Re-Shaping the landscape in the wake of the Cold War

[Velociryx]

The problem though, Duncan, is that it's not. And manufacturing equipment is expensive. If I have the money and/or wherewithal to buy the big expensive machine, it's mine. I'm not inclined, regardless of how altruistic I may be to p*ss away half a million dollars for community good.

Would you be? Would you spend that kind of money on a piece of machinery, and then turn it over to others? Just give it away?

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Willem,

You can dream of expoliting people, but if you really do it then that's different. Why should that ever be legal? Just so people can have an outlet? No way.

Who's talking about making exploitation legal? That's why we have labour laws, and financial regulation. That's why people go to jail when they embezzle funds from unsuspecting consumers. Granted that far to many times the perpetrators get off lightly, especially if they're very rich, but that's just a question of reforming the system, not an inherent flaw.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The problem though, Duncan, is that it's not. And manufacturing equipment is expensive. If I have the money and/or wherewithal to buy the big expensive machine, it's mine. I'm not inclined, regardless of how altruistic I may be to p*ss away half a million dollars for community good.

Would you be? Would you spend that kind of money on a piece of machinery, and then turn it over to others? Just give it away?

-=Vel=-

But his point is that you shouldn't be allowed to purchase that machine in the first place, only the state can do that. So if the government at the time didn't have the insight to realize the full value of having that machinery, it would never be introduced into the economy. And you, fully aware of the benefits of the technology, would simply have your requisition slip tossed in the garbage.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Willem


Who's talking about making exploitation legal? That's why we have labour laws, and financial regulation. That's why people go to jail when they embezzle funds from unsuspecting consumers. Granted that far to many times the perpetrators get off lightly, especially if they're very rich, but that's just a question of reforming the system, not an inherent flaw.

exploitation is legal. It's called capitalism. Labor laws can improve things for workers, but exploitaiton is the nature of capitalism. With no exploitation you have no profits. With no profits you have no capitalism.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The problem though, Duncan, is that it's not. And manufacturing equipment is expensive. If I have the money and/or wherewithal to buy the big expensive machine, it's mine. I'm not inclined, regardless of how altruistic I may be to p*ss away half a million dollars for community good.

Would you be? Would you spend that kind of money on a piece of machinery, and then turn it over to others? Just give it away?

-=Vel=-

You have a vested interest in capitalism. You are a capitalist. That may explain your views. Can you see now why capitalism is so popular? You don't want to lose your property. Now that you have some property you want the right to get more property.

[Willem]

Duncan:

You never said a thing about my accusation that central planning lends itself to being usurped by a fascist. Why is that?

[Velociryx]

But you didn't answer the question. Suppose you have the opportunity to buy a half million dollar machine....what would you do with it? Would you keep it, and hire people to run it for you, or would you give it to the people who have the skills and desires to run it?

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Willem
Duncan:

You never said a thing about my accusation that central planning lends itself to being usurped by a fascist. Why is that?

I thought I asked you to explain that. Maybe you did and I missed it. Central planning doesn't have to lead to fascism. Communists today are very concerned with preventing such events in the future.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx
But you didn't answer the question. Suppose you have the opportunity to buy a half million dollar machine....what would you do with it? Would you keep it, and hire people to run it for you, or would you give it to the people who have the skills and desires to run it?

-=Vel=-

If I owned such equipment and the time was ripe for revolution. Say I believed in the revolution. Then I would welcome the community ownership of the property. And I'm being honest, whether you believe me or not.

[Velociryx]

So...you're saying then that if you owned the machine and the time was NOT ripe for revolution, you'd keep it and "exploit" those you hire to use it? Is that consistent? Why not just turn it over to them now....perhaps that would be the spart that ignites the revolution?

And nope...I believe you to be a good person, but I do not believe you would just hand over an expensive machine to others.

If you work hard, save your money, and buy something like that....why should you? The machine represents the fruits of YOUR hard work. Nobody else's.

If other people want to use your machine, that's cool, but they're using YOUR machine. Since the value of the machine is greater than the value of what's made from the machine, you pay them for their time spent making stuff, they pocket the money, and you eventually make the money back on the machine.

That's not evil or exploitive, that's common sense! And it also happens to be the essence of capitalism.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

(since both threads seem to have taken a similar turn, I posted a more complete reply in the other thread, btw)..

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Now I know why I'm getting hopelessly confused, we're having the same discussion in two different threads.

[Velociryx]

I know....I got confused myself, so I figured I'd stop the discussion in one, and focus on the other.

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

I doubt if it would be the fruits of my labor. More likely I would inherit it. I'm not saving my money for those things. Whenever I can save a little bit of money it goes toward my sons education and retirement.

[Arrian]

More likely I would inherit it. I'm not saving my money for those things

You really are hung up on people who inherit things from their rich mummies and daddies, aren't you?

Believe it or not, there are people who actually work hard, make lots of money, and do stuff with that money (like own their own business, making cool little widgets that people want to buy). Not all rich people were born so. That's what social mobility is about - so the Bill Gates of the world can have a good idea, put it into pratice, and become megawealthy (and then throw a couple hundred million bucks at AIDS prevention). And if Billy gets out of line, there is this neat anti-trust legislation that allows the government to smack him down a peg or two.

exploitation is legal. It's called capitalism. Labor laws can improve things for workers, but exploitaiton is the nature of capitalism. With no exploitation you have no profits.

Without profits, there is little incentive for anybody to do anything. Like it or not, very few people will work hard at something that doesn't benifit them.

That is the fundamental problem communism runs into. To overcome it, prior "communist" regimes have used force. Perhaps you have a better idea?

-Arrian