody ever produced anything to trade, nor used their abilities or labor for anyone other than themselves except as selfless community-minded charity? And that the concept of the barter system didn't come about until it was imposed by the English monarchy (yes, capitalism doesn't require printed or minted government money to work, it just makes things more convenient)? What about American Indians with beads and seashells?

I think perhaps your definition of capitalism is too narrow. Maybe you are thinking of state capitalism.

I have much trouble believing that the concept of an individual being free to offer products, property, labor, or skills in return for different goods/services from other individuals was imposed on people in the 1400s and didn't arise in human society before that point. Individuals have been owning things and spending money for a long time. Ancient Greece coined money thousands of years before the rise or decline of feudalism.

Democratic Socialism

So you're saying that before feudalism died out, nobody ever produced anything to trade, nor used their abilities or labor for anyone other than themselves except as selfless community-minded charity? And that the concept of the barter system didn't come about until it was imposed by the English monarchy (yes, capitalism doesn't require printed or minted government money to work, it just makes things more convenient)? What about American Indians with beads and seashells?

I think perhaps your definition of capitalism is too narrow. Maybe you are thinking of state capitalism.

I have much trouble believing that the concept of an individual being free to offer products, property, labor, or skills in return for different goods/services from other individuals was imposed on people in the 1400s and didn't arise in human society before that point. Individuals have been owning things and spending money for a long time. Ancient Greece coined money thousands of years before the rise or decline of feudalism.

Nay, your definition of capitalism is too broad. According to your definition fuedalism is capitalist. My definition of capitalism is that the means of production are controlled by the capitalists. This means essentially the accumulation of surplus-value within capital. That is capitalism.

Because we know that under feudalism nobody ever worked... :rolleyes:

Don't be dense. I am saying that capitalist production was forced onto people as a replacement of fuedalist production.

Capitalism is better for the individual and the larger country, but Socialism is better for the collective group of people (Assuming they are poor). However the problem with it is that the middle class gets screwed because their entire pay is taken by exorborant taxation. I'd say Capitalism is best, but it depends on the situation....

They are all different but good for different reasons, Capitalism is good for the individual and ultimately for the state, it generates higher GDP. Whereas Socialism is better for a collective group, but screws the individual.

No, it wasn't.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

I'm using the generally accepted definition of "fascist," meaning a system of government that demands 100% loyalty of its people OR ELSE...

But I understand that "fascism," in the classical sense, refers explicitly to the government put in place by Mussolini. If it makes you happy, we can simply call the Soviet Republic a corrupt dictatorship. Either way, the USSR was NOT a communist regime. Stalin put a complete stop to that, even though true Marxist ideals had been waning since the Revolution. :p

Really? People who work for General Motors, Costco and McDonalds are all indentured servants?The people on the lower end of the scale are, essentially. The managers would have management skills that they could use to get a job somewhere else.

Forced labor?Forced by economic necessity, yes.

But people who work for non-profits are not? That's quite a stretch...Not really. people who don't work in those places still have the option to do so. Many people who work in those places do not have the option to not do so.

So? Are you going to be the arbiter of which of my pleasures I should study, improve and learn more about?In a limited sense. If you want to be a doctor, you would be required to demonstrate that you know how to do so in order to do so. However, you would never be told that you must become a doctor.

You, apparently, have never been the parent of a two year old. The third word they learn behind "mama" and "dada" is "no" - and the fourth word is "MINE!"

You've never watched animals fight over an item or territory?

Nope - 'property' is a quite natural condition.Ever watch animals fight over items or territory that are hundreds of miles away?
Animals treating things that they use as their property is natural. Property rights over things that aren't being used by the holder of the rights are highly unnatural.

The people on the lower end of the scale are, essentially. The managers would have management skills that they could use to get a job somewhere else.
come again - everyone who is not a manager is a useless unmarketable peon? I thought you were communist - not feudalist.

Forced by economic necessity, yes.
economic necessity - lol. So without capitalism mana would fall from the skies and feed everyone! Clothing would weave itself and homes would spring from the trees!

Sorry - you are wrong. It is not economic necessity - it is just good ol fashioned reality that requires people to work to sustain themselves and their families.

Not really. people who don't work in those places still have the option to do so. Many people who work in those places do not have the option to not do so.
but if they do so and you someone does not do so then when someone else does they didn't do it - did they? HA!

In a limited sense. If you want to be a doctor, you would be required to demonstrate that you know how to do so in order to do so. However, you would never be told that you must become a doctor.
wrong answer - and not wrong for being wrong - wrong for not even addressing the question. You may have well have responded "Jupiter".

Ever watch animals fight over items or territory that are hundreds of miles away?
Animals treating things that they use as their property is natural. Property rights over things that aren't being used by the holder of the rights are highly unnatural.
You are trying to stretch an example of the reality of the naturalness of property into a metaphor here - and it is not working. Moder economics is far more complex than the territorial nature and natural resource consumption of the hoary marmot.

Socialism = Communism, so I voted Capitalism.

Mixed economy.

There is nothing "natural" about capitalism. It depends on a set of property relations that are imposed and enforced by the state.

Not true at all. Property can be claimed and protected without state interference through the utility the property holder provides to those he interacts with.

Non-property, on the other hand, is a very difficult method to maintain without state-like intervention.

