Who has complete faith in Capitalism?

[Pres Zount]

Just wondering who here actually has faith in the system. Reformists don't count.

I for one, have zero conidence.

[ASsman]

About as much faith as I have in Neo being The One.

[Funkaloyd]

Let's get Enigma in here.

[Ace42]

Hah. That would be like getting racerstang to talk about god.

[checkyourprez]

idk, more so than i dont.

as in faith, do you mean in how its working now? how it will work in the future? will it collapse? something else?

[Pres Zount]

I mean who believes that this is it. Francis Fukayama said that capitalism was the End of History. Who thinks that this (as in the whole world) is how it should be, and that the problems of the world will be sorted out within capitalism

Who beleives that Capitalism will not fall apart, or hopes that it wont?

Who beleives that Capitalism is the future?

[K-nowledge]

We all like to capitalize, don't we?






p.s. i before e except after c

[D_Raay]

Capitalism for Dummies

Traditional Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.

American Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

French Capitalism: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

Japanese Capitalism: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create cow cartoon images called Cowkimon and market them World-Wide.

German Capitalism: You have two cows. You reengineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

Italian Capitalism: You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You break for lunch.

British Capitalism: You have two cows. Both are mad.

Russian Capitalism: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

Arkansas Capitalism: You have two cows. That one on the left is kinda cute...

Hindu Capitalism: You have two cows. You worship them.

Swiss Capitalism: You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you. You charge others for storing them.

Canadian Capitalism: You have two cows. Let�s make a hockey team, eh?

Chinese Capitalism: You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported the numbers.

Irish Capitalism: You have two cows. You feed them potatoes and wonder why they emigrate.

Israeli Capitalism: So, there are these two Jewish cows, right? They open a milk factory, an ice cream store, and then sell the movie rights. They send their calves to Harvard to become doctors. So, who needs people?

Enron Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public buys your bull.

Cuban Capitalism: You have two cows. They try to swim to Florida.

Politically Correct Capitalism: You are associated with (the concept of "ownership" is a symbol of the phallo centric, war mongering, intolerant past) two differently - aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender.

Disney Capitalism: You have two cows. They dance & sing.

Microsoft Capitalism: You have two cows. You patent them and sue anyone else who has them.

Hollywood Capitalism: You have two cows. You give them utter implants and also teach them to bullet-dodge, wall climb and shoot milk out of their utters on command.

Clinton Capitalism: You have two cows. You deny any knowledge of them.

Bureaucratic Capitalism: You have two cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs the regulations say you should need.

Gore Capitalism: You have two cows. You claim you invented them.

Real-World Capitalism: You have two cows. You share two cows with your neighbors. You and your neighbors bicker about who has the most "ability" and who has the most "need". Meanwhile, no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of starvation.

Australian Capitalism: You have two cows. You try to wrestle them.

Iraqi Capitalism: You have two cows. They are biochemical weapons.

Perestroika Capitalism: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the black market.

Jewish Capitalism: You have two cows. You set them on fire and they burn for 8 days.

Cambodian Capitalism: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

Mormon Capitalism: You have two cows. You tell everyone that they should as well.

Military Capitalism: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

Texan Capitalism: You have two cows. You teach them to fire guns.

Totalitarian Capitalism: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.

Nevadan Capitalism: You have two cows. You charge lonely men from Arkansas to spend the night with them.

Jehovah�s Witness Capitalism: You have two cows. You go door to door telling people that you do.

Bureaucrat Capitalism: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

Real Capitalism: You don't have any cows.
The bank will not lend you money to buy cows, because you don't have any cows to put up as collateral.

Environmental Capitalism: You have two cows. The government bans you from milking them.

Surreal Capitalism: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

Californian Capitalism: You have two cows. They are happy.

Bush Capitalism: You have two cows. You think that cows and humans can coexist peacefully. You give all of the milk to the upper class when they have cows of their own, and the lower class needs milk.

Martha Stewart Capitalism: You have two cows. After decorating them, you sell them because a farmer told you the price of milk might go down.

Ayn Rand Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell both so that you can invest in a new dairy company. After it does well, you sell you stock and buy a cow farm.
After that does well, you take out a loan using cows as capitol and build a milk manufacturing factory. After making your milk the most sold, you sell the company and retire to Hawaii with your millions of dollars.

[discopants]

That looks like an immense joke, I'll have to ead it later cos I'm in the University of Manchester Library and if I laugh people will think I'm a retard.

On the case in hand we actually had a seminar about Marx yesterday and I'd like to point out that capitalism works- the bottom line is that all humans have self- interest and being materialistic is both natural and healthy. The capitalist society evolved naturally out of feudalism and it's enduring success shows that it works. Humans just aren't built for communism- people will always want more and these days get it in the form of surplus wealth fused with the "whit heat of techmology".

Yes, I hate students too.

[ASsman]

Silly argument.

[Ali]

Re. the cows... that list gets longer and longer each time I see it!

[Qdrop]

D- great post.



capitalism is the future, only because it most emulates human nature....
it also runs on the most powerful fuel: greed.

as i have stated before, the same fuel can and will destroy itself if left unchecked.

i guess i kind of think of capitalism as an engine, and greed as the gasoline....if you just flood the engine with gas and don't regulate it...it'll blow up.
but if you use fuel injection (restrictions and controls) that fucker will purrrr...
and no other engine runs like a capitalist one.....

[Whois]

As a nihilist I have no faith...except in the ability of the human race to fuck everything up.

...cheers.

[ASsman]

Don't start Q, that ship has sailed.


"Human nature"

Objectivists, who see self-interested behavior as itself a moral ideal and identical to rationality, claim that communism removes incentives necessary for human productivity. They argue that communism ignores (or is wrong about) "human nature." Communists, however, take the view that self-interest is a function of the material conditions of society and if the material conditions change so that competition and greed is no longer necessary to survive, mass behavior will change accordingly.

Communists (and most Western social scientists) have a disdain for the concept of 'human nature' or an invariable 'human condition' which exists throughout all human beings. Communists usually take the view that it is the material conditions which surround a person, such as their environment, which shapes a persons character and the 'nature' of human beings is not determined by an underlying, constant condition which is present in all humans, but instead by the social and economic factors which surround them. And so consequently, this idea that 'human nature' is not invariable, or even that it does not exist, opens up the door to the argument that once capitalism has been destroyed, and socialism has been established, all selfish desires and greed will cease to exist. Once the economic and social conditions which make humans selfish have disappeared to be replaced by an atmosphere of mutual assistance and co-operation, then people can work not for their personal gain, or to accumulate commodities, but for the good of the collective and the community, thus making a better society for all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#.22Human_nature.22

[Qdrop]

Don't start Q, that ship has sailed.

as if your little piece of shit quote up there is THE authoratative truth.
it is completely flawed and opinionated.....

[ASsman]

Don't start Q, that ship has sailed.

Meh, just saying, there is a 20 page thread about this same topic, go read it. Silly to beat it to death once again.

[Qdrop]

well.....just to make a point that others need to be aware of...


Communists (and most Western social scientists) have a disdain for the concept of 'human nature' or an invariable 'human condition' which exists throughout all human beings.

as if disdain is somehow proof against.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670031518/qid=1110299840/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-0439062-5176956


Communists usually take the view that it is the material conditions which surround a person, such as their environment, which shapes a persons character and the 'nature' of human beings is not determined by an underlying, constant condition which is present in all humans, but instead by the social and economic factors which surround them.

flawed and completely opposite of most contemporary research.


And so consequently, this idea that 'human nature' is not invariable, or even that it does not exist, opens up the door to the argument that once capitalism has been destroyed, and socialism has been established, all selfish desires and greed will cease to exist. Once the economic and social conditions which make humans selfish have disappeared to be replaced by an atmosphere of mutual assistance and co-operation, then people can work not for their personal gain, or to accumulate commodities, but for the good of the collective and the community, thus making a better society for all.

this is a perfect example of baseless, ideological sentiment.

[ASsman]

Done...to...the...ground. So feel free to NOT point out anything.

[Qdrop]

Done...to...the...ground. So feel free to NOT point out anything.

yes, psuedo-mod.

[ASsman]

Meh, if you don't want me to start quoting directly from the other thread, just a suggestion.

[Qdrop]

Meh, if you don't want me to start quoting directly from the other thread, just a suggestion.

that would be kinda funny.

this thread is dying anyway....

[D_Raay]

A little boy goes to his Dad and asks, "What's politics?"

Dad says, "Well, son, let me try to explain it to you this way." I'm the
breadwinner of the family, so let's call me "Capitalism." Your Mom is the
administrator of the household, so we'll call her "The Government."
We're here to take care of YOUR needs so we'll call you "The People." The
nanny works hard all day for very little money so, we'll consider her "The
Working Class." And your baby brother . . . we'll call him "The Future."

Now, think about that and see if it makes sense. So, the little boy goes off
to bed, thinking about what his Dad has said. Later that night he hears his
baby brother crying so he gets up to check on him. He finds that the baby has
severely soiled his diaper.
So the little boy goes to his parents' room and finds his mother sound
asleep. Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room. Finding the door
locked, he peeks into the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the Nanny. He
gives up and goes back to bed.
The next morning, the little boy says to his father, "Dad, I think I
understand the concept of politics now." The father says, "Good, son, tell me in
your own words what you think politics is about."

The little boy replies, "Well, while Capitalism is screwing the Working Class,
the Government is sound asleep, the People are being ignored and the Future
stinks to high heaven.

[phinkasaurus]

Capitalism was a necessary advancement in human social relations. It brought humanity (and still is bringing) out of Feudal relations. But I don't think it's the end all of society's development.
I must repectfully disagree with Q's 'controlled greed' theory. any greed is disruptful and makes divisions in a populace.
communism, though never reached, has been attempted several times in the recent past. russia, china, veitnam, cuba, peru, nepal... all have had or are having revulutions right now. most have slipped back to some sort of capitalist, imperialist state. in the end, was the revolution pointless? no, the movement learned from the experience and discussed ways to not make the same mistakes. much like any science, Marxism learns and adjusts from past failures. saying that it will not work because humans can't funtion like that is a justification and rationalization of the current system.
and look at the current system. what has it done for us, humanity, on a global scale? war, poverty, hunger, diseases, corruption, environment devistation, slavery, the list goes on.
the central reason why I think capitlaism will not be the last step for humanity is the emerging of a global economy and society. We are all in this together, and capitalism requires people to think as sole members of a competive pool or market. We are quickly losing that mentality, or the at least the sooner we do, the more succesful we will be, as a whole species, as a planet.

[Qdrop]

.
and look at the current system. what has it done for us, humanity, on a global scale? war, poverty, hunger, diseases, corruption, environment devistation, slavery, the list goes on.
the central reason why I think capitlaism will not be the last step for humanity is the emerging of a global economy and society. We are all in this together, and capitalism requires people to think as sole members of a competive pool or market. We are quickly losing that mentality, or the at least the sooner we do, the more succesful we will be, as a whole species, as a planet.

phink, why do you assume that there IS an egaltarian system that would work or that there SHOULD be? (other then for humanitarian idealogical reasons)
where in nature has such a system ever evolved?
such a system isn't really conducive to nature or evolotion.
how dare we, as humans, think we are so fuckin enlightened as to try and counteract nature itself.....which gave birth to us.
competition is natures way......we can't stop that anymore then we can stop a tsunami.

[ASsman]

*snores* ZZzzZzZzzZ

[Whois]

*snores* ZZzzZzZzzZ

*Gives ASsman a Wet Willie*

Hahahahaha....

