Why Capitalists are Capitalists...

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I don't think this invisible hand of the market is as magical as some people make it out to be. First of all, "the market" can fail in many different ways. Secondly, "the market" does not allocate resources optimally or even reasonably, in fact, a lot is wasted in competition.


.

This is extremely debatable. In matter of technology competition is efficient; I dont know of competing technologies eliminating a significantly better tech than the one finally adopted. When comparing the efficiency of central planification with competition, we observe that central planification can work satisfactorily for raw materials and heavy industry, but fails to master the risk of erroneous directions, which is aggravated by the almost impossibility to correct errors. On the other hand, competition waste some efforts, but the efforts wasted indicate wrong directions, and progressively but quickly enough, the greatest efforts are on the right direction.

The micro computer industry is a fine example of the efficiency of the savage competition : in 20 years, starting from the ground, this industry has changed the world. Interestingly, the centralized economies have produced nothing in this area, everything coming from the competitives economies.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm not going around in circles with you guys. Come up with a new and GOOD argument and I will continue. Otherwise see you on the next issue.

Well, **** son, why don't YOU come up with a new argument?

[DinoDoc]

You're raising the bar too high for him.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kidicious
And if you don't like it Vel, you can go to the gulag with the rest of the pigdogs.

And in a thread that was deleted (I think), someone asked me for any examples of Communists threatening the Righties with gulags, re-education camps, and death squads.

Thanks, Kidicious! Glad that you finally reverted back to ideological form - power comes from the end of a gun, huh?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kidicious

You keep looking at individuals. You have to look at whole groups and then make general statements. You keep saying that poor people can make opportunities for themselves. That maybe true for individuals, but not for the whole group. For every person who tries to make opportunities for themselves there are many others who try and fail.

By definition, "poor" is a relative term. Until you reach some bizarre utopia where everybody makes the same money and is in the same social strata, the "poor" will always exist... which, of course, makes it easy for you to make silly statements like the above.

[Velociryx]

Lots to reply to since I hit the sack last night….where to start, where to start….


Kid: As MtG already told you, “will” is not subject to debate. The amount of effort and persistence used in the pursuit of your particular “road map” will by and large determine the amount of improvement. A perfectly valid choice is to not follow the road map at all, and comes (predictably) with no improvement whatsoever.

Of course you won’t debate that point….there’s nothing to debate. Having already agreed that such plans can be made, all that remains is the plan’s execution. Your ideology doesn’t trust the individual, however, and so rather than relying on individual initiative to succeed, you would simply have the state mandate to the collective. Someone who HAS succeeded should give it up to equalize things.

And this notion of equality you keep going on about is very interesting as well.

Equality is obviously a very big thing with you. So much so, that you spend an inordinate time worrying over, and fretting over the possibility that someone out there might have more than you. This rubs you the wrong way. Again, not trusting the individual (including, apparently, yourself) to go out and even things up via effort, you’d again rather simply have a gulag set up someplace to put those shamelessly rich folks, take what they have created and make things even again that way. How is that “fair” to those you are robbing at gunpoint? Oh, but they’re just individuals, right? So that makes it okay?

Then, after you decree this bizarre sort of equality, you go on to say that you DO believe that people should be compensated according to their efforts…just without the wide income disparity that exists now. Do you not see how that runs counter to the whole rest of your “theory”? I mean, if everything has to be equal at the end of the day, and you’re paying people differently according to their efforts, you are setting yourself for the same problem you perceive right now. Is it not the case that those who have more will use their surplus to figure out new ways of exploiting the masses? So what will be the solution then? Ship them off to the gulag too?

Gepap: While what you say is true, the biggest, most robust and vibrant capitalist-oriented economies exist IN democratic environments. In looking at the comparative history of the two economic systems, one has thrived and flourished. The other has not. That history is what validates capitalism. It has proven to work. Communism has not. Ever.

The people we’re debating with do not want “some” socialistic brakes put on the capitalist system, they want wholesale change and the dismantling of the current system in favor of state (er…”worker”, excuse me) control over everything. Yes, there are a few areas of the economy are better off for a measure of socialization. Note that phrase, “a few areas” (as opposed to the whole hog) and “a measure of” (as opposed to absolute state control).

Slavery: Different issue, but related, I agree. Slavery is evil because it subverts the individual. They’re not “people” anymore….they’re property. That sounds pretty similar to the great anthill communist collective we keep hearing about. The individual is subverted. He no longer exists. There’s only the group. Same story, different veneer.