Socialism, because it's the middle road, which is usually better. extremes suck. capitalism exploits people, communism doesn't work.

socialism ensures personal freedom, while still ensuring the less fortunate fall into a black hole.

Not true at all. Property can be claimed and protected without state interference through the utility the property holder provides to those he interacts with.

Non-property, on the other hand, is a very difficult method to maintain without state-like intervention.

See my earlier post. The point is that the government has ingrained capitalism into people.

So you're saying that before feudalism died out, nobody ever produced anything to trade, nor used their abilities or labor for anyone other than themselves except as selfless community-minded charity? And that the concept of the barter system didn't come about until it was imposed by the English monarchy (yes, capitalism doesn't require printed or minted government money to work, it just makes things more convenient)? What about American Indians with beads and seashells?

I think perhaps your definition of capitalism is too narrow. Maybe you are thinking of state capitalism.

I have much trouble believing that the concept of an individual being free to offer products, property, labor, or skills in return for different goods/services from other individuals was imposed on people in the 1400s and didn't arise in human society before that point. Individuals have been owning things and spending money for a long time. Ancient Greece coined money thousands of years before the rise or decline of feudalism.

Nay, yours is too broad. According to yours, fuedalism is a form of capitalist production. My definition is as follows: capitalism is a mode of production in which the means of production are used to accumulate capital. The point of capitalism is to produce capital; the point of fuedalism is not.

Before I begin on you, Mystic Skeptic, I'd like to say that I'm not enjoying this "noisy champion" of capitalists archetype that you are putting up.

Because we know that under feudalism nobody ever worked... :rolleyes:

Don't be dense. I'm talking about ingraining capitalism into people who are used to fuedalist production.

"You are trying to stretch an example of the reality of the naturalness of property into a metaphor here - and it is not working. Moder[n] economics is far more complex than the territorial nature and natural resource consumption of the hoary marmot."

No actually it really isn't. I am not agreeing with Jello Biafra, I am saying that all, all of modern economics is centered on the groundless concept of "human nature". Everything from bussiness cycles to property can be explained by "human nature". "Human nature" means a short-sighted corrupt pleasure-seeking and essentially capricious humanity. The only way to describe the ups and downs of the bussiness cycle is with this "human nature" clinging to the market's higher prices.

Capitalism. Governments rely on it, whereas the other two rely on the government. Besides, I will not support a society that allows somebody else to dictate what I do, how I do it, what I get compensated for doing it, and where I do it.

I just might start a revolution.

Property can be claimed and protected without state interference through the utility the property holder provides to those he interacts with.

The institution of private property can be said to provide utility, maybe. One person's specific ownership of a piece of it... not really.

Without artificial coercion to enforce the will of the property-owner, there is no reason for the poor to respect the property of the rich.

There is only one law, the law of strength, the majority have more numbers are will eventually take the property of the rich by force through true democratic means.

Capitalism. The other two suck because we all know socialism and communism are synonymous(you know it's true).

@ Communism: We spent 45 years spanking you.:cool:

@Socialism: As soon as we are done spanking terrorism we will get started on you.

socailisim i love it but what form and mix it with commralism and keep it under can trole that part. hill socailism

come again - everyone who is not a manager is a useless unmarketable peon? I thought you were communist - not feudalist.No. Most people who are not managers but who work at CostCo, et al, does not have the skills to work somewhere else.

economic necessity - lol. So without capitalism mana would fall from the skies and feed everyone! Clothing would weave itself and homes would spring from the trees! No, but without capitalism people could pick any fruit from the trees that's there without being restricted.

Sorry - you are wrong. It is not economic necessity - it is just good ol fashioned reality that requires people to work to sustain themselves and their families.I'm not saying that people shouldn't work. Picking your own fruit would be work.
I am saying, however, that people would not work for the pittance that McDonald's pays unless they had no other options.

but if they do so and you someone does not do so then when someone else does they didn't do it - did they? HA!What?

wrong answer - and not wrong for being wrong - wrong for not even addressing the question. You may have well have responded "Jupiter".I thought I did answer the question. If you feel I did not, please rephrase the question to give me a better idea of what you want.

Moder economics is far more complex than the territorial nature and natural resource consumption of the hoary marmot.Which is why the concept of ownership (not property, ownership) is unnatural.

The institution of private property can be said to provide utility, maybe. One person's specific ownership of a piece of it... not really.

Not really?

Without artificial coercion to enforce the will of the property-owner, there is no reason for the poor to respect the property of the rich.

Except if the property owner would be able to make them better off than were they to possess the property themselves.

Except if the property owner would be able to make them better off than were they to possess the property themselves.

And when is this the case?

And when is this the case?
To use an extreme example: a medical laboratory and a caveman.

Say there's a medical lab, a medical scientist/doctor and a caveman. Say the caveman really likes the shiny stuff and wants it. But if he uses it, he probably damages it or at least doesn't put it to productive use.

The medical scientist could meanwhile find the cure for smallpox that would otherwise kill the caveman.

If we restrict use of the lab to the doctor, then the caveman will be better off for it. And that's true even if the caveman has to pay for the vaccine created by the scientist.

In short: if one person is able to put the asset in question to much better use, then making use of that asset an exclusive right of the person can make the non-owners better off. Though that doesn't always have to hold true, I grant you that.