[phinkasaurus]

competition is natures way......we can't stop that anymore then we can stop a tsunami.

sure competition drives advancement, or evolution. but when do we stop competing amongst ourselves and start advancing as a species? I think this is the next step in evoulution, the evolution of societies.

phink, why do you assume that there IS an egaltarian system that would work or that there SHOULD be? (other then for humanitarian idealogical reasons)
where in nature has such a system ever evolved?

i 'assume' nothing. i want there to be a system that works. i look around me and all i see is a system that does not work. i also see many people, smart and intelligent people, using their minds and logical rational thinking, to interact with each other in mutally beneficial and respectful way. you know that book I always talk about, ParEcon? you should read it. at the very least go to their site and see where this new developing idea in econmic structure is being tried and read about it's successes.
and why SHOULD there be one? well, the propagation of the species, the life span of the planet, the future of all our genes. in other words, to continue the evolutionary process we are genetically driven to follow. the egalitarian and humanitarian idealogy is merely a means to present the message (IMO).

in the end, humanity on it's cuirrent course will destroy itself. to me, any option towards sustainable communal living is only the 'natural' and 'evolutionary' answer to this problem.


Q, Why do think it cannot work? Knowing, as I am sure you do, that past performance is in no way indicative of future occasions, per Logic.

[ASsman]

Dirty son of a bitch. But since you woke me up...


http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=43353&page=1&pp=30&highlight=Starbucks

[Ace42]

phink, why do you assume that there IS an egaltarian system that would work or that there SHOULD be? (other then for humanitarian idealogical reasons)
where in nature has such a system ever evolved?

You can say that about capitalism. By its very 'nature' it is *artificial*. Even if you (wrongly) contend that capitalism is a "natural" sociologicaly evolution (an oxymoron) that would equally make communism in Cuba, North Korea, etc a "natural evolution" - ditto for imperialism, feudalism, monarchys, even tribal matriarchies.

At best you could merely argue that capitalism is "more fitting for the world at present" - that is by nature a transitory state of affairs, and you could equally contend that the only reason it is more "fitting" is because it is the system that was arbitrarily taken up by the most powerful (in terms of geology, material wealth, etc) nation in the world. For all we know, we could be living in a communist utopia if the revolution had started in the US.

Simply saying "Well, communism hasn't worked yet" does not reflect on the system. Capitalist and Monarchial systems have failed too.

such a system isn't really conducive to nature or evolotion.
how dare we, as humans, think we are so fuckin enlightened as to try and counteract nature itself.....which gave birth to us.
competition is natures way......we can't stop that anymore then we can stop a tsunami.

Competition is *not* natures way. Bonoboes live in a very peaceful society, and exhibit tendancies common in human society. They are *all* inherantly cooperative. Indeed, there are countless species whose success is solely down to co-operation. The sabre-toothed tiger and other large(r) feline predators were rendered extinct by the smaller weaker pack-canines. This is excluding hive-structured 'societies' which are hyper-efficient and cannot work without inherant co-operation.

[Qdrop]

sure competition drives advancement, or evolution. but when do we stop competing amongst ourselves and start advancing as a species?

that is an oxymoron.


i 'assume' nothing. i want there to be a system that works. i look around me and all i see is a system that does not work.

doesn't work?
or doesn't work for everyone?
can you make any argument why any system SHOULD work for everyone other then metaphysical arguments like humanitarian ethics?


and why SHOULD there be one? well, the propagation of the species, the life span of the planet, the future of all our genes. in other words, to continue the evolutionary process we are genetically driven to follow.

why must you automatically link capitalism to global destruction?
isn't that the same as linking socialism or communism to evil dictators?


the egalitarian and humanitarian idealogy is merely a means to present the message (IMO).

at least you admit it is your opinion...and not objective truth.


in the end, humanity on it's cuirrent course will destroy itself. to me, any option towards sustainable communal living is only the 'natural' and 'evolutionary' answer to this problem.

again....you unfairly link capitalism with world destruction.
you are putting the blame in the wrong place.

as if socialist gov'ts never engaged in war, humanitarian crimes, pollution, ect.

the ills you speak of lie in the hearts of men...not in the thier economic system.


Q, Why do think it cannot work? Knowing, as I am sure you do, that past performance is in no way indicative of future occasions, per Logic.
that is not true at all.
per logic?

[ASsman]

Didn't that wikipedia quote say the EXACT FUCKING THING!

Fuck this, need me some reefer.

[Qdrop]

You can say that about capitalism. By its very 'nature' it is *artificial*. Even if you (wrongly) contend that capitalism is a "natural" sociologicaly evolution (an oxymoron) that would equally make communism in Cuba, North Korea, etc a "natural evolution" - ditto for imperialism, feudalism, monarchys, even tribal matriarchies.
i contend that is best suits human nature....or nature itself, yes.


At best you could merely argue that capitalism is "more fitting for the world at present" - that is by nature a transitory state of affairs, and you could equally contend that the only reason it is more "fitting" is because it is the system that was arbitrarily taken up by the most powerful (in terms of geology, material wealth, etc) nation in the world. For all we know, we could be living in a communist utopia if the revolution had started in the US.

no, capitalism has not "won out" by pure chance, ace.
it can create more wealth, faster.......that is the key.


Simply saying "Well, communism hasn't worked yet" does not reflect on the system. Capitalist and Monarchial systems have failed too.

that is NOT the crux of my argument.



Competition is *not* natures way.

rather miopic of you.
your statement flies on the face of virtually every naturalist paper, research, ect. ever written.
aren't you bold.

group survival often requires cooperation....but groups invariably compete with other groups.
in fact, those group (or pack animals) that cooperate the best....increase their rate of survival....over the other groups.
that's competition.

The sabre-toothed tiger and other large(r) feline predators were rendered extinct by the smaller weaker pack-canines. This is excluding hive-structured 'societies' which are hyper-efficient and cannot work without inherant co-operation.
i am certainly not arguing against co-operation for survival...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471419192/qid=1110311698/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-0439062-5176956

but understand that the above statement you made is an example of competition.

[phinkasaurus]

that is an oxymoron.
how so? i am suggesting we stop competeting agaisnt each other and advance the species as a whole through cooperation.


doesn't work?
or doesn't work for everyone?
can you make any argument why any system SHOULD work for everyone other then metaphysical arguments like humanitarian ethics?
yes, does not work for everyone. to me a system that does not work for everyone is not a good system. the tendency to see us as individuals not connected to our fellow humans is the worst part of capitalism. every actions has a consequences, every action affects something or someone else. in that repect, to make your life better, wouldn't it make more sense to make everyone's life better? "enlightened self interest" some call it.


why must you automatically link capitalism to global destruction?
isn't that the same as linking socialism or communism to evil dictators?
yes. but we should not shy away from the problems that the economic and power structures can encourage. In a socialist revolution, progressing towards communism, there is a great possibilty of an 'evil' dictator seizing power. One of the great advancement in MLM science was the Cultural Revolution in China, where the people and the Party both tried to oust those in the party that were not for continuing the revolution (which is an ongoing process of transformation). Sure, they may not have succeded (look where they are now) but the move was made. And now, the parties pushing revolution aroud the globe all teach the 'ongoing revolution" line of ideology, in an effort to make that mistake not happen again.
In capitalist relations, there is a tendency to always seek out profit, indeed that's the nature of capitalism. In your words to "create more wealth, faster". Part of the drawback to that plan is sacrifincing things that do not generate wealth, i.e. environment, education, science (that has not re-sale value),etc. How do you fix that in capitalism?


at least you admit it is your opinion...and not objective truth.
and do you?


again....you unfairly link capitalism with world destruction.
you are putting the blame in the wrong place.
where does it belong then? whose to blame for selling the right to pollute? Isn't that Bush's current idea? Letting companies sell their free pollution passes?

as if socialist gov'ts never engaged in war, humanitarian crimes, pollution, ect.
no they did. but many wars were people's wars. and besides, their is more of an avenue to address grievances and wrong ideals in a revolutionary socialist society, moving towards communism than their is in a imperial capitalist society moving towards facism.


the ills you speak of lie in the hearts of men...not in the thier economic system.
sure, but their environment puts alot fo those ills in their 'hearts' due to learned behaviour. or do we come hardwired? where does evolution fit into that theory, Q?


that is not true at all.
per logic?
"Past performance does not guarantee future results"
Similar enough to the post hoc fallacy, or assuming a past event caused a present event.

[Ace42]

no, capitalism has not "won out" by pure chance, ace.
it can create more wealth, faster.......that is the key.

You have offered no proof of this. Infact, soviet russia in the 70s had a much higher rate of production than the US, ditto for production during WW2. It was rolling out tanks much quicker than the US was.

Infact, there are plenty of very poor capitalist countries that have been poor capitalist countries for much longer than they have been developing communist countries.

Infact, Brunei is one of the wealthiest states in the world, has grown in a very short time, and is a monarchy.

that is NOT the crux of my argument.

no, capitalism has not "won out" by pure chance, ace.
it can create more wealth, faster.......that is the key.

The only proof you can offer to support that is circumstantial, and thus not suitable.

rather miopic of you.
your statement flies on the face of virtually every naturalist paper, research, ect. ever written.
aren't you bold.

Name one single non-socialised organism that has achieved evolutionary superiority.

Humans, socialised
Dolphins, socialised
Ants, socialised
Rats, socialised
Bacterium, whilst non-socialised are also not in competition with each other (clearly, they cannot be, as the reproduce asexually, and thus have identical DNA)

Whilst "socialised" is not the term I'd prefer (it smacks of anthropomorphism, as does your argument about 'human nature' neither of which tendancies are supported by a single credible psychological paper, as anthropomorphism is a cardinal sin in all scientific research on animals) it will do if we are aware of the flaw in its usage.

However, we have had this discussion before, and it resulted in your arbitrarily ignoring the stacks of research and theories to the contrary.

While prefering one school of thought is perfectly permissible, your tendancy to disregard the numerous contradictory theories and schools of thought is not.

However, we should drop this now, otherwise we will get nowhere.

group survival often requires cooperation....but groups invariably compete with other groups.
in fact, those group (or pack animals) that cooperate the best....increase their rate of survival....over the other groups.
that's competition.

Quite so, however creating arbitrary divisions solely on the basis of the arbitrary quantities of paper involved, or which office block you live in, or the colour of skin, etc etc is not "intrinsically natural" nor intrinsically productive.

i am certainly not arguing against co-operation for survival...

but understand that the above statement you made is an example of competition.

I do, but it is not analogous to the competition present in capitalism, as the latter is often arbitrary and invariably artificial. The result of this is that any "progress" made is artificial and only supportive of the artificial system. This "progress" is often directly opposed to "progress" that benefits our lifestyles or our species as a whole.

It was "competition" that led to the "progress" of manufactured obsolescence in nearly all consumer products. It is undeniably progress, as it helps larger companies make more money and thus "survive better" - however it makes the individuals poorer, it squanders resources (which *are* limited and *will* run out) and causes (or rather, encourages) all manner of side-effects including chronic depression, theft, etc etc.

Clearly, co-operation is the primary motivation. Without co-operation, the competition cannot be existant (co-operation is needed to even communicate). Without competition, progress can be made.

Remember, it was the communist Russians that put the first:

Sattelite; Animal; Man into space. It was the russians who pioneered the "WIGE" (Wing In Ground-Effect) Okranoplan.

To suggest that stasis / stagnancy is the natural result of a communist / egalitarian society is patently false.