UR: Yep, The Shrub’s family connections gave him his opportunity, that’s true (and what I’ve said from the beginning), but he still had to go out and campaign and get votes (or, depending on who you talk to, bribe people to change the votes). Had he not run a decent campaign (which is work, btw), had he some better competition, all the connections in the world would not have gotten him into the oval office.

Nope…I’m not implying that those who fail don’t work hard enough or aren’t smart enough. I’m simply saying that if I succeed and you don’t, how have you helped me succeed? And why should I be forced at gunpoint to give up what I’ve worked for for you?

If economics was zero-sum, then no new wealth would have been created. New wealth is created in the economy daily. Saying that economics is or can be zero-sum is among the most absurd things I have ever heard you say. Care to give an example?

Yes…the Russians launched the first satellite into space. Whooptedoo! And to think, it only cost them a few million of their citizens, and the deaths of a few score scientists to get the rest “properly motivated” to do the work of the party bosses. Impressive. And we’re not against some central control, by the way. The tax system itself is centrally controlled. Just don’t tell me that when I come home after a hard day’s work, you and your cronies will be waiting for me at my door to take your cut of what I worked for. I promise you’ll wind up with a few less teeth…

And I’m not talking about making everyone wealthy. I am talking about everyone having the opportunity to improve themselves.

If I’m waiting tables at three bucks an hour, I can take night classes and get MS certified, and land a 70k a year job. That’s a big step up. Am I fantabulously wealthy? Nope, but I’m a helluvalot better off than I was. And if I keep applying myself, it’ll get even better.

But again, it’s a lot easier to simply take the riches away from those that already have them. That way, I don’t have to learn many new things (well, how to aim and shoot a gun, maybe, but hey! That’s a lot less work than actually going out and making my own money!)

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Gepap: While what you say is true, the biggest, most robust and vibrant capitalist-oriented economies exist IN democratic environments. In looking at the comparative history of the two economic systems, one has thrived and flourished. The other has not. That history is what validates capitalism. It has proven to work. Communism has not. Ever.

Actualy, look at Hong Kong. It has never been a true democracy, and neither has Singapore, yet both are very vibrant capitalist economies.

Slavery: Different issue, but related, I agree. Slavery is evil because it subverts the individual. They’re not “people” anymore….they’re property. That sounds pretty similar to the great anthill communist collective we keep hearing about. The individual is subverted. He no longer exists. There’s only the group. Same story, different veneer.

Actually, no. You see, you conflate a communistic economic model to a totalitarian political model. They do not have to live side by side, just as democracy and capitalism don;t have to live side by side. You keep pointing out the failures of a single party totalitarian political structure as if it were part and parcel of a centralized or coopt, cooperative economies. They aren't. as for people as property: one of the places in the world today you have few rights (with all the rght you do have government mandated) is in the workplace. You are not primarilly a "person" anymore, you are a consumer or "labor", a number and a statistic for economists to study. I think you forget the Romantic notions of someone like marx (which did not fit very well with his scientific side)

And I’m not talking about making everyone wealthy. I am talking about everyone having the opportunity to improve themselves.

And you had that oppurtunity because? Imagine if you had had a significant accident in your youth, while poor. Could your family have afforded you the best care? And if they hadn;t, for reasons having nothing to do with your drive and abilities you would perhaps not had the same chance. The fact there is such a thing as medicaid and medicare have nothing to do with capitalism a whole to do with democracy.

If I’m waiting tables at three bucks an hour, I can take night classes and get MS certified, and land a 70k a year job. That’s a big step up. Am I fantabulously wealthy? Nope, but I’m a helluvalot better off than I was. And if I keep applying myself, it’ll get even better.

And if everyone went to school and got MS qualified, you would not make 70k a year, now would you? If everyone could do MS, you might as well get paid 3 bucks an hour doing so. The system needs low wage workers: as i said before, not everyone can even be confortable: who then cleans the blankets? yet becuase anyone can in theory clean floors (even if most people won't), you can pay the guys doing it squat. In your world Vel, can everyone make 70k? nd if so, what would 70k buy you?

But again, it’s a lot easier to simply take the riches away from those that already have them. That way, I don’t have to learn many new things (well, how to aim and shoot a gun, maybe, but hey! That’s a lot less work than actually going out and making my own money!)

-=Vel=-

Actually, crime is very difficult to pull of successfully, and it has great inhrent risks. I mean, the guy you rob could always have a gun, or a knive, or fight back, forcing you to shot them, thus gpoing from a robbbery charge if caught to murder. Bernie Ebbers had to be smart, as did all the folks of Enron, to make as much as they did, now didn't they?

And then there is the question of what is wealth? Why should thewre be a "legal" and an "ilegal" way to make it? If I can successfuly rob you of your wealth, why should I not be as entitled to it as you were? I did do something to get it, not just sit around. I worked to rob you, i planned, I executed, and I won. I bea you, porved better than you, so why am I, the thief, not entitled to it?

[Velociryx]

Gepap: I am not conflating anything into anything. The communist credo (as has been implemented EVERY TIME it has reared its unworkable head) has been full state centralized control. Yep…the workers control the means of production. One party system, run by the workers, so state control = worker control. That’s the way it’s been implemented every time it has been tried. It’s not some phantasm I’m pulling out of thin air, it’s the way it is! And IN the model as it has been constructed, the people were as good as slaves. The individual was meaningless. Nothing has changed. Those are the same exact arguments we’re hearing from our Comrades in this thread. Forget the individual, look at the group.

The USA and the capitalist economies aren’t really “true” democracies either, but they’re a damn site more democratically minded than their communist counterparts. The freer and more open the society, the more fuel is given to the capitalist model. What is so hard to fathom about that?

If “everyone” was MS certified, then obviously the wages would fall. At the exact same time, however, with everyone being MS certified, there would be increasing demand for other skills, and wages in those areas would rise. I get the distinct sense that you know this already.

And if you’re actually touting robbery as a legitimate way of making money, join your local Communist chapter. I'm sure they'll need lots of help rounding us all up to ship off to da Gulag...

-=Vel=-

[JohnT]

And, UR? You really need to stop bringing multi-millionaire Gary Kildall into your examples regarding how "Bill Gates trampled on these poor people." What a way to argue for the common man - "Gary Kildall was only worth $50 million, not the (whatever figure you think is fair) that he should've been worth had DEC not charged $250 for their IBM C/PM OS."

I mean, even pro-DRC/anti-MS sites don't even back you up here:

"IBM met with a cool reception when they approached DRI for a CP/M license. Dorothy McEwen and DRI's attorney refused to sign the IBM non-disclosure agreement (Gary did not attend the meeting), refused to make any modifications to CP/M-86 and insisted on a higher royalty than what IBM proposed. "

" DRI released CP/M-86 soon after IBM released DOS Version 1.0. DOS had fewer features and poorer performance. IBM offered both CP/M-86 and DOS. CP/M-86 was offered at $240 versus $60 for DOS. Few PC owners were willing to pay the extra money DRI considered suing Microsoft for copying all the CP/M system calls, program structure, and user interface. However, DRI knew it would also have to sue IBM. It knew it did not have the resources for this and that its chances of success were remote. "

http://www.cadigital.com/kildall.htm

[Velociryx]

John, it'd just be a whole lot simpler if we shipped the whole lot of them off and took their stuff! The greedy bastards didn't really "work" for it anyway....

-=Vel=-

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Nope?I?m not implying that those who fail don?t work hard enough or aren?t smart enough. I?m simply saying that if I succeed and you don?t, how have you helped me succeed? And why should I be forced at gunpoint to give up what I?ve worked for for you?

Because the fact that you bargained for it in a free market system is not identical with, nor does it obviously entail a right to keep it.

Don't confuse economic results with moral entitlements.

[JohnT]

Why not? You just did.

[Velociryx]

So, if wealth is created anywhere in the world, then everyone (all members of the "group"--remember, individuals don't count) are entitled to it.

If that's the big Utopia, you can keep it.

-=Vel=-

[Agathon]

Originally posted by JohnT
Why not? You just did.

[Velociryx]

The Communist Credo, boiled down to it's bare bones:

You have more stuff than me. I want more stuff! I'm not sure if I can duplicate your hard work and success, but I shouldn't have to. The stuff exists, and because it does, I am entitled to my "fair share." If you disagree, me and my friends will put you in a cold, miserable place and take what's yours. Give it up....it's in the interest of the party (er...the "whole group.")

-=Vel=-