Discourse and Discussion - Cap/Com

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Agathon

If i'm not wrong, then most anti capitalists stiil se capitalism as it was implemented in british factories in the 18`enth century, and taht has nothing to do with todays capitalism

Been to a third-world sweatshop lately?

You have a serious point, but i also belives that it will change for two reasons. One is that consumers will make choices of what they buy (Before flaming me, i agree that it's not that big, but it is there), second, it will be better in the future.

The main reason for this is the movement of western production sites to those areas. One thing is that in some kind they will take their empolyee policy with them (sometimes even through origin country legislation), but more through the growth in the current TW country.

[Japher]

I'm interested in this post, but I can't grasp the central meaning.

Basically I am saying that capitalism operates independent of effectiveness and efficiency.

Socialist economies, and to a wider sense communist, are intimately tied to effectiveness and efficiency as a key for changes or policies.

A good example is how health care is managed and works.

Capitalist - pay for what you get; you can't pay you get Emergency room visits only to specialist if you are rich

Socialist - everyone pays the same, and everyone gets the same treatment... get in line

The goal of an economy, as Vel stated, is to supply wealth and independence. Which one does a better job, as far as health care is concerned?

[pchang]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Because there is no cost to poluting (embodied in the product)

There is only no cost embodied in the product for consumers who are too lazy/greedy/apathetic to understand the companies and processes that goes into making the product. It is not the system. It is the people in it.

Once we recognize that people make the systems we can work on designing a system that promotes what we want while discouraging what we don't want.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by pchang


There is only no cost embodied in the product for consumers who are too lazy/greedy/apathetic to understand the companies and processes that goes into making the product. It is not the system. It is the people in it.

Once we recognize that people make the systems we can work on designing a system that promotes what we want while discouraging what we don't want.

No. It is the system. The capitalist system places the decision making with the consumer. A mixed system adds a tax imposed on the govt to prevent over consumption, and a centrally planned system decides how much will be produced.

[pchang]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The capitalist system places the decision making with the consumer.

So, any faults are the responsibility of the consumer. What you are saying is that consumers are too stupid/lazy/greedy to be trusted to make such decisions.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Japher


Basically I am saying that capitalism operates independent of effectiveness and efficiency.

Socialist economies, and to a wider sense communist, are intimately tied to effectiveness and efficiency as a key for changes or policies.

A good example is how health care is managed and works.

Capitalist - pay for what you get; you can't pay you get Emergency room visits only to specialist if you are rich

Socialist - everyone pays the same, and everyone gets the same treatment... get in line

The goal of an economy, as Vel stated, is to supply wealth and independence. Which one does a better job, as far as health care is concerned?

But the goal of a socialist economy is not to create weath an independence. It's to supply goods and services to people that a capitalist system would not provide. For the health care example, the socialist sytem would be evaluated according to it's own goals - on how well it produced health care for those who might otherwise not be able to afford it. Such a system would probably not generate as much wealth or financial independence though.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by pchang


So, any faults are the responsibility of the consumer. What you are saying is that consumers are too stupid/lazy/greedy to be trusted to make such decisions.

They make decisions in their own interest. When they consume a product, and the production resulted in pollution that they company didn't have to pay for, the consumers only care about the price they pay for the product. So they overconsume. This makes them unhappy actually, if they have to pay for the polution in taxes, health care costs, or they just don't like smog. As individuals they can't really make a difference by altering their consumption, although many do try.

[pchang]

Did you read what you just wrote? You just said that consumers will do things that make them less happy. You are clearly stating that consumers are too stupid/lazy/selfish to be trusted with such decisions.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by pchang
Did you read what you just wrote? You just said that consumers will do things that make them less happy. You are clearly stating that consumers are too stupid/lazy/selfish to be trusted with such decisions.

But there's a moral hazard. You really can't blame the consumers. You have to blame the system.

[pchang]

So, I had 7 children out of wedlock and am trying to get out of paying child support. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

Nothing will ever really get solved if you keep shifting responsibility away from the truly responsible parties.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by pchang
Did you read what you just wrote? You just said that consumers will do things that make them less happy. Y

ou are clearly stating that consumers are too stupid/lazy/selfish to be trusted with such decisions.

You are quite right. Consumers can only for a short period be coerced to buy anything than the cheapest. I agree that a few percents of the consumers due to political reasons will buy certain products, but the majority will go for the best bargain.

[pchang]

A ha! So, the masses are too stupid to be entrusted with making their own decisions. They must be guided by a benign, more enlightened elite.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by pchang
A ha! So, the masses are too stupid to be entrusted with making their own decisions. They must be guided by a benign, more enlightened elite.

You are not that wrong. Very few "mass" customers make any kind of sensible choiches, they think with their money and what they can get for that.

I would say that the "masses" choice are even worse than any raw capitalistic company. The last will in some kind try to maintain their source of wealth, where the mass consumer don't care a bit.


About the guidance, well, that's a political problem, not a "elite" problem. It's a simple matter on who is elected.

[pchang]

not an 'elite' problem?

What would you call a small sub-group that is given the power to make decisions for the larger group?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by pchang
not an 'elite' problem?

What would you call a small sub-group that is given the power to make decisions for the larger group?

Please name this sub-group that has this power - otherwise it's a little problematic to answer your question.