[Qdrop]

how so? i am suggesting we stop competeting agaisnt each other and advance the species as a whole through cooperation.

this really gets too far in psychology and sociology, but i don't believe a species numbering in the billions and spread out across the globe, separated by geography and culture will ever be able to work together in non-competative harmony.


yes, does not work for everyone. to me a system that does not work for everyone is not a good system. the tendency to see us as individuals not connected to our fellow humans is the worst part of capitalism. every actions has a consequences, every action affects something or someone else. in that repect, to make your life better, wouldn't it make more sense to make everyone's life better? "enlightened self interest" some call it.

oh, i agree with your sentiment completely....
and think that such sentiment and view would be quite beneficial to a large group or culture, or even the globe.
but i believe it will never encompass our entire species in one unifying ethic.- at least not on a global scale...
it will never fully replace competetion between groups.
altruism may very well be a myth.



yes. but we should not shy away from the problems that the economic and power structures can encourage. In a socialist revolution, progressing towards communism, there is a great possibilty of an 'evil' dictator seizing power. One of the great advancement in MLM science was the Cultural Revolution in China, where the people and the Party both tried to oust those in the party that were not for continuing the revolution (which is an ongoing process of transformation). Sure, they may not have succeded (look where they are now) but the move was made. And now, the parties pushing revolution aroud the globe all teach the 'ongoing revolution" line of ideology, in an effort to make that mistake not happen again.

these problems stem from human activity and nature, not economic.

In capitalist relations, there is a tendency to always seek out profit, indeed that's the nature of capitalism. In your words to "create more wealth, faster". Part of the drawback to that plan is sacrifincing things that do not generate wealth, i.e. environment, education, science (that has not re-sale value),etc. How do you fix that in capitalism?

those are NOT necessary ethics in capitalism.
but very well seems to be the outcome of uncontrolled or unregulated capitalism.
capitalism (and the greed it runs on) is FIRE.
it can keep you warm or burn you....depending on how you use and control it.



and do you?

i try my damndest to stay away from opinion and stick to citing science and history when citing my stances.



where does it belong then? whose to blame for selling the right to pollute? Isn't that Bush's current idea? Letting companies sell their free pollution passes?

we are letting the FIRE burn us....rather then just keep us warm.
we need a restructure of our current system.


no they did. but many wars were people's wars. and besides, their is more of an avenue to address grievances and wrong ideals in a revolutionary socialist society, moving towards communism than their is in a imperial capitalist society moving towards facism.

both are dangerous progressions that come about through lack of control.
use the system, rather then let it spiral out of control and use you.



sure, but their environment puts alot fo those ills in their 'hearts' due to learned behaviour. or do we come hardwired? where does evolution fit into that theory, Q?

another debate altogether.



"Past performance does not guarantee future results"
Similar enough to the post hoc fallacy, or assuming a past event caused a present event.
to vague.
i must take issue with this.

[Qdrop]

You have offered no proof of this. Infact, soviet russia in the 70s had a much higher rate of production than the US, ditto for production during WW2. It was rolling out tanks much quicker than the US was.

well, it's more complicated than just sheer production.
production does not automatically equal wealth and money.

why did the USSR fail?
was it's economic system able to accurately predict the needs for its society and produce accordingly?

is that even possible?

economic systems cannot be pre-emptive or pro-active...
they must be re-active.

the is the rule of free market (the best system to suit large masses of people) and capitalism is the best tool to use to play the market.

the free market is it's own entity. it requires no planning...it follows the laws of nature.

capitalism is the only system (if controlled!!!!) that can play along and creat the best oppurtunity. (if controlled!!!)


Infact, there are plenty of very poor capitalist countries that have been poor capitalist countries for much longer than they have been developing communist countries.

certainly...
capitalism does not automatically dictate success.

if you buy the best golf clubs...does that make you the best golfer?

you cannot just adopt a system...you must run it well.



Name one single non-socialised organism that has achieved evolutionary superiority.

Humans, socialised
Dolphins, socialised
Ants, socialised
Rats, socialised
Bacterium, whilst non-socialised are also not in competition with each other (clearly, they cannot be, as the reproduce asexually, and thus have identical DNA)

i'm not arguing against this.
why do you think i am?


However, we have had this discussion before, and it resulted in your arbitrarily ignoring the stacks of research and theories to the contrary.

details.
show me the link.
i really have never disagreed with you about coorperative nature of social animals...
that i can remember...



Quite so, however creating arbitrary divisions solely on the basis of the arbitrary quantities of paper involved, or which office block you live in, or the colour of skin, etc etc is not "intrinsically natural" nor intrinsically productive.

not necessarily true.

plus, you seem to be implying that most, if not all, competive scenarios that take place in a capitalist society are contrived.

i actually can see this debate getting VERY philisophical and metaphysical soon.


I do, but it is not analogous to the competition present in capitalism, as the latter is often arbitrary and invariably artificial.

that is not entirely true.
and where it is...how can you categorically deny that is would still have benefits?


The result of this is that any "progress" made is artificial and only supportive of the artificial system. This "progress" is often directly opposed to "progress" that benefits our lifestyles or our species as a whole.

you will have to give examples of this.
you are getting far too abstract in your stance here....


It was "competition" that led to the "progress" of manufactured obsolescence in nearly all consumer products. It is undeniably progress, as it helps larger companies make more money and thus "survive better" - however it makes the individuals poorer, it squanders resources (which *are* limited and *will* run out) and causes (or rather, encourages) all manner of side-effects including chronic depression, theft, etc etc.

not if regulated or controlled.


Clearly, co-operation is the primary motivation. Without co-operation, the competition cannot be existant (co-operation is needed to even communicate). Without competition, progress can be made.

agreed. particularly with a society as massive as ours.



To suggest that stasis / stagnancy is the natural result of a communist / egalitarian society is patently false.
i have never said that.
i am not en[i]gma.

i believe, however, that capitalism fosters it better.

[Qdrop]

alas, fellas....

it's almost quittin time here....

i'm afraid i won't be able to continue this till tomorrow....
but it's fun.... (y)

[Ace42]

well, it's more complicated than just sheer production.
production does not automatically equal wealth and money.

Ahhh but it does. Money are merely arbitrary units for measuring material wealth / power. You can have as much money as you like, but if it does not translate to materials, you are poor.

why did the USSR fail?
was it's economic system able to accurately predict the needs for its society and produce accordingly?

is that even possible?

economic systems cannot be pre-emptive or pro-active...
they must be re-active.

A communist system need not be pre-emptive. Modern stock control systems work on very simple "Roq and rol" (Re-Order Quantity / Re-Order Level) methodology. An item gets its bar-code scanned, stock goes to a certain level, it is re-ordered. If there is inreased demand, production increases, if not the inverse happens.

There is no reason why this same system cannot work equally well under a communist society.

the is the rule of free market (the best system to suit large masses of people) and capitalism is the best tool to use to play the market.

It is not the "best system to suit large masses of people" - if it were, then the current rich and poor would not be seperating at an increasing rate, and wealth would be more evenly distributed. It is the best system for a rich minority to *control* large masses of people.

the free market is it's own entity. it requires no planning...it follows the laws of nature.

capitalism is the only system (if controlled!!!!) that can play along and creat the best oppurtunity. (if controlled!!!)

If "controlled" the market ceases to be "free."

plus, you seem to be implying that most, if not all, competive scenarios that take place in a capitalist society are contrived.

There is no *natural* need for small pieces of paper. When the entire fundamental basis of your system is contrived and artificial, it cannot help but be contrived.

Bill Gates has more money that he could ever need / want / spend. And yet he is still competing, he is still ripping off consumers with substandard software which is NOT engineered to create the best product, but to get him the most money. The two (as I am sure you will accept) are not necessarily (or even frequently) linked. Quite often shitty products outplace superior ones for all manner of reasons. That is not "natural" but that *is* capitalistic. It is indicative of the contrived nature of the system.

that is not entirely true.
and where it is...how can you categorically deny that is would still have benefits?

Microsoft and Intel produce sub-standard merchandise in order to save costs, and use their market-shares to buoy each other up. Consumers end up with an inferior product in both accounts.

Creating an intentionally crippled or flawed product and over-charging for it is not productive nor progressive. It is something which is at the core of consumerism, and as such is a fundamental premise of current (free-market) capitalism.

you will have to examples of this.
you are getting far too abstract in your stance here...

As above, "progress" within the system (the companies making the most profit, and thus getting stronger) does not result in progress for the end consumer. Alternatively, Shell has boasted record profits, despite the price of oil rising and despite fuel duties increasing. Once again, the consumer is ripped off, the company does better. This further stratifies and seperates society. Indeed, segregates it. There are plenty examples of price-fixing, etc resulting in centralisation of wealth and resources (the litteral objective of capitalism) but also resulting in the impoverishment of the majority of consumers.

not if regulated or controlled.

Thus not "free" nor "reactive"

[Pres Zount]

This thread was just me testing the waters of the political board, to see who I would be arguing against in the future (Q-drop) and who I would be agreeing with (Phinkasaurus, assman)

Discussions move quickly here, and I seem to have almost missed the boat on this one. I don't have time right now, but I'll try to be in the next one!

[discopants]

Competition is *not* natures way. Bonoboes live in a very peaceful society, and exhibit tendancies common in human society. They are *all* inherantly cooperative. Indeed, there are countless species whose success is solely down to co-operation. The sabre-toothed tiger and other large(r) feline predators were rendered extinct by the smaller weaker pack-canines. This is excluding hive-structured 'societies' which are hyper-efficient and cannot work without inherant co-operation.

Cpmetition is natures way- that's blindingly obvious- just look at the a lion eating an antelope.
This tribe that you mentioned may live like this but they are clearly far from civilisation and low down on the steps of history or whatever Marx called it. There's a guy called Rousseau who wrote about this shit- as soon as societies i.e. not communities come together that leads to the division of labour and the automatic realisation of greed and the notion that some people have more than others.
As for materialism itself, there is an arguement to say we are all imbued with false consciousness but we are materialist and we cannot go back on it.
As for communism itself- if it is so good then why did they need a six foot high wall to keep people in?
My mate Matt points out the ironyt that ouy're using a computer to have this discussion, where did you get that from?

[Qdrop]

Ahhh but it does. Money are merely arbitrary units for measuring material wealth / power. You can have as much money as you like, but if it does not translate to materials, you are poor.

i remember the actual photo of the then russian premeir and Nixon i believe, when nixon was touring the USSR....the photo op was in a factory building washers and dryers. the premier at the time was claiming the USSR would crush the US in the open market with products such as this out of sheer mass production.
so what happened?

unequal distribution of labor in an unpredictable future market.
------------------
and if your materials don't translate to money-....circular argument really.

you are putting a far too simplistic spin on this.
economics are not that simple. i am FAR from an ecomonics authority, but i have enough of an understanding of both economics and history to know that the USSR, in the end, could not compete with a capitalist monster like the US. they could not adequetly distribute thier labor and material under a planned economy.
the nation went bankrupt in a sense....


A communist system need not be pre-emptive. Modern stock control systems work on very simple "Roq and rol" (Re-Order Quantity / Re-Order Level) methodology. An item gets its bar-code scanned, stock goes to a certain level, it is re-ordered. If there is inreased demand, production increases, if not the inverse happens.

mass oversimplification here.
En[i]gma could probably run this argument better than i at this point, but-

no ecomomy runs on "stock control"....the market is far more complex with a billion and one variables.
you cannot predict future needs, wants, market surges, surplus, shortages, ect.

we all remember those notorious stock newsreels of the "long bread lines in russia" and the repeatable stories of the planned economy making too many shoes and not enough toasters, ect.
time after time, the planned economy of USSR failed- either overproducing or underproducing.


It is not the "best system to suit large masses of people" - if it were, then the current rich and poor would not be seperating at an increasing rate, and wealth would be more evenly distributed. It is the best system for a rich minority to *control* large masses of people.

this IS somewhat inherrant in the system, you are correct.
but it running rampant because lack of regulation.



