Why has Capitalism failed to produce optimal value everywhere?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Go ahead but it seems you are saying you wish to ignore the real world. All I am saying is that I grew up in a "disadvantaged " or "poor" region so this is not theoretical to me.

While Marxist theories are a bit antiquated they are much more realistic than others.

I saw lots of people so accustomed to government handouts that it was a way of life. Welfare begats welfare. To some the concept of personal responsibility becomes foreign since it is the government's fault.

So what? I don't believe in that welfare system.

I see you proposing a centralized welfare state on a massive scale and justifying it in ways that deny personal responibility for an individual's condition. I fear that since I have seen how welfare can stunt initiative and drive in some people.

There is absolutely no reason why you should believe that welfare would be larger in a communists state. Poor assumption. Welfare would be better, but smaller.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


Kid, just for the record, I know that free enterprise can be abused. That is where law steps in -- to protect business and consumers through anti-trust laws, workers through labor laws, security buyers through disclosure and rules against insider trading, etc., etc., etc. The existence of abuse justifies such laws. It does not justify communism.

That depends on how bad things get, wouldn't you agree?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You do know that I'm getting a business degree, don't you?

I thought it was limited to accounting but yes. What does that matter. The fact that someone else has an MBA didn't make you consider them knowledgeable.

I'm figuring you must be a giggle a minute to your profs

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's one thing to say that you don't know about something. It's another thing to say that what you don't know about it irrelevent.

well go ahead and show the relevance but to me an argument or a system can be analyzed on their own merits. The fact that Jevons or Walras said something makes it no more or less true . A good argument is a good argument regarless of who said it .

But kid it shouldn't matter what I think. If you have a point to make, you are free to make it and the more knowledgeable economists will likely debate you on it

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


That depends on how bad things get, wouldn't you agree?

No, not at all. That is why we have elections. We throw the bastards out.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


So what? I don't believe in that welfare system.


There is absolutely no reason why you should believe that welfare would be larger in a communists state. Poor assumption. Welfare would be better, but smaller.

If you make it "better", I doubt it could ever be smaller . . . unless you plan to just cut off the benefits of the lazybones.


Call it what you want but the plans you have outlined seem to me to be a huge income redistribution.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


I thought it was limited to accounting but yes. What does that matter. The fact that someone else has an MBA didn't make you consider them knowledgeable.

I'm figuring you must be a giggle a minute to your profs

I never said you weren't knowledgable about business. In fact I like to talk to you about it. You know more than me so I learn. And communism has never come up in by business classes. Why would it?

well go ahead and show the relevance but to me an argument or a system can be analyzed on their own merits. The fact that Jevons or Walras said something makes it no more or less true . A good argument is a good argument regarless of who said it .

But kid it shouldn't matter what I think. If you have a point to make, you are free to make it and the more knowledgeable economists will likely debate you on it

Not that this is relevant but Walras was the least realistic economist of them all. He's the example of the worst kind of economist.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
No, not at all. That is why we have elections. We throw the bastards out.

You're assuming it's the fault of the politicians. What if the system breaks down?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


That depends on how bad things get, wouldn't you agree?

Does this mean things have to get really really crappy in order for communism to be justified??


Or would you argue thatb things are already crappy enough to justify it

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Call it what you want but the plans you have outlined seem to me to be a huge income redistribution.

That's really extreme neoliberalism. That isn't what I propose at all.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Does this mean things have to get really really crappy in order for communism to be justified??


Or would you argue thatb things are already crappy enough to justify it

Capitalims is immoral, but necessary. The sooner we can replace it with a better system the better, but capitalism has to breakdown first. There is no way to replace it until then.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

I never said you weren't knowledgable about business. In fact I like to talk to you about it. You know more than me so I learn. And communism has never come up in by business classes. Why would it?

I'm suprised that some of your views might not come out in a discussion of something related to the business cycle. Business school ASSUMES capitalism and seeks profit. Since you reject both, I thought it might come up . . . but perhaps you are an avid typist but quiet in class.

[Kidlicious]

Of course it assumes capitalism. You don't think they teach us to do business in a communist system do you?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Capitalims is immoral, but necessary. The sooner we can replace it with a better system the better, but capitalism has to breakdown first. There is no way to replace it until then.

Oh good. Do you have any sense when that might be? I'm not certain what would constitute a break-down so are we talking something that is possible any time, 10 years from now, 100, 1000.?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You're assuming it's the fault of the politicians. What if the system breaks down?

I have no idea how this is possible, given that the system we are talking about contains abuses with legal remedies, and adjusts for cycles in business through fiscal and monetary policies. We haven't seen an economic collapse for a very long time, nor have we seen rampant abuses (read Microsoft, AT&T, IBM) that long go without a remedy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Oh good. Do you have any sense when that might be? I'm not certain what would constitute a break-down so are we talking something that is possible any time, 10 years from now, 100, 1000.?

I'm not any better at forcasts than anyone else. What I do know is that the level of ficticious capital is growing exponentially and the level of labor grows linearly. Since capital is dependent on labor, this can't last for ever. The next breakdown will not be recoverable, like the Great Depression was.