Why Capitalists are Capitalists...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


What does any of this have to do with the difference in the way the Japanese manufacture say cars and the old US way of manufacturing. The old US way is horribly inefficient. It's a dinosaur now. Anyone using it will surely go out of business in this modern era.

The US doesn't use "the old US way" any more, except to the extent that resistance from the UAW keeps inefficient work processes and plants going.

What it "has to do with" is how brutal the Japanese system was for the average worker, how a culture based on conformity and not challenging authority (commie wet dream material if you ever actually run anything) led workers and managers alike to not question the inefficiencies of the system or the effect on workers and managers, and how shareholders were screwed by these fun and games, except there were hardly any "real" shareholders - "pac man" ownership and other fun and games were common.

Banks went down the tubes because they were set up to borrow from Nihon Ginko and disburse non-recourse loans to affiliated companies at non-risk sensitve rates based on cooked books. The entire economy was one big cinderella, and even the real performance of those automated wonderfactories you seem to think are cool was heavily cooked. They never paid for themselves, corporate culture was that when you automated, you added workers to maintain the automated line, but shifted the (normally) displaced those workers to do-nothing standaround all day (and OT) jobs. Deskbound bureacracy and paralysis of decision making apparatus proliferated, but as long as you could pretend your briefcase warriors were helping you shove product out the door, great. It didn't matter if the product was sold under true (and unknown, due to gamesmanship) cost, if you got more marketshare. Currency slides a bit, ahhh, we are profitable at 140 yen to the dollar, we can profit at 120 yen to the dollar too - just change the books.

All the bubble gum in the world couldn't produce a bubble that big, and when it popped, it wouldn't leave near as much of a mess, either.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The US doesn't use "the old US way" any more, except to the extent that resistance from the UAW keeps inefficient work processes and plants going.

What it "has to do with" is how brutal the Japanese system was for the average worker, how a culture based on conformity and not challenging authority (commie wet dream material if you ever actually run anything) led workers and managers alike to not question the inefficiencies of the system or the effect on workers and managers, and how shareholders were screwed by these fun and games, except there were hardly any "real" shareholders - "pac man" ownership and other fun and games were common.

Banks went down the tubes because they were set up to borrow from Nihon Ginko and disburse non-recourse loans to affiliated companies at non-risk sensitve rates based on cooked books. The entire economy was one big cinderella, and even the real performance of those automated wonderfactories you seem to think are cool was heavily cooked. They never paid for themselves, corporate culture was that when you automated, you added workers to maintain the automated line, but shifted the (normally) displaced those workers to do-nothing standaround all day (and OT) jobs. Deskbound bureacracy and paralysis of decision making apparatus proliferated, but as long as you could pretend your briefcase warriors were helping you shove product out the door, great. It didn't matter if the product was sold under true (and unknown, due to gamesmanship) cost, if you got more marketshare. Currency slides a bit, ahhh, we are profitable at 140 yen to the dollar, we can profit at 120 yen to the dollar too - just change the books.

All the bubble gum in the world couldn't produce a bubble that big, and when it popped, it wouldn't leave near as much of a mess, either.

Bubbles are another matter. The point is that the productivity was so high in Japan that the system couldn't maintain itself especially after the US starting coying their methods.

[Velociryx]

GePap: The post you pointed out (the one with the caricatures) wasn't directed at YOU (neat, huh? I can use bold face too!), though you obviously felt the insatiable need to address it. Since the post wasn't directed at you, I see no particular reason why it should be required to fit into your vastly complex (can't have anything simple, you know) criterion for an answer.

As to your thieving question, as far as I know, thievery is an outlawed activity in BOTH economic systems under the microscope (communism or capitalism) and thus, has little to do with the current debate IMO. If I did not answer the question to your satisfaction, it is because I fail to see the relevancy (yes, it's an outlawed activity...in both systems...what's your point?).

You've already admitted (by your own posts here) that you've not bothered to read the thread to date (not that I blame you, it's honkin' long), and that's cool, but it does make it a bit hard to jump into the middle....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Students can work together to learn probably better than they would learn from a teacher especially with the new technology. That doesn't mean that teaching is not value. It means that it's not productive in the same sense as it used to be. So if a job isn't necessary should we pay to have it performed?
--The Kid

Why shouldn't we pay to have the job performed? Better than having a bunch of lazy people sitting at home, collecting their thirty grand, right?

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It's the Communist loons who claim that financial and intellectual capital, intrinsic value of raw material resources, and organizational contributions are either non-existent or meaningless. "The rich" are nothing but parasitic scum, only "the workers" actually do anything, and what they do, what they do it with, where they do it, etc., all magically appear, having nothing at all to do with "the rich" scum.

And those are not my arguements, nor are they the arguemnts of all people who view a communistic (as opposed to communist) society as something worthwhile. The rich are only those that have happened to gather around them wealth: they are not an inherently different form of human being than anyone else, not better (as so often it sounds like you or Vel are syaing, even if that is not exactly what you mean), or worse, only those that have gained though to thier actions in whatever system they happen to live in.

The problem I have is that you (and Vel) seem to think there is only one way to wealth, that it is "ahrd work", and anyone who isn't is simply lazy or envious. But there are many ways to wealth. Those Mongol conquerors who plundered and looted: the got wealthy, and its not like they took any less risk, or did any less "work" than the farmers and landowners they plundered. Dofferent values, different systems, different ways to get to whatever is defined as the top. The "top" today is no more natural or normal or proven than the top 2000 years ago.

What I wonder is under which set of values a society that can feed all allows any to starve, that can care to for lets people alone and sick, and so forth and so on.

[Velociryx]

Bubbles are another matter. The point is that the productivity was so high in Japan that the system couldn't maintain itself especially after the US starting coying their methods.

No, the point is that it didn't work.

It imploded, and they haven't recovered yet.

THAT is the point, and the way they were set up was the closest thing to communism you'll see in a market economy.

But of course, under the new, enlightened communists, that won't happen, right?

Never mind that we've seen the dog and pony show SEVERAL times in the past, this time it'll be "different."

Uh huh.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
GePap: The post you pointed out (the one with the caricatures) wasn't directed at YOU (neat, huh? I can use bold face too!), though you obviously felt the insatiable need to address it. Since the post wasn't directed at you, I see no particular reason why it should be required to fit into your vastly complex (can't have anything simple, you know) criterion for an answer.

As all posts are opene to discussion, anything anyone posts is fair game for anyone. And I don;t see how you imporve the argument with Kid in any way to writing what you did.

As to your thieving question, as far as I know, thievery is an outlawed activity in BOTH economic systems under the microscope (communism or capitalism) and thus, has little to do with the current debate IMO. If I did not answer the question to your satisfaction, it is because I fail to see the relevancy (yes, it's an outlawed activity...in both systems...what's your point?).

That it is outlawed in both systems is immaterial, sicne both systems share a lot of common principles (like 'economic man'). The question is made, and I think it valid, ebcause it goes down to a greater part of what Speer's point was when he made his point and started this thread, and its a common point I see defenders of capitalsim make against defenders of communism: that is the communism itself is theft of some type. BUt why is theft wrong? I can see why under the caricature of communism some of you seem to believe it would be wrong (the thief gets rich and denies some lazy slob his unfair share of the loot) but in the individual centric system you keep trying to sell, why is it? You have a right to haveand own pirvate porperty: none said you have a right to keep it.

You've already admitted (by your own posts here) that you've not bothered to read the thread to date (not that I blame you, it's honkin' long), and that's cool, but it does make it a bit hard to jump into the middle....

-=Vel=-

I think much of the discussion is irrelevan or immaterial to what I care to discuss about. about the point being made. The porductivity of japan has sh1t to do with this debate as a whole.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Students can work together to learn probably better than they would learn from a teacher especially with the new technology. That doesn't mean that teaching is not value. It means that it's not productive in the same sense as it used to be. So if a job isn't necessary should we pay to have it performed?
--The Kid

Why shouldn't we pay to have the job performed? Better than having a bunch of lazy people sitting at home, collecting their thirty grand, right?

-=Vel=-

Better than getting 40k for performing functions that cost more than they could be performed otherwise.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Students can work together to learn probably better than they would learn from a teacher especially with the new technology.

It's idiotic thinking like this that forces me to deal with crap systems like Mallard.

[Velociryx]

GePap: I quite agree. Anything here is open to discussion, but you could stand to tone down the righteous indignation when discussing a post that's NOT addressed to you doesn't address your points, ya know?

And I'll answer your question with a question. Why should thievery NOT be outlawed. Give me a reason.

Oh, and one more time for the hard of reading: I'm NOT saying that the rich are a "special class of man." Not by any stretch! Hell, if *I* can find economic success (not that I"d call myself rich--yet), then anybody can! I am saying that those who cannot or will not take the time and the risk to MAKE opportunies for self-improvement should not just get something for nothing because the wealth exists. In our current system, there are hordes and scads of programs to assist the less fortunate, and that is good, but don't come to my house with a gun demanding half of what I own just because you think you "deserve it" and expect a warm welcome....

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Bubbles are another matter. The point is that the productivity was so high in Japan that the system couldn't maintain itself especially after the US starting coying their methods.

No, the point is that it didn't work.

It imploded, and they haven't recovered yet.

THAT is the point, and the way they were set up was the closest thing to communism you'll see in a market economy.

It was only like communism because they reaped the benefits of teamwork and productivity. It was like capitalism because it collapsed. That always happens in capitalist systems

[Velociryx]

It was like communism because everybody was employed in meaningless jobs that didn't really contribute to the production of wealth.

It was like communism in that it collapsed under its own monolithic weight. That always happens in Communist systems....

-=Vel=-

[JohnT]

"You have a right to haveand own pirvate porperty: none said you have a right to keep it."



Redefining age-old words again, are we? What is it with you guys?

Main Entry: 2own
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses
1 a : to have or hold as property : POSSESS b : to have power over : CONTROL

So, we have the right to "own" something but we don't have the right to "have" it?

[Velociryx]

I wasn't gonna, John, but I'm glad someone did...

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
GePap: I quite agree. Anything here is open to discussion, but you could stand to tone down the righteous indignation when discussing a post that's NOT addressed to you doesn't address your points, ya know?

As I said before, this is a public forum, anyone can read anyones posst. Second, what you wrote is just the sort of caricature that does not imporve debat any. If you want just a single sin derived from it: it extends extraneous debate.

And I'll answer your question with a question. Why should thievery NOT be outlawed. Give me a reason.

By outlawying "theft" you undully punish those people how may have the skills and intelliegence to pull it off. Petty robbery is not much, and it does not net much wealth either. But what about stealing from an armored truck? that takes lots of intelliegence, and in the end, 9f we assume the thief will spend every dime of it, it stimulates the economy afterwards just as much as any other use the money could ahve been put to. So why should a brilliant thief be denied the ability to practice and make a living from his art, if in the end, it does little harm to the market system at all?

Oh, and one more time for the hard of reading: I'm NOT saying that the rich are a "special class of man." Not by any stretch! Hell, if *I* can find economic success (not that I"d call myself rich--yet), then anybody can! I am saying that those who cannot or will not take the time and the risk to MAKE opportunies for self-improvement should not just get something for nothing because the wealth exists. In our current system, there are hordes and scads of programs to assist the less fortunate, and that is good, but don't come to my house with a gun demanding half of what I own just because you think you "deserve it" and expect a warm welcome....

-=Vel=-

And if they get a cold reception and they still overwhelm you and kill you, were they right? As for the central part of the argument: why not? This is what i askl you to morally defend, the notion that only if you can fnd success can you excpect anything. Everyone expects not to be assualted, even those that could never actually defend themselves, or those that happen to go into dangerous areas. Why civic and political semi-equality but not economic? And if not economic, is the civic and political semi-equality even possible?