If "controlled" the market ceases to be "free."

yes, you got me.
i am using terms like "free market", but i really don't believe in a complete laisse faire system.
as i have stated, and you have shown with your examples....greed is a nasty fuel, and if left unchecked....will destroy the machine.

the real key to capitalism is COMPETITION....and the control and regulations i speak of are to be set primarily to maintain that competition: stricter anti-trust laws, "caps" on corporations sizes, stricter legislation on mergers and aquisitions.....constant monopoly break-ups.

the problem with this is that is must be a global restructuring....or else far too many corporations would simply take their operations overseas....draining america to collapse.


There is no *natural* need for small pieces of paper. When the entire fundamental basis of your system is contrived and artificial, it cannot help but be contrived.

no, this is far too abstract.
the benefits of capitalism are real....and you enjoy those benifits yourself.


Bill Gates has more money that he could ever need / want / spend. And yet he is still competing, he is still ripping off consumers with substandard software which is NOT engineered to create the best product, but to get him the most money.

subjective.


The two (as I am sure you will accept) are not necessarily (or even frequently) linked. Quite often shitty products outplace superior ones for all manner of reasons. That is not "natural" but that *is* capitalistic. It is indicative of the contrived nature of the system.

without regulation on monopolies, this could become all to common, yes.
and in a contrived sense.

but you are assuming the everytime a product (that YOU deem superior) outsells and replaces a product (that YOU deem inferior) it is unnatural.
PRICE is part of the product....and a selling point.
if the public demands cheaper but decent product over higher quality and higher price....that is the natural market showing through.

example: home stereo audio. what is higher quality: a sony reciever ($249 at Best Buy) or a Macintosh ($2000+)?
the Macintosh (no, not the apple company)....

but which sells more? and why?
price.
the public (the market) will dictate with their dollars what is most imortant to them- quality or price.
that IS natural.


Microsoft and Intel produce sub-standard merchandise in order to save costs, and use their market-shares to buoy each other up. Consumers end up with an inferior product in both accounts.

you always use the SAME examples (microsoft) when discussing this topic.
use some other real world examples if this practice is SOOO evident in capitalist economics today.


Creating an intentionally crippled or flawed product and over-charging for it is not productive nor progressive. It is something which is at the core of consumerism, and as such is a fundamental premise of current (free-market) capitalism.

again, you are taking hypothetical (and opinionated) examples and saying they are everday and rampant occurances in capitalism.
you are working off a deformed and stereotypical characature of capitalism rather than the real market place.



As above, "progress" within the system (the companies making the most profit, and thus getting stronger) does not result in progress for the end consumer.

that is NOT true and another manipulative stereotype.


Alternatively, Shell has boasted record profits, despite the price of oil rising and despite fuel duties increasing. Once again, the consumer is ripped off, the company does better.

Shell cannot control market prices from thier oil sources.
they can create higher efficiencies to create more profit.
whether or not they choose to share these cost decreases with the consumer as lower prices is up to them.
you charge what the people are willing to pay for it.
supply and demand.

if we bought less, we could send a message. but we buy low milage monster trucks instead.

granted, as i have stated...i do believe their needs to be regulations..caps on such companies....and anti-trust suits...suits against rigging the market, price fixing ect.


This further stratifies and seperates society. Indeed, segregates it. There are plenty examples of price-fixing, etc resulting in centralisation of wealth and resources (the litteral objective of capitalism) but also resulting in the impoverishment of the majority of consumers.

regulate and control.
protect the competative spirit of capitalism.

we must always dangle the carrot in front of the businesses, but never let them get it.
keep the wheel spinning indefinately.

[phinkasaurus]

the real key to capitalism is COMPETITION....and the control and regulations i speak of are to be set primarily to maintain that competition...
...protect the competative spirit of capitalism.

What are we competing against?

[Qdrop]

What are we competing against?

each other, for profit.

that is nature.

[phinkasaurus]

each other, for profit.

that is nature.

no it's not.

that is man competing against man. for profit and wealth.
this is outdated behaviour that is holding back the evolution of our species.
there are plenty examples of non competitive animals and species that survive and thrive.

and we have reached the point you and I disagree, Q.
:rolleyes:

[Qdrop]

no it's not.

yes...it is.


that is man competing against man. for profit and wealth
.
survival of the fittest....that is nature.
how can you argue that point without intense congnative dissonance?


this is outdated behaviour that is holding back the evolution of our species.

says WHO?...YOU?
what authority do you have to speak of such broad sociobiological factors...
what research can you state to support such a monumental claim?

...dabbling in a bit of social engineering, phink?


there are plenty examples of non competitive animals and species that survive and thrive.

on a micro scale....but competition is everywhere in the animal world, plant world.....NATURE.

are you speaking of symbiotes? or interspecies cooperation?
yes, of course that exists...and is necessary.
but you seem to think that this somehow replaces or antiquates competition.

you have not read up enough on the science of which you speak...

[Whois]

What are we competing against?

Now? Ourselves...

[phinkasaurus]

If I have to compete with and take advantage of my neighbor in order to amass wealth and capital, than I reject that goal. I don't need wealth or capital or power. I prefer to work with and in support of my neighbor so that both of us have a sustainable lifestyle. I am not alone in my belief or in my desire to have cooperative living.

Q, as long as humans decide that it's in our nature to be competive and vicious, it will be. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. If we decide that those instincts and urges exist, but that we are going to strive to work together to make the world a safer and more habitable environment, we can succeed.

I am sorry that you are so capitalist in your beliefs. Other topics you seem to really have an enlightened view, but on this one you are so conservative.

I would rather we all achive success and wealth then have myself acheive success and wealth at your expense.

[Schmeltz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the story of human civilization was the story of our manipulation of nature, our exertion of control over natural forces in order to transcend them. Why is it necessary for us to always be beholden to the vicious cycle of competition that characterizes a natural environment from which we further distance ourselves with every passing generation? Who cares if survival of the fittest is a dominant natural principle? We're beyond that sort of primitivism now; our social and cultural makeup allows us to create our own systems in its place.


Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy.
- Wendell Berry

[Qdrop]

If I have to compete with and take advantage of my neighbor in order to amass wealth and capital, than I reject that goal. I don't need wealth or capital or power. I prefer to work with and in support of my neighbor so that both of us have a sustainable lifestyle. I am not alone in my belief or in my desire to have cooperative living.

see, we are not quite as far apart as you would believe though.

i have argued long and hard with many people about how blind the average person, let alone the average business man is to the need to be SOCIAL RESPONISBLE...and to give credit the SOCIAL WEB that binds us all...and to protect it!!

we are all connected....we need each other, that's what a society is.
and one needn't even believe in altruism to engage in what would appear to be altruistic values.
every good deed you do DOES come back to help you in some way.

engaging in business practices that may not see large profit now (NOT outsourcing to china, for example) could actually pay large dividens in the future, at least on a social scale if not a $ one.

people need to see "social profit", not just monetary profit.

both have great value.

[Schmeltz]

You're ignoring the fact that monetary profit and social profit are inextricably linked in a capitalist society. Those individuals with the greatest monetary assets are considered, by themselves and others, to be those with the greatest social position. Monetary profit is social profit. If there was a sufficiently powerful social stigma attached to being wealthy, nobody would be rich.

You can't have it both ways; if you're going to preach a system of individual competition and survival of the fittest as "natural" then you can only expect people to carry it to its logical conclusion - unadulterated self-interest. How is it that you expect people to look out for each other because we're all connected, and also expect them to conform to the dictates of self-interest because it's natural to do so? I think you're proceeding from mutually contradictory concepts, or maybe I just haven't read enough of this thread.

[Qdrop]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the story of human civilization was the story of our manipulation of nature, our exertion of control over natural forces in order to transcend them. Why is it necessary for us to always be beholden to the vicious cycle of competition that characterizes a natural environment from which we further distance ourselves with every passing generation? Who cares if survival of the fittest is a dominant natural principle? We're beyond that sort of primitivism now; our social and cultural makeup allows us to create our own systems in its place.

yet another so arrogant as to think we can separate ourselves from nature, simply though education or "enlightenment".

when conservative pundit assholes call liberals "over-educated", this is what they are talking about.

[Qdrop]

You're ignoring the fact that monetary profit and social profit are inextricably linked in a capitalist society. Those individuals with the greatest monetary assets are considered, by themselves and others, to be those with the greatest social position. Monetary profit is social profit. If there was a sufficiently powerful social stigma attached to being wealthy, nobody would be rich.

you are misinterpreting what i am calling social profit, i think.


You can't have it both ways; if you're going to preach a system of individual competition and survival of the fittest as "natural" then you can only expect people to carry it to its logical conclusion - unadulterated self-interest.

social responsibilty DOES affix to self-interest...even the Ayn Rand types.
even if you believe that altruism does not exist (like me), you can still engage in seemingly altruistic actions like working at a homeless shelter or giving to charity if you see the SOCIAL value (profit) of it.

taking care of the homeless in the proper manner can mean less crime, welfare, ect...
SOCIAL Profit!

that is a very simple example....

but this same ethic can carry through, even if in a selfish nature, when talking about outsourcing, the environment, ect...

[Schmeltz]

Look, that's what I'm talking about. You obviously think that it's possible to "separate ourselves from nature" to the extent that capitalists should frame things in terms of "social profit," yet you call me arrogant for claiming that it's possible to do the same thing!

Furthermore, I never claimed that "education or enlightenment" allows us to separate ourselves from nature; I claimed that our social and cultural systems can be inserted in the place of nature, replacing what you would label natural tendencies. The family structure of the Western world is a great example - monogamy and the declining birth rate, and so on.

OK, what do you mean by "social profit"? I'm thinking of the term as reflective of an increase in social status - refers to how you are perceived socially by other members of your society.

[Qdrop]

Look, that's what I'm talking about. You obviously think that it's possible to "separate ourselves from nature" to the extent that capitalists should frame things in terms of "social profit," yet you call me arrogant for claiming that it's possible to do the same thing!

umm...no.
social profit was the initial profit our species evolved with (along with self interest)....it was for survival...just on a much smaller scale....due to smaller societies and packs.
group animals such as ourselves needed to maintain the group for survival. they needed to maintain the environment for survival as well.(native americans respecting and not overhunting the buffalo, for example)



The family structure of the Western world is a great example - monogamy and the declining birth rate, and so on.

explain further....

[Schmeltz]

Ah, so you mean societal profit - refers to the net benefit to a society. I would distinguish that from social profit, in the anthropological sense, if only because I'm trying to write an anthropology paper at the moment. So if the human species evolved with societal profit as its initial building block, isn't that concept just as "natural" as individualist survival of the fittest? Or does intra-group competition for personal survival outweigh intra-group cooperation for net societal gain? I suppose I'm asking you to define the extent to which you feel these two systems should dominate our behaviour, because your perspective seems very muddled to me.

In terms of family structure - look at how Western culture has defined its kinship bonds for the last couple of millennia. Monogamy is not conducive to the greatest natural increase, nor does it obey Darwinian principles; our closest relatives in the animal kingdom have a reproductive structure completely different from our own. But our cultural considerations have replaced what would be a more "natural" model. Similarly, the birth rate in the Western world is plummeting to the point where natural increase is insufficient to regenerate the society as a result of deliberate social and cultural choices - women, having entered the workforce (a previously male-dominated social realm) in large numbers in the last couple of generations, are playing different social roles, choosing career paths instead of motherhood. The social roles we create artificially take precedence over those dictated naturally - you see? Our society is what we make it, a social and cultural construction - natural only to the extent we want it to be.

[Qdrop]

Ah, so you mean societal profit - refers to the net benefit to a society. I would distinguish that from social profit, in the anthropological sense, if only because I'm trying to write an anthropology paper at the moment.

my bad.


