Why Capitalists are Capitalists...

[Velociryx]

Probably for the best anyway, Master Che. You see, I'd make a very poor communist anyway. One of those (numerous) people you'd have to no doubt ship off to reeducation camps in the next revolution's equivalent of a Gulag for being too much of an individual for the good of the party bosses.

I do not have much, even today. But I busted my a$$ for what I DO have, and am continuing to improve myself every day.

Being focused on that goal, there's not a lot of time left for me to fret over the fact that I don't get invited to Gatesian dinner parties, or to worry over what choices he might have that I do not.

Nope...I got my own fish to fry, and I'm dead set on doing exactly that.

Not waiting for a handout, not waiting to be rescued by the workin' man's party, not waiting for the next Stalin wanna be to come confiscate Gates' wealth and give me my "fair share."

I'm making my own fair share.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Kid, I'll say again....bring me someone. You pick the person. Pick someone with absolutely NO opportunities that you can see if you like.

I'm still waiting.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Vel, you sound like abroken record now.

Lets imagine we have three people who discover that what make shtme happiets is doing X (tof follow your different goals idea). So thorugh work they start doing X, Now they have to eat and have shelter, so they go out trying to seel their X. Eventually it turns up that a small market for X does eixs, but only enough to support one person doing X, not three.

So, is the market 'right'? As is , only one person could make a living doing X. The other two would have to drop doing X (give up on thier goal) to satisfy the fact that THE MARKET has no use for three people doing X and if they keep doing X they will starve, due to no money.

Do you think this is a correct outcome? (this question goes to all).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
What's your alternative? The central planning bureaucracy guarantees your present income in your present field for life? Or is there "competition" in your fantasy of a socialist paradise and you were just digging (no pun intended) at Vel?

Actually I do see a place for competition in the future. It's just the organization of competition that I would change. I believe that there should be competition for jobs and educational opportunities and that the most qualified people should have those jobs. I also believe that people with jobs should be paid more than those without them. I do not believe that people with the resources to own the means of production should be able to compete unfairly.

[chequita guevara]

You see Vel, your main point is a strawman. As I pointed out, it isn't that capitalism is inherently unfair (although that has turned out to be the practice). Capitalism could be managed in such a way as to ensure that only by your merits and nothing else, could you succeed. Then perhaps the world would be ruled by Velociryx's and MtGs, rather than Bushes, Kennedies, Carnegie-Mellons, etc. But, having succeeded, who wants to then toss their children to the winds of fate and let their personal empires be dismantled?

The point is, capitalism punishes society for being too productive, it wastes capital and labor on unnecessary endevers, and it periodically even requires the destruction of societies and the murder of millions of humans to go on. In fact, tens of millions are human lives are sacrificed each year on the altar of the market. For the rich and powerful, we withhold life saving medicines and subsidize food at prices which drive people out of the market. We overthrow governments that threat the property rights of the rich and powerful.

It's not about redistribution of wealth, it's about creating a new set of opportunities for everyone.

[Velociryx]

I write poetry. I do it because I love it, and I am not alone.

There's not a big enough market for me to be successful and support myself economically by writing poetry, so I do something else to provide myself with food and shelter.

I still write poetry though, and have not given up that goal.

Some people write poetry and make a living at it.

Good for them.

That does not, in any way, demeen the value of my work.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

And while that is nice and fine for you Vel,it does not address the question one bit (X could be something that must be done full time, not part time).

So the question remain Vel.

[chequita guevara]

What has that to do with anything?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
So, is the market 'right'? As is , only one person could make a living doing X. The other two would have to drop doing X (give up on thier goal) to satisfy the fact that THE MARKET has no use for three people doing X and if they keep doing X they will starve, due to no money.

Do you think this is a correct outcome? (this question goes to all).

No, because there isn't sufficient opportunity for all of them. Good point becuase this is the world we are living in. The jobs that are being created in the economy are eliminating jobs. There are already not enough jobs for the entire world even if we were to distribute income equally. This is a problem that will only get worse.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
The market does not give a rats ass about any individual, nor how ambitious or hard workind they are. You suceed based on whether what you bring to the table is wanted by the market or not. That is it. Lets take some poor farmer boy in mexico, who works ungodly hours in terrible conditiuon to feed his family. He then decides to risk his life to cross the border and get a job a bit less hazardous picking produce. His likelyhood of beaing wealthy are extremely low, no matter how much he struggles, how much he works, if only becuase he never picked up the skills the market values. If everyone studied fiannce, then finance majors would get paid **** after college.

One of the premises of ambition, and of the points Vel and I have made (and others in the supply side thread) is that you have to respond to supply and demand. If Juan Lechuguero insists on picking lettuce the rest of his life and wants to be wealthy, it ain't gonna happen, of course. What he can do is realize agricultural labor dooms him to a substandard existence and he'd better acquire some other skills.

The point I am tryin to make is that I think that maximizing the creation of capital and maximizing the abilities (or creativity, or excellence, whatever) of man ARE NOT THE SAME. Capitalism is about maximizing wealth production. That is it. It does not teach us any morals, life lessons, nothing, becase that is not what its purpose is. People fail in the capitalist system based on how worthwhile they are to the maximizing of wealth.

Of course, once you have money and don't have to work your ass off to scrape out a meaningless subsistence, you can do all the rest of that stuff to whatever extent you want. And you don't even have to worry if the Party is going to condemn what you read or believe as bourgeoise or counterrevolutionary.

Someone whos life ambition is to be a great poet might (but most likely won;t) be a great sucess in the capitalist system, but only if what he writes also is popular. If it isn;t, he won;t be a great success, no matter how much he worked. Is that wrong? I don't know.

There's also the possibility of rich patrons And it's not like the poet can't teach creative writing or some other bourgeouse subject at unis or writer's workshops or something.

[Velociryx]

Che: The river not being owned by anyone in particular (a "public good") is certainly at risk of being poisoned by one or more groups, that is true. Thus, wherever public goods exist, get some third party agency involved to manage the river (and give that agency the authority to harshly punish those who misuse it. This has been done in one case that you yourself pointed out (fisheries), and has worked.

But what works for public goods is not, does not, and historically has not worked for the rest of the economy.

Are there boom-bust cycles in the economy? Yes. Of course there are, and we have found ways of mitigating the damage they cause. The fact is, however, that if the economy is to remain vibrant, those cycles are unavoidable. They are growing pains, as it were.

When I was a kid, I used to get awful leg cramps. Those were growing pains too. The solution though, was not to cut my legs off....

-=Vel=-

[Az]

A true equal opportunity capitalism is something that I pondered, as well. Some very interesting stuff.

[Velociryx]

Gepap...the question itself is a fallacy....name me something that I can't do just part time.

Software development, maybe?

-=Vel=-

[JohnT]

This is possibly the silliest statement made on this thread:

"If you ever watch the "Antiques Roadshow" you can see what is wrong with consumer capitalism. Most of that old stuff is well made and that's why it has lasted so well - there's no reason that couldn't be done now other than that it would destroy our silly economy. Same goes for fashions and trends - it's all smoke and mirrors - the wonder is that anyone falls for it. "

All the crap has fallen apart. Only those things that were

a. maintained while being used
b. Put away and forgotten about for 100 years

has survived.

Anybody whom actually is knowledgable about the manufacture of tables, chairs, and assorted errata that you see on those shows will agree: 19th century manufacturing and resource utilization was pitiful compared to modern methods.

But hey! Good attempt to make political hay out of a TV show!

[Velociryx]

MtG....I think it's hopeless.

They're right, we're wrong, and "The Man" is out to get us all.

Meet you at the bread line later?

-=Vel=-