Why Capitalists are Capitalists...

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Agathon


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.

That is why capitalists, as all humans, share all they earn with their family; most people refrain from sharing with the whole humankind because they feel responsible for the closest, and giving their earning to the last dollar to people not belonging to the family would jeopardize the accomplishment of what they are directly responsible for.

It is legitimate to believe that the absolute poverty leading to beg his daily meal is morally perfect; it is also legitimate to believe that it is an easy way to be morally right. Their is no wrong in earning ones daily bread, and in anticipating in future needs of ones chidren. Never being a burden for ones community is morally right, and there are many ways in addition to that to be usefel to ones community.

Earning more than the average is not a sin, it all depends at the end of your life if you have contributed positively (not only financially) to the future of your community. Even capitalists works for the community.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
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.

No one has to follow your road map. Damn you think you are hot **** don't you. You think you can jus come up with a road map to get rich and someone can follow it and get rich. I told you just start an infomercial then we can see how many rich people you create.

So let me get this straight. You acknowledge that capitalism is not the most beneficial system for society, but it is beneficial to individuals who try, right?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Equality is obviously a very big thing with you. 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.

I believe in relative equality. In the future, when we look back at the current system we will see how it was based on greed and selfishness. People will be amased that we let people suffer from poverty and justified it by saying that they are inferior. Will people have higher incomes than others? Maybe. The thing about the future is that there won't be enough jobs for everyone. There aren't enough jobs for everyone right now, but that's only because of capitalism. So people will be given an income who don't qualifiy for work.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
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.

There are a lot of market failures, but the largest one is unemployment. Unemployment is a very serious problem in the world and it's going to get worse. People are unemployed, but people are hungry. It's absurd.

[ajbera]

Kid, you never answered my question about innate characteristics that cause "unfair" opportunities.

Let's say one person is a super-genius, a trait denied to 99.999% of the world. This person uses his brilliance to create a product that he then sells and makes millions. What does he owe society? Since he had an advantage that most don't, should he have to give up a huge portion of his wealth to those who aren't geniuses? Or is the product he created, that evidently was popular enough for millions of people to want and buy, enough of a reward to the world? After all, he wasn't obligated to make a product that people want/need.

What do you feel about cases like this? Or someone who is extraordinarily chraismatic who uses that to get venture capital. Is that unfair?

[Velociryx]

Kid, you're absolutely right. No one has to follow my roadmap. In fact, there are a LOT of people out there, right now, using this failing, broken system you keep saying doesn't work, making their own road maps, and finding success.

There are also people out there mapping out their success and failing. That does not mean the system is broken, it means they need a better plan. If they can't make a better plan on their own, then they need help to make one. What they DON'T need is a handout. They need to be shown HOW to use the system and improve themselves through personal effort.

Capitalism works for those who choose to make it work for them, yes. And as it improves the lives of the individuals who choose to make it work for them, it improves the societal group as a whole.

Relative equality. So if I have more, you should just be able to come get it, right? Cos I mean, who's to say where that relative scale is, and if you feel slighted or shorted, then obviously I'm to blame.

Come try....

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by ajbera
Kid, you never answered my question about innate characteristics that cause "unfair" opportunities.

Let's say one person is a super-genius, a trait denied to 99.999% of the world. This person uses his brilliance to create a product that he then sells and makes millions. What does he owe society? Since he had an advantage that most don't, should he have to give up a huge portion of his wealth to those who aren't geniuses? Or is the product he created, that evidently was popular enough for millions of people to want and buy, enough of a reward to the world? After all, he wasn't obligated to make a product that people want/need.

What do you feel about cases like this? Or someone who is extraordinarily chraismatic who uses that to get venture capital. Is that unfair?

There should be rewards for that, but a system of perpetual poverty should not be upheld for these inventors. Inventions, by individuals, aren't as important as they used to be. We have groups of scientists who get paid salary to invent new technologies now.

[Velociryx]

Why give the man rewards? Surely he will use those rewards to think up new ways of exploiting you, right?

-=Vel=-

EDIT: And once again, we see the Communist denail of the power of the individual.

It's not a man who creates an invention...it's group-think. Put a bunch of scientists in a room (you know, so we can ensure full employment), and they'll create stuff. The individuals on the team don't matter.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid, you're absolutely right. No one has to follow my roadmap. In fact, there are a LOT of people out there, right now, using this failing, broken system you keep saying doesn't work, making their own road maps, and finding success.

ARGH! What is with this?! Seriously, why do you think this is a good argument. There are much more that fail. Open your eyes to reality man!

Originally posted by Velociryx
Come try....

-=Vel=-

Is anyone else getting insulted by Vel's attitude here? It's like "I got rich, if you're hungry don't ask me for help, just get rich like me."

You can figure it out in the Gulag Vel.

[ajbera]

No, we're insulted by your "If you don't share your wealth with me we'll take it by force when the revolution comes" stance.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Kidicious


There should be rewards for that, but a system of perpetual poverty should not be upheld for these inventors. Inventions, by individuals, aren't as important as they used to be. We have groups of scientists who get paid salary to invent new technologies now.

It reminds me : La Révolution n'a pas besoin de savants (The Revolution does not need scientists) said by the prosecutor before condemning Lavoisier to be beheaded.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Why give the man rewards? Surely he will use those rewards to think up new ways of exploiting you, right?

No, he would be thrown in the Gulag for that.

Originally posted by Velociryx

EDIT: And once again, we see the Communist denail of the power of the individual.

It's not a man who creates an invention...it's group-think. Put a bunch of scientists in a room (you know, so we can ensure full employment), and they'll create stuff. The individuals on the team don't matter.

Group effort has proven the more efficient way. Individualism is a failure. Look at the Japanese. Everyone is following their example now. You don't want to argue with progress do you?

[Velociryx]

My eyes are open, and what I see runs in direct opposition to what you are saying.

People are striving and succeeding. All? No, but more than are failing.

I live in one of the poorest states in the USA (third poorest, after Louisiana and Mississippi, to be specific), and here, in our dirt poor state, the standard of living is rising dramatically for nearly everyone.

Why do you suppose that is? Did someone slip something into the water supply here to suddenly make everybody smarter than the rest? Doubt it. What has been happening, however, is that people here took advantage of the big 90's boom to learn new skills, and even now, when the economy is sluggish, those skills are paying handsome dividends.

If it's not that way where you are, then my sincere apologies. Perhaps things will change. Perhaps you can help them change, not by demanding what I worked for, but by helping others make a better life for themselves.

And be offended at my tone if you want. I'm not saying that I'm against helping the poor. It's more along the lines that I'm "teaching a man to fish" rather than just giving him my fish. That's what you fail to understand, no matter how many different ways it's phrased. You just can't get it through your head, can you? It is more valuable BY FAR to teach others HOW to succeed than to simply force the wealthy to give up what they have worked for to those who can't or won't.

Harder, yes. But also worth a great deal more.

I do more than just pay my taxes (which, by the way, helps the very people you describe), I help them formulate plans for their own success. What do you do? Preach the gospel of the coming revolution?

-=Vel=-

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Look at the Japanese. Everyone is following their example now.

Are they out of that recession yet?

[ajbera]

I'm also wiling to bet that Vel would never deny a hungry person some food or some money to get food. He's just not going to fork over half his paycheck for someone who did nothing to earn it. The hungry person will get a meal and then be pointed in the direction to get more meals, preferably by cleaning himself up, and getting a job.

Once again, that sickening leftist mindset that if you believe in individual achievement, that must mean that those that don't achieve should starve to death.