So if the human species evolved with societal profit as its initial building block, isn't that concept just as "natural" as individualist survival of the fittest?

i believe so...as do many contemporary sociobiologists and the like.


Or does intra-group competition for personal survival outweigh intra-group cooperation for net societal gain? I suppose I'm asking you to define the extent to which you feel these two systems should dominate our behaviour,

that's the thing, both are important and instinctive...
i just think too many, due to lack of education, haven't "named" sociatal value in thier minds. nor have they explored it.
to many of those in power are ignoring that evolved need and instinct in favor of self-gain (though to the two are inherintly linked- what's good for society is good for you, and vice-versa).
self awareness is key here.


because your perspective seems very muddled to me.

yeah, well.....what can i say. i am neither a sociobiologist or a writer.
i'm a printer by trade.
now ask me about ink on paper and i'll talk for days!!


In terms of family structure - look at how Western culture has defined its kinship bonds for the last couple of millennia. Monogamy is not conducive to the greatest natural increase, nor does it obey Darwinian principles;

now now.....that is not necessarily true...
while maiting with many and often seems to be the rule with much of the animal kindgom...
social animals such as ourselves HAVE evolved a need for monogomous or near-monogomous relationships....for group/family bonds.

other species of group/pack animals also mate for life....


But our cultural considerations have replaced what would be a more "natural" model. Similarly, the birth rate in the Western world is plummeting to the point where natural increase is insufficient to regenerate the society as a result of deliberate social and cultural choices - women, having entered the workforce (a previously male-dominated social realm) in large numbers in the last couple of generations, are playing different social roles, choosing career paths instead of motherhood.

we could stand to thin the herd though.


The social roles we create artificially take precedence over those dictated naturally - you see? Our society is what we make it, a social and cultural construction - natural only to the extent we want it to be.
we are not nearly as detached as you think.
i trust you have read The Naked Ape by desmond morris?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385334303/qid=1110392386/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-8566243-8997558

another good read:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060984031/qid=1110392512/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-8566243-8997558

i think the trouble arrises (as you've said) when our culture attempts to forcibly separate from nature and it's rules/instincts.- such as the selfish profit over the sociatal profit. there must be a balance.

[Ace42]

Cpmetition is natures way- that's blindingly obvious- just look at the a lion eating an antelope. This tribe that you mentioned may live like this but they are clearly far from civilisation

Civilisation is clearly not natural, but "artificial."

Your argument is thus "competition is artifice's way"

As for communism itself- if it is so good then why did they need a six foot high wall to keep people in?

Circumstantial. Cuba does not have a "six foot high wall" and neither does Vietnam.

My mate Matt points out the ironyt that ouy're using a computer to have this discussion, where did you get that from?

Yeah, because the soviets didn't have computers. Or space-rockets.

Buh.

and if your materials don't translate to money-....circular argument really.

Clearly not. Someone who controls materials in a system with no money still has the same power as if those materials were translated to little pieces of paper.

but i have enough of an understanding of both economics and history to know that the USSR, in the end, could not compete with a capitalist monster like the US.

There are numerous reasons for the breakup of the USSR, and it is YOU who is over-simplifying it to "capitalism was just better." For starters, the US had much more mineral wealth. Rednecks pumping oil from Texas is infinitly more cost-effective than trying to drill through thousands of metres of Siberean tundra in some of the most inhospitable terrain on the planet, before you even get to the bedrock. Secondly, the USSR was an incredibly insular nation, not just culturally (the US is quite culturally insular) but also in terms of trade, etc. Communism need not be intrinsically insular, nor foster a dictatorship.

they could not adequetly distribute thier labor and material under a planned economy.

A planned economy that was primarily concerned with building more and more nuclear missiles, and shipping weapons systems to China, North Vietnam, etc. Not to mention ICBMs, and LOTS of tanks. They ain't exactly cheap. And then take into account RUssia had lots of internal conflicts with places like Chechnya. I don't recall a long bloody struggle with California...

Now take into account that the USSR didn't get to borrow money form the international community, and that 60% of the US is actually owed to other nations.

the nation went bankrupt in a sense...

If the people the US owed demanded forclosure today, the US would be in exactly the same boat, if not worse.

we all remember those notorious stock newsreels of the "long bread lines in russia" and the repeatable stories of the planned economy making too many shoes and not enough toasters, ect.

Propoganda reels, yes, I remember those too. The fact is that, like 100 & 1 capitalist nations, they were poor, and the people took what they could get.

time after time, the planned economy of USSR failed- either overproducing or underproducing.

Rather than just borrowing money off countries so they could buy in what they need. The US over-produces more than any other nation in the world. It wastes more than any other nation in the world. The "planned economy" is a straw-man constructed by capitalists.

A communist run factory can know the appropriate production quotas just as well as a capitalist factory. The "free market" doesn't magically make workers in a US factory more lazy so they don't make as much. You need more, a new factory opens. You don't need it, the factory closes. That is as true under communism as under capitalism.

"The planned economy" just typifies totalitarianism (the desire to control life on all levels) not communism.

the benefits of capitalism are real....and you enjoy those benifits yourself.

Because I am white and live in the first-world, and come from a realtively wealthy family in a relatively affluent area. The EXACT capitalistic phenomena that have given me these benefits (cheap produce, produced by cheap over-seas labour, from cheap over-seas materials) has taken them away from other people (the kid that stitches my Nikes <I don't wear nikes, but you get the point> for one rupee a day, using leather from a cow that was bought for twenty rupees, and was sold to me for £50)

subjective.

No, objective. That MS has intentionally crippled its own products is undeniable. Check the register, or google for it.

but you are assuming the everytime a product (that YOU deem superior) outsells and replaces a product (that YOU deem inferior) it is unnatural.
PRICE is part of the product....and a selling point.
if the public demands cheaper but decent product over higher quality and higher price....that is the natural market showing through.

Nikes cost the moon on a stick, and fall apart in no time at all. They are produced cheaply and shoddily, at the expense of human suffering, and yet because of the brand-name, they are still in the market place. Usually because of exploitative marketing.

You may think that people being conned into being over-charged for shoddy merchandise is "indicative of the quality of the product" - but I call it the emperor's new clothes.

you always use the SAME examples (microsoft) when discussing this topic.
use some other real world examples if this practice is SOOO evident in capitalist economics today.

That's because they are the most evident. But alright - I have never known anyone own a modern television of any price-range for more than 5 years without it going kaput. My uncle was given a Sony trinitron tv, very big, widescreen. Within 3 years the colours started fading. One of my oldest TVs (a Pye) has been with my family nearly as long as I have (15 years) and only recently started losing picture quality. My friend's Sony home cinema system's rear speakers died after just over a year of them having it. Until half a year ago, we still had a fully functional black and white TV that was older than me. That Pye and black and white have *each* lasted longer than the next four tvs we had put together. My DVD surround player lasted about a year before I had to open her up and replace parts - we have a record player from the 60s still on its first stylus that works perfectly. We had an old Austin Metro car that lasted twenty years or so, and bar some rust-spots was still working when we sold it. Our spanking new Rover metro has lasted half that and something critical (that requires a garage to repair it, rather than DIY) is wrong with it every time it goes for an MOT.

I have a collection of obsolete computers (I can list them if necessary, it is relatively extensiove) and nearly all of them were second-hand. All work perfectly. Even the tape-player on my spectrum +2 works fine. My 286 is still fully functional. My subsequent obsolete PCs had part failure after part failure. The 386 died after a few years, and died BIG.

This is just in *my* lifetime as well, and I am not even a big consumer (I am very very frugal). On average, a US citizen consumes more than twice what an average european citizen does, and the US is the home of manufactured obsolescence.

My cheapy casio wristwatch has lasted me well over a decade on *one battery* - it even survived being lost and returned to me by a little old lady. My dad's digital watches die every few years.

When I went to university, I took one of my mother's old non-stick saucepans amongst other utensils. She went through two replacements in that time. We still have out original stainless steel bread-knife that my mother was using before I was even allowed to touch sharp-objects. Again, she has gone through several replacements which have all rusted over with use. In the last five years, we have gone through 3 video recorders - we had one for over a decade.

Why do you think depreciation on cars has grown so exponentially? Once cars were considered an investment!

Look around you, objectively (as I know you can) and I am sure you will see numerous examples all around you.

again, you are taking hypothetical (and opinionated) examples and saying they are everday and rampant occurances in capitalism.

If by "hypothetical" you mean undeniably true. And the examples cannot be "opinionated" - an example cannot be arrogant. Nor can giving examples be arrogant, it is merely stating fact. That aside, there are books about it - written by the people in marketing who made it happen.

Google for "manufactured obsolescence" or built-in or contrived, or any variation on that theme. You'll see there are plenty of people who are all to aware of this.

There is your "capitalist solution to over-production" - make sure it breaks lots so you increase the need.

that is NOT true and another manipulative stereotype.

It is perfectly true and visible in the real world. Our local pasty bakery went national. While there is now less waiting time on a pasty, they have also ceased to be hand-baked, there is less meat and more potato in them, and the service is less friendly. The prices have not changed. Brand-loyalty has ensured that people are complacent and make do with a mediocre (inferior to previous standard) product with no end-benefit to them.

Since the UK's various industries have been privatised, these companies have been making profit (and a fair bit, with the CEOs giving themselves healthy bonuses and salary increases) while the quality of service they have been offering has undeniably gone down. Meanwhile, the prices have undeniably gone up all across the board.

they can create higher efficiencies to create more profit.

Except they *haven't* - they have just hoiked up their prices (more so than the cost of oil per barrel has increased).

whether or not they choose to share these cost decreases with the consumer as lower prices is up to them.

Precisely, and they will not of their own volition give up some of their profit to transfer this benefit to the end user. Proving my point, progress for the company is in no way directly linked to a benefit for the end-user. If a company chooses to voluntarily cut into their profit margin to offer a benefit to end-users, that is the antithesis of capitalism. Capitalism is about the centralisation of wealth. Spreading out profits amongst the People is anathema.

you charge what the people are willing to pay for it.

You charge what people are *obliged* to pay for it. Without oil, people cannot get to work, and thus will starve. People become prostitutes rather than starve, it is naive to think that "consumer power" (an oxymoron if ever I heard one) will win out. "Yeah, I'll give up buying oil and thus my job in order to punish Shell, and I'll rent my ass out on the street so I don't die."

Well, that will sure teach them.

if we bought less, we could send a message. but we buy low milage monster trucks instead.

I live in the UK, here in europe low-mileage cars are "de rigeur". A more accurate sentiment was "if we COULD buy less, then we would *be able* to send a message*

Capitalism has made us impotent.

regulate and control.

control the economy?

A controlled economy?

Hmmm... Sounds good. I'll stich up some hammer and sickle banners.

survival of the fittest....that is nature.
how can you argue that point without intense congnative dissonance?

Because "fittest" means "fits best into its niche" not "the strongest, most aggressive." The human "niche" is evidently co-operation, even you concur with this. Thus capitalism, which divides instead of unifies, is the anathema to our survival.

yet another so arrogant as to think we can separate ourselves from nature, simply though education or "enlightenment".

I agree completely. We should all rape each other and be true to natural biological tendancies.

even if you believe that altruism does not exist (like me)

For someone who claims to have such an authoritative grasp of science on this issue, you do hold incredibly unscientific principles.

Google for "evolutionary altruism." - As opposed to the selfish gene, there is more likely to be an altruistic gene. Without it, all human society would be impossible. People sacrifice themselves for strangers and face-less people all the time, and they are not just "madmen" or "biological abnormalities like teh fags" as racerstang would have it.

However, at least your opinions on this are Nietzchean, which I can respect even if I do not necessarily agree with it.

[Qdrop]

congrats on the longest post in the history of BBMB, ace.


