Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm not saying that a centrally planned system can't be exploitive. I'm just as much against one that is exploitvie as I'm against a capitalist system that is. Central planning has the potential to be less exploitive than capitalism. Capitalism has no such potential. It doesn't function well with out it's exploitative nature. Exploitation is fundamental to capitalism.
I'm not saying that a centrally planned system can't be exploitive. I'm just as much against one that is exploitvie as I'm against a capitalist system that is. Central planning has the potential to be less exploitive than capitalism. Capitalism has no such potential. It doesn't function well with out it's exploitative nature. Exploitation is fundamental to capitalism.
The more capital you have to invest the better your chances are. If you are rich and lose all your money, you are just a dumb ass. If you are poor and lose money its because of your initial disadvantage.
Think of poker. If I'm playing with more money than you and we have equal ability. I will win 9 out of 10 times.
You get to choose the best deal. Not choosing the best deal is no choice at all. That's not rational, and no one expects people to behave that way. Even if they did what would the point be. Considering options which rational people would not make does nothing for your argument.
Why wouldn't it be fair? As long as everyone did the same amount of work for the same pay.
One guy can be replaced by a plastic sign and some sandbags to keep it from blowing over, the other guy is part of a large group of people who build and repair ships, and can kill a lot of those people if he ****s up on the job, and I can design something that's useable all over the world and saves a ton of money for everyone who uses it. How do you assign value, let alone quantify "the same amount of work" to jobs with radically different skills, level of those skills needed to do the job, and totally unrelated output? Unless you do it by means of a market where parties can determine by their own needs how much they want each type of output?
No. The reason there was a shortage is because capitalism sucks.
It could not allocate resources efficiently.
In the long run, it was very efficient - there was a boom for workers as everyone tried the hot new toys, the different toys got to compete with each other and the hype about what great things they'd do for everyone, and then when the lack of productivity and excessive cost became clear, the market adjusted, and the useful technologies adapted and progressed, while the useful ones got discarded.
We have been told since at least the early eighties that all of the jobs were going to be in computers. Did that matter? No. How was the system to train the correct number of people for that job? What if all of us would have been trained to do that job? Then there would be an over supply. The price mechanism works for ****, and therefore so does capitalism.
Comment