Circumstantial. Cuba does not have a "six foot high wall" and neither does Vietnam.

Cuba has an ocean instead.
yeah, cubans never try to get into america...never.

but i'm not getting into that...not my debate.



clearly not. Someone who controls materials in a system with no money still has the same power as if those materials were translated to little pieces of paper.

i see your point.
what you are trying to say is that money without backing useless...just paper.
but materials, without money...can still have value (utilitarian) for trade if necessary.

but if you have 30,000 washers and no one is buying them.....but they all want new sneakers....but you don't have enough cause you put more resources into building washers....what fuckin power do you have?
having lots of materials for sale don't mean shit if no one wants to buy them.



There are numerous reasons for the breakup of the USSR,


so what are you saying, ace.
socialism (and/or communism) is really superior...it's just that histories idiots and dumb luck have prevented it from working well?

it works better on paper.....



No, objective. That MS has intentionally crippled its own products is undeniable. Check the register, or google for it.

okay, i will.


Nikes cost the moon on a stick, and fall apart in no time at all. They are produced cheaply and shoddily, at the expense of human suffering,

subjective.
i've had nikes that have lasted years....my feet outgrew them before they ever fell apart.


You may think that people being conned into being over-charged for shoddy merchandise is "indicative of the quality of the product" - but I call it the emperor's new clothes.

the people will choose what is more important...quality or cheaper price.



That's because they are the most evident. But alright - I have never known anyone own a modern television of any price-range for more than 5 years without it going kaput. My uncle was given a Sony trinitron tv, very big, widescreen. Within 3 years the colours started fading. One of my oldest TVs (a Pye) has been with my family nearly as long as I have (15 years) and only recently started losing picture quality. My friend's Sony home cinema system's rear speakers died after just over a year of them having it. Until half a year ago, we still had a fully functional black and white TV that was older than me. That Pye and black and white have *each* lasted longer than the next four tvs we had put together. My DVD surround player lasted about a year before I had to open her up and replace parts - we have a record player from the 60s still on its first stylus that works perfectly. We had an old Austin Metro car that lasted twenty years or so, and bar some rust-spots was still working when we sold it. Our spanking new Rover metro has lasted half that and something critical (that requires a garage to repair it, rather than DIY) is wrong with it every time it goes for an MOT.

I have a collection of obsolete computers (I can list them if necessary, it is relatively extensiove) and nearly all of them were second-hand. All work perfectly. Even the tape-player on my spectrum +2 works fine. My 286 is still fully functional. My subsequent obsolete PCs had part failure after part failure. The 386 died after a few years, and died BIG.

This is just in *my* lifetime as well, and I am not even a big consumer (I am very very frugal). On average, a US citizen consumes more than twice what an average european citizen does, and the US is the home of manufactured obsolescence.

My cheapy casio wristwatch has lasted me well over a decade on *one battery* - it even survived being lost and returned to me by a little old lady. My dad's digital watches die every few years.

When I went to university, I took one of my mother's old non-stick saucepans amongst other utensils. She went through two replacements in that time. We still have out original stainless steel bread-knife that my mother was using before I was even allowed to touch sharp-objects. Again, she has gone through several replacements which have all rusted over with use. In the last five years, we have gone through 3 video recorders - we had one for over a decade.

Why do you think depreciation on cars has grown so exponentially? Once cars were considered an investment!

Look around you, objectively (as I know you can) and I am sure you will see numerous examples all around you.


i have many examples that fit your view.....and many many that do not.
i have a sharp television bought in 1996 (pretty new) that absolutely refuses to die. it has been dropped, the back panels trashed and all of the button broken (college TV), but it will not stop running. the body is mostly ducktape now ( no joke).

i have an alesis amp and studio monitors that are 6 years old. i beat the fuck out them....they will not die.

my Mac G3 from 1997 has had only one new hardrive put in.....it is STILL my main and only computer in my house that i use for everything.

my 1997 honda civic (which i bought used) is an engineering gem. i have only replaced the fuel filter on that (with ordinary maintanance) nothing else.
i have 80,000 miles on it......have driven it up and down the east coast about 25 times at least.

see, we can go on and on.....
it's really subjective.....and there is no clear cut leaning here.



Google for "manufactured obsolescence" or built-in or contrived, or any variation on that theme. You'll see there are plenty of people who are all to aware of this.

okay i will.


It is perfectly true and visible in the real world. Our local pasty bakery went national. While there is now less waiting time on a pasty, they have also ceased to be hand-baked, there is less meat and more potato in them, and the service is less friendly. The prices have not changed. Brand-loyalty has ensured that people are complacent and make do with a mediocre (inferior to previous standard) product with no end-benefit to them.

the people made their choice...they still have options.


Except they *haven't* - they have just hoiked up their prices (more so than the cost of oil per barrel has increased).

show me....prove this point.
(i'm not even flat out denying it...but i want to see if you are going by percieved "fact" or by actual data and reports)



Precisely, and they will not of their own volition give up some of their profit to transfer this benefit to the end user. Proving my point, progress for the company is in no way directly linked to a benefit for the end-user. If a company chooses to voluntarily cut into their profit margin to offer a benefit to end-users, that is the antithesis of capitalism.
as long as competition is protected, the people can control this with their dollars.


You charge what people are *obliged* to pay for it. Without oil, people cannot get to work, and thus will starve. People become prostitutes rather than starve, it is naive to think that "consumer power" (an oxymoron if ever I heard one) will win out. "Yeah, I'll give up buying oil and thus my job in order to punish Shell, and I'll rent my ass out on the street so I don't die."

granted, oil is a toughy (due to our extensive dependany and foriegn importing)....which is why this the first area that needs to be cleaned up.


control the economy?

A controlled economy?

Hmmm... Sounds good. I'll stich up some hammer and sickle banners.

hey, i beleive in certain socialist elements...
and when i say control...i mean regulate...put cap limits on net worths, prevent monopolies, ect.

you know that.
you just couldn't pass up the witty remark.



Because "fittest" means "fits best into its niche" not "the strongest, most aggressive." The human "niche" is evidently co-operation, even you concur with this. Thus capitalism, which divides instead of unifies, is the anathema to our survival.

find the balance.
read my other posts.



I agree completely. We should all rape each other and be true to natural biological tendancies.

yeah, rape is our natural tendancy.
you are so well read.

without the ten commandments, we would all turn into lunatics.



Google for "evolutionary altruism." - As opposed to the selfish gene, there is more likely to be an altruistic gene. Without it, all human society would be impossible. People sacrifice themselves for strangers and face-less people all the time, and they are not just "madmen" or "biological abnormalities like teh fags" as racerstang would have it.

you really want to argue this?, it will take pages.
there are books and books on both sides.
there would be no victor.


However, at least your opinions on this are Nietzchean, which I can respect even if I do not necessarily agree with it.
God is dead.


Ace, i would like for you to describe how an ideal socialist and/or communist economy/gov't would work...in your own words.

[SobaViolence]

As a nihilist I have no faith...except in the ability of the human race to fuck everything up.

...cheers.

you`re a fatalist, not a nihilist.

capitalism is just another system that represents a building block for a perfect world. one step towards utopia. if we don`t finish ourselves off first, humanity will progess past capitalism, money and ownership and live in total peace of the mind, heart and body.

just not within my life. but you can see progress in motion.

Qdrop:when conservative pundit assholes call liberals "over-educated", this is what they are talking about.

over-educated? please, knowledge is power. like the knowledge on how to con americans into hating everything that made their country great. fuck the right.

[yeahwho]

Qdrop:when conservative pundit assholes call liberals "over-educated", this is what they are talking about.

over-educated? please, knowledge is power. like the knowledge on how to con americans into hating everything that made their country great. fuck the right.

well said (y)

SobaViolence speaks the truth, any ideas outside the perimeter of more money to the rich are "over-educated" are crazy thoughts. Knowledge is power, towing the NeoCon line is ignorance. Examining the NeoCon and Liberal agendas is knowledge.

[ASsman]

ZzZzZzZzz... wake me up when Enigma leaves.

[Whois]

you`re a fatalist, not a nihilist.


You're taking this too seriously...have a drink.

[Ace42]

Cuba has an ocean instead.

And Vietnam has a jungle, and North Korea has a demilitarised zone. All circumstantial.

what you are trying to say is that money without backing useless...just paper.

Not even physical backing, it requires *faith*. Just takes some rumours of jitters, and WHAM the currency market tips and people are suddenly poor.

having lots of materials for sale don't mean shit if no one wants to buy them.

But people are more likely to want something tangible than an intangible abstract. Fortunately for us, our dependance means we have absolute faith in currency, but that can change.

socialism (and/or communism) is really superior...it's just that histories idiots and dumb luck have prevented it from working well?

From working satisfactorily. When there is a free and democratic communist state, then we will be able to compare the two systems more fairly.

and there is no clear cut leaning here.

Even a 50-50 division is unacceptable.

show me....prove this point.
(i'm not even flat out denying it...but i want to see if you are going by percieved "fact" or by actual data and reports)

"At the hearing, MPs accused energy firms of making big profits at the expense of consumers and manufacturers."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4201381.stm

And I hope you appreciate that took some hunting down. Fortunately, I do not mind, as I find it even more frustrating when people accuse me of making something up, and I cannot track down the article or evidence of the TV program, or the title of the book.

as long as competition is protected, the people can control this with their dollars.

But they can't, as it is the *rich* who have dollars and thus control, and they are interested in maintaining the status quo. Short of imposing sanctions on the rich (thus undermining the whole point of capitalism) this is unavoidable.

you know that.
you just couldn't pass up the witty remark.

Actually, I was making a point. At what point do these "controls" cease to be useful, and start to be a hinderance in your opinion? It appears that you are arguing for the thin end of the wedge.

without the ten commandments, we would all turn into lunatics.

You are not in favour of scrapping laws, and as by your argument people are unable to escape their own tendancies, artificial laws can only contrain natural tendancies which you think we are obliged to follow.

you really want to argue this?, it will take pages.
there are books and books on both sides.
there would be no victor.

Quite, however I was only arguing the point in order to compel you to accept that this is not a cut and dry issue, and thus not a clear-cut support for your argument or capitalism.

Ace, i would like for you to describe how an ideal socialist and/or communist economy/gov't would work...in your own words.

Our capitalist systems are incredibly inefficient. Take the TV dinner market. Here "Marks and Spencer" sell exactly the same ready-meals as quicksave. I know because my aquaintance worked at the factory that packages them, and it was one line of food coming in, two lines going out - identical bar the packaging. The money they spend on advertising is immense, and this money could be saved simply by having only one product being shipped.

While people argue "yeah, but in a free market the consumer wants choice!" invariably that choice is an illusion.

With the money, time and effort that is being saved, more food could be produced, thus elleviating the burden of want.

Secondly, stricter quality control on all products. No manufactured obsolescence whatsoever. Automated systems could last a lot longer without inefficient parts that are designed to burn out failing regularly.

Thirdly, and improved mass transit system. Many of the roads in the UK date back to the romans. No wonder buses and trains are so unpopular, they seldom take you to where you want to go, they cost a lot, and they are unreliable. A rethink from the ground up could again improve efficiency, and this in turn would reduce dependance on petrol.

Fourthly, a greater investment in renewable energy sources. Solar, wind, tidal and fusion power all have massive potential, but money that could be spent pioneering efficiency has been subverted and directed to oil based industries, etc. Also, research into hydrogen fuel cells.

(These technologies have all been to some extent suppressed by the non-renewable energy industries. Check the patent office and see who has been buying up technological developments in these areas.)

Fifth, improved automation in all areas of manufacturing. Automated field reapers, automatic field fertilisers, automatic crop harvesters, automatic loaf bakers.

By this means, free the labour force. The term "wage-slave" is unpleasantly litteral. It is wage-slavery that obliges people to join the army, to go into <spits> marketing, to fleece the consumer, etc in order to justify their salary. By providing (at first cheaper and later) free goods and services, jobs will be increasingly superflous. Thus, people will be free to explore persuits to which they are well suited, rather than do a job which they might be really quite bad at, but are obliged to do because of their need for a living. Thus people will have more time to spend on *productive* invention and creation. Instead of thinking up ways to squeeze more money out of consumers, or market a new (but actually identical to an existing) brand of softdrink, etc etc.

Development will be in areas that are socially productive, not in areas that merely generate more money for a select minority. Art will benefit, as "selling out" will simply not be an option.

People will not need to work merely to live, and this will reduce crime, as less people will be stealing to meet ends meet. Likewise, without the pressures inherant in a capitalist society (lengthy and unnatural working hours, etc) - the majority of people will have more time to be sociable.

An Italian former MP theorises that as a society, we are moving into a form of "social capitalism" where social credit is more important than money. Under a system like I have described in brief above, this would certainly be more true, and thus working at being nice to people and being a productive member of society (rather than a productive cog in the capitalist machine) will be rewarded.

This is (in very very brief and abridged) how I see it working. I could go on at length about it, but I tend to get carried away.

To instigate it, I would use socially conscious legislation to persecute firms, etc that behave anti-socially, and perks to firms that voluntarily engage in socially beneficial programs. Companies that behave equitably get tax breaks, companies that are socially damaging get taxed.

And the capitalists will say "ohhh, but some companies will go out of business" - good, they'll be selling off their infrastructure cheap, and that means a socially conscious company can capitalise.

Little by little, capitalist practices will become more and more unattractive, and a communist society will edge closer.

[Monsieur Decuts]

I believe that capatilism is enhearently flawed because the end result is monopoly. I think there should be a "salary cap" applied to industry...when one company gets too big, it should be broken into pieces and those companies should start a new. The stockholders of the big one company get all the money for winning the big race, but then the opportunity is created for more successes when they break it into pieces and let others take them over. Sorta like what they did to AT & T.

This would keep companies from being overly anti-competitive cause no one would want to become the bigest hitter...

obviously this would fail for a million different reasons, but I think that it would be better than letting adelphia charge me 120 bucks a month for cable and internet while they jam money making commercials down my throat every 8 minutes or whatever.

[ASsman]

Yah, it's called Anti-Trust laws... good luck with those.

[Monsieur Decuts]

lol yup...

Janet's take: "what have they done for me lately?"

[Qdrop]

And Vietnam has a jungle, and North Korea has a demilitarised zone. All circumstantial.

the point being cubans pile over here in DROVES...
why is that?
never mind....we already know.



Not even physical backing, it requires *faith*. Just takes some rumours of jitters, and WHAM the currency market tips and people are suddenly poor.

yes...the "mental market".
that's why i fucking hate the stock market.



From working satisfactorily. When there is a free and democratic communist state, then we will be able to compare the two systems more fairly.

good luck with that.


"At the hearing, MPs accused energy firms of making big profits at the expense of consumers and manufacturers."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4201381.stm

And I hope you appreciate that took some hunting down. Fortunately, I do not mind, as I find it even more frustrating when people accuse me of making something up, and I cannot track down the article or evidence of the TV program, or the title of the book.

a million thanks... :rolleyes:

that is something....but still only an accusation.

not that i doubt it....


But they can't, as it is the *rich* who have dollars and thus control, and they are interested in maintaining the status quo. Short of imposing sanctions on the rich (thus undermining the whole point of capitalism) this is unavoidable.

yes, people can.
they can choose what they want....vote with their dollars.
as LONG as anti-trust suits are imposed....and TRUE choice is preserved.


Actually, I was making a point. At what point do these "controls" cease to be useful, and start to be a hinderance in your opinion? It appears that you are arguing for the thin end of the wedge.

as you, i am simply stating the problems with the current system and offering possible soltutions....



You are not in favour of scrapping laws, and as by your argument people are unable to escape their own tendancies, artificial laws can only contrain natural tendancies which you think we are obliged to follow.

major laws (murder, assault, stealing, ect) are NOT necessary for the majority of human beings....as we have evolotionary tendencies to follow such practices anyhow.
they are there for the miscriants.....and do give some ethical backing to removing them from society.


Quite, however I was only arguing the point in order to compel you to accept that this is not a cut and dry issue, and thus not a clear-cut support for your argument or capitalism.

well of course.



Our capitalist systems are incredibly inefficient. Take the TV dinner market. Here "Marks and Spencer" sell exactly the same ready-meals as quicksave. I know because my aquaintance worked at the factory that packages them, and it was one line of food coming in, two lines going out - identical bar the packaging. The money they spend on advertising is immense, and this money could be saved simply by having only one product being shipped.

While people argue "yeah, but in a free market the consumer wants choice!" invariably that choice is an illusion.

With the money, time and effort that is being saved, more food could be produced, thus elleviating the burden of want.

Secondly, stricter quality control on all products. No manufactured obsolescence whatsoever. Automated systems could last a lot longer without inefficient parts that are designed to burn out failing regularly.

Thirdly, and improved mass transit system. Many of the roads in the UK date back to the romans. No wonder buses and trains are so unpopular, they seldom take you to where you want to go, they cost a lot, and they are unreliable. A rethink from the ground up could again improve efficiency, and this in turn would reduce dependance on petrol.

Fourthly, a greater investment in renewable energy sources. Solar, wind, tidal and fusion power all have massive potential, but money that could be spent pioneering efficiency has been subverted and directed to oil based industries, etc. Also, research into hydrogen fuel cells.

(These technologies have all been to some extent suppressed by the non-renewable energy industries. Check the patent office and see who has been buying up technological developments in these areas.)

Fifth, improved automation in all areas of manufacturing. Automated field reapers, automatic field fertilisers, automatic crop harvesters, automatic loaf bakers.

By this means, free the labour force. The term "wage-slave" is unpleasantly litteral. It is wage-slavery that obliges people to join the army, to go into <spits> marketing, to fleece the consumer, etc in order to justify their salary. By providing (at first cheaper and later) free goods and services, jobs will be increasingly superflous. Thus, people will be free to explore persuits to which they are well suited, rather than do a job which they might be really quite bad at, but are obliged to do because of their need for a living. Thus people will have more time to spend on *productive* invention and creation. Instead of thinking up ways to squeeze more money out of consumers, or market a new (but actually identical to an existing) brand of softdrink, etc etc.

Development will be in areas that are socially productive, not in areas that merely generate more money for a select minority. Art will benefit, as "selling out" will simply not be an option.

People will not need to work merely to live, and this will reduce crime, as less people will be stealing to meet ends meet. Likewise, without the pressures inherant in a capitalist society (lengthy and unnatural working hours, etc) - the majority of people will have more time to be sociable.

An Italian former MP theorises that as a society, we are moving into a form of "social capitalism" where social credit is more important than money. Under a system like I have described in brief above, this would certainly be more true, and thus working at being nice to people and being a productive member of society (rather than a productive cog in the capitalist machine) will be rewarded.

This is (in very very brief and abridged) how I see it working. I could go on at length about it, but I tend to get carried away.

To instigate it, I would use socially conscious legislation to persecute firms, etc that behave anti-socially, and perks to firms that voluntarily engage in socially beneficial programs. Companies that behave equitably get tax breaks, companies that are socially damaging get taxed.

And the capitalists will say "ohhh, but some companies will go out of business" - good, they'll be selling off their infrastructure cheap, and that means a socially conscious company can capitalise.

these are wonderful "fix-its" to the current system.

but i asked you to describe, in your own words, how a socialist/communist state would function.
complete with a planned economy.

[Ace42]

the point being cubans pile over here in DROVES...
why is that?
never mind....we already know.

To escape the 100% literacy rate that Cuba has? Or maybe to smoke some Virginia cigars.

but still only an accusation.

not that i doubt it...

When the politicians are all in agreement, that is when you should be worried.

major laws (murder, assault, stealing, ect) are NOT necessary for the majority of human beings....as we have evolotionary tendencies to follow such practices anyhow.
they are there for the miscriants.....and do give some ethical backing to removing them from society.

Actually, only a relatively small percentage of murders are commited by psychopaths (the "deviants" who are not bound by the same biological drives to co-operation as us. People who could truly 'be seen to have the selfish gene') legislation is not there just to deal with these people.

but i asked you to describe, in your own words, how a socialist/communist state would function.
complete with a planned economy.

Simply put, automated hyper-efficient production, direct rule by referendum, decentralised autonomy and division of what little responsibility is left and is not accounted by elected voluntary representatives.

However, you will have to tighten your definition of a "planned economy" as I think that, like the free market, it is a term used by economists to mystify rather than explain. Supply and demand are functions of any distribution network, and there is no reason why they cannot be as functional in a system devoid of currency as they are in one solely based around it.

[Qdrop]

To escape the 100% literacy rate that Cuba has? Or maybe to smoke some Virginia cigars.

Ace, don't argue the "virtues" of cuba.
the place is a shithole...

yeah, 100% literacy, health care, and day care for all.

and crippling poverty, 0% industrial progress, and fascist control over all media.
the people are so fucking happy.

they crowd by the thousands onto tiny rafts and risk death to float to the Floriday keys....just cause they want to take a break from all that happiness.


Actually, only a relatively small percentage of murders are commited by psychopaths (the "deviants" who are not bound by the same biological drives to co-operation as us. People who could truly 'be seen to have the selfish gene') legislation is not there just to deal with these people.

to reinforce our natural tendancies....

however, laws do not "make us good"....

i hate when people imply that.

[Ace42]

and crippling poverty, 0% industrial progress, and fascist control over all media.
the people are so fucking happy.

"The country is now slowly recovering from a severe economic recession in 1990, following the withdrawal of former Soviet subsidies, worth $4 billion to $6 billion annually. Cuba portrays its difficulties as the result of the US embargo in place since 1961."

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cu.html

they crowd by the thousands onto tiny rafts and risk death to float to the Floriday keys....just cause they want to take a break from all that happiness.

2,500 in 2003 to be precise. Out of 11,308,764.

0.02% of the population... Woo, droves.

Funnily enough, I am unable to find the US emmigration rate. While people are proud to ramble on and on about how many darkies come in, they aren't saying precisely how many whities are getting out.

[Qdrop]

"The country is now slowly recovering from a severe economic recession in 1990, following the withdrawal of former Soviet subsidies, worth $4 billion to $6 billion annually. Cuba portrays its difficulties as the result of the US embargo in place since 1961."

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cu.html



2,500 in 2003 to be precise. Out of 11,308,764.

0.02% of the population... Woo, droves.

Funnily enough, I am unable to find the US emmigration rate. While people are proud to ramble on and on about how many darkies come in, they aren't saying precisely how many whities are getting out.

"In the late 1980s Cuban-Soviet relations became distanced as the Soviets moved toward more liberal policy positions. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Cuba lost its primary source of aid, and with the collapse of the whole Soviet bloc, Cuba largely lost its main sources of hard currency and oil and its principal markets for sugar. Castro apparently remained in firm control of the country. Most of those who had initially opposed him had fled the island (between Dec., 1965, and Apr., 1973, a Cuban government-controlled airlift carried more than 250,000 people between Havana and Miami, Fla.). Despite Cuba's severe economic problems, Castro enjoyed some popularity for his social programs. However, Cuba's decision to allow further emigration in 1980 resulted in an exodus of over 125,000 people from Mariel, Cuba, to Florida before it was halted, indicating a significant level of popular discontent.

Â*Â*Â* The economic problems caused by the collapse of Soviet aid, the continuing dependence on sugar, and a long-lasting U.S. embargo led the regime to reverse some of its socialist policies. In 1992 and 1993, the government allowed the use of U.S. dollars, authorized the transformation of many state farms into semiautonomous cooperatives, and legalized individual private enterprise on a limited basis. In 1994 all farmers were allowed to sell some produce on the open market. During the same year, there was a new flood of boat refugees; it stopped only after a U.S.-Cuban agreement was reached. The accord called for Cuba to halt the exodus and for the United States to legally admit at least 20,000 Cubans per year.

[Schmeltz]

I've often wondered how the Cuban experiment would have turned out if the USA had allowed them to run their country on their own terms and traded with them fairly, instead of bombing their sugar plantations and setting up invasions by proxy, then clamping embargos on them for four decades. Castro had turned to the American government for support first, after all - Khruschev was only the second option.

Fucking Kennedies.

[Qdrop]

Fucking Kennedies.

yeah....Castro and Che were fucking saints...

[D_Raay]

Is it Capitalism or it's handlers that are the problem? We of the Enron/Bush era should know by now.

The US economy is failing. The afflictions are serious. They could be fatal even if diagnosed and treated. America is losing the purchasing power of its currency and its ability to create middle class jobs.

The dollar's sharp decline and projections of continuing trade and budgetary red ink are undermining the dollar's role as reserve currency. A number of central banks have announced that they will be diversifying their currency holdings and will not be buying dollars at the same rate as in the past.

This will put more pressure on the dollar. At some point the flight will begin. Instead of buying fewer dollars, central banks will sell dollars hoping to get out before the dollar hits bottom.

Suddenly, the advantage of being the reserve currency becomes a nightmare as the world's accumulations of dollars are brought to market. An enormous supply and weak demand mean a very low exchange rate for the once almighty US dollar.

Overnight those cheap goods in Wal-Mart, which are the no-think economist's facile justification for Wal-Mart's decimation of communities, small businesses and employment, shoot up in price.

Interest rates will escalate as the government struggles to finance its endless red ink. Heavily indebted Americans with adjustable rate mortgages will attempt to sell homes just as rising mortgage rates reduce buyers. Real estate assets, the rising value of which have been keeping the economy going, will give back gains.

The US has lost its ability to create middle class jobs or for that matter any jobs. During the last four years the US has experienced a net loss of 760,000 private sector jobs (January 2001 - January 2005). Think what this means for graduating classes and people coming of age to enter the work force.

Moreover, the composition of jobs has changed away from high-value-added, high-productivity jobs in tradable goods and services toward lower productivity domestic service jobs that cannot be outsourced.

Even here in this last remaining area of employment for Americans, the US work force is losing job opportunities to foreign nurses and school teachers brought in on H-1b work visas as a result of budgetary pressures on local school budgets and hospitals.

No-think economists and politicians continue to propose unemployment insurance and education as remedies for the jobs problem. These proposals are mindless to say the least. The same incentive to outsource holds for all tradable skills. If truth be known, job outsourcing and offshore production sound the death bell for US higher education.

Americans unable to find jobs in export and import-competitive sectors find themselves searching for jobs in nontradable domestic services, where their inflow into those labor markets is augmented by illegal immigrants and foreigners on H-1b visas. Obviously, the pressure on wages is downward.

No-think economists explain away the difficulties as a "globalization adjustment" that will require Americans to curtail their consumption of imported goods. These economists are ignorant of American's dependence on imported manufactured goods. Even American brand name goods are made abroad in whole or in part. Tightening the belt will mean much more than cutting out foreign made luxuries.

The dollars' decline will drive up the price of all inputs except US labor which is being substituted out of production functions and replaced with foreign labor.

Oblivious to reality, the Bush administration has proposed a Social Security privatization that will cost $4.5 trillion in borrowing over the next 10 years alone! America has no domestic savings to absorb this debt, and foreigners will not lend such enormous sums to a country with a collapsing currency--especially a country mired in a Middle East war running up hundreds of billions of dollars in war debt.

A venal and self-important Washington establishment combined with a globalized corporate mentality have brought an end to America's rising living standards. America's days as a superpower are rapidly coming to an end. Isolated by the nationalistic unilateralism of the neoconservatives who control the Bush administration, the US can expect no sympathy or help from former allies and rising new powers.

[Qdrop]

^^ who wrote that?

[phinkasaurus]

they can choose what they want....vote with their dollars.
as LONG as anti-trust suits are imposed....and TRUE choice is preserved.


but in a capitalist economy, some people have more dollars than other people. And if dollars equal votes, then it follows, that some people have more say than others Which it turn rules out out any sort of democracy.

Or is there a way for capitlism to take this into account and still let everyone's voice be heard?


How's ParEcon?

[SobaViolence]

You're taking this too seriously...have a drink.

dude, have you seen the masturbation the rest of these guys have been wanking all over this thread. i am taking this as lightly as anyone. at least i think so...


wanna drink?

[Space]

Capitalism for Dummies

Traditional Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one .


i liked that so much, i sampled it. (y)

L8r

[Ali]

You're taking this too seriously...have a drink.yeah, lighten up...sniff some gasoline

(hahahahahahahahahahaha) i krak miself up

[discopants]

Some of the people on this thread have waaaaay too much time on their hands.

[Qdrop]

but in a capitalist economy, some people have more dollars than other people. And if dollars equal votes, then it follows, that some people have more say than others Which it turn rules out out any sort of democracy.

Or is there a way for capitlism to take this into account and still let everyone's voice be heard?



the problem with your sentiment, though....is that you leave no room for personal responsibility among the masses.
where in your philosophy do you tell the people to pull up thier boot straps and get to work....save your money, achieve, and progress.
yes, that is a conservative mantra.....but not a bad one.

you can comment on the outside, unethical forces that can hold one down and not allow for equality: racism, poverty traps, corporate monopolies, ect...
but do you hold no respect for those that simply work harder and make more money?

i make more money than most of my friends.
i handle my finances better, chose a better career path, ect.

some of them (2 who are unemployed ) take cracks at me now that i'm buying a house.
"must be nice...pshaw"

well, yes it is....but i busted my ass for it. while they were slacking thier way through college getting bullshit degrees which they don't even use....i paid my own way through graduate school , got a good job in a favorable industry, saved my money, kept my debts low and now get to enjoy some of the fruits of my labor.
one of my friends got laid off from his remidial data processing job (he had 1 year notice, but never bothered to look around), proceeded to go on unemployment for year....and now bitches cause he can't find another job doing what he wants--granted, he doesn't even know what he wants to do.
his degree in industrial design never got used....he just wanted to get through college.
my other friend got a degree in english.....but.....well, never got around to looking for a job.....so he works for scarcley minimum wage taking care of mentally challanged citizens at a group home.
he hates it.

oh, and their parents paid for ALL of their college.

tell me....are they equal to me?

so should i give them some of my money so that we are all equal?
am i not entitled to my advantage and greater "wealth"?
am i not entitled to a greater "voice" as you put it?

that's the problem i have with many socialists....
they don't beleive in an "advantage through hard work"...

[Pres Zount]

Who has more advantage in life - Prince Harry, or the son of a ukranian factory worker?

Who works harder, do you think?


I think it's funny and sad how right wing people insist on telling socialists what they actually think and don't think, what they support and what they don't support. Why does a more egalitarian society mean that people are no longer responsible, or that people wont get ahead through hard work?

These are just capitalist myths that are still being repeated today. "All people are paid the same" "People become lazy" "Human nature".... I get so tired of it. I think I will start a thread about socialist FAQ's, and also debunk common myths.

[ASsman]

Preach it comrade!

[hellojello]

there's too much writing to read at this hour (6.45am) considering i've been up about 60 hours.. so im sorry if someone already said this...

but IMO - i have some faith in capitalism, no faith in the current system, but if only we *the first world* could help the third world more (rather than hindering them) and promote and establish capitalism with a focus on protecting national industry, you know, kind of like how america protects their own while exploiting the rest of the world. They have some of the highest tarriffs out of any other country. goddamn bastads... i mean its kind of hypocritical to be the forerunners of global participation in the 'market' AND of economic globalization, and yet only truely 'participate' when they stand to benefit economically.
PRES just wondering do you have any altenative soloutions.
*prays he doesn't say socialism/communism/anachism because*coughthatsgaycough* not to mention incredibly unrealistic.

[Pres Zount]

there's too much writing to read at this hour (6.45am) considering i've been up about 60 hours.. so im sorry if someone already said this...

but IMO - i have some faith in capitalism, no faith in the current system, but if only we *the first world* could help the third world more (rather than hindering them) and promote and establish capitalism with a focus on protecting national industry, you know, kind of like how america protects their own while exploiting the rest of the world. They have some of the highest tarriffs out of any other country. goddamn bastads... i mean its kind of hypocritical to be the forerunners of global participation in the 'market' AND of economic globalization, and yet only truely 'participate' when they stand to benefit economically.
PRES just wondering do you have any altenative soloutions.
*prays he doesn't say socialism/communism/anachism because*coughthatsgaycough* not to mention incredibly unrealistic.

Well I think that ordinary people standing up for themselves and taking control of their economy is more realistic than hoping that the bilionaires will give up their privelagaes and led a helping hand.

[ASsman]

Yah, it's been said before...

[Qdrop]

Who has more advantage in life - Prince Harry, or the son of a ukranian factory worker?

Who works harder, do you think?


yes, well....you can come up with such red herrings all fucking day.

that does not speak to my examples.
answer those.

should the harder worker be allowed to achieve more wealth and capital?


I think it's funny and sad how right wing people insist on telling socialists what they actually think and don't think, what they support and what they don't support.

i'm not a right winger. i have relatively conservative views on economy and capitalism. but not as much as you think.


Why does a more egalitarian society mean that people are no longer responsible, or that people wont get ahead through hard work?

then give your definition of an economically egalitarian system.

if you are simply speaking of everyone having equal oppurtunity, i agree.

otherwise, explain.



These are just capitalist myths that are still being repeated today. "All people are paid the same" "People become lazy" "Human nature".... I get so tired of it. I think I will start a thread about socialist FAQ's, and also debunk common myths.
well, there really isn't anything but conjecture on such behavior.

unless you can point to scientific studies that have been done on such circumstance and behavior, then all that will remain is MY story vs. YOUR story regarding how people behave in such circumstances.

you can quote from FAQ's all day.....won't change much.

[Whois]

dude, have you seen the masturbation the rest of these guys have been wanking all over this thread. i am taking this as lightly as anyone. at least i think so...


wanna drink?

Yup, Purple Jesus Punch(tm) for me...I love Everclear.

[freetibet]

I mean who believes that this is it. Francis Fukayama said that capitalism was the End of History. Who thinks that this (as in the whole world) is how it should be, and that the problems of the world will be sorted out within capitalism

Who beleives that Capitalism will not fall apart, or hopes that it wont?

Who beleives that Capitalism is the future?

I do.

Communism was supposed to be that IT and luckily it collapsed [Earthian poor suburbs don't count] [or they do and show that it did collapse;)].

[Ace42]

should the harder worker be allowed to achieve more wealth and capital?

The harder working seldom achieve more wealth and capital. Bill Gates cannot be said to have done "hard work" in any meaningful sense. However, even you, who claimsto be incredibly hard working and thus reaping the benefits, are worth less than a billionth of him.

Do you really think Big Bill works several billion times harder than you? What about tricky Dick Cheney, with his dicky-ticker? Think he works a lot harder than you?

What about George Bush, the great oil-company-buster? He's surely done a lot of hard work on his ranch (as Moore points out) just like the hard work he put in making the oil businesses he was given cave in.

Of course, the kids in sweatshops in India, who all work longer ours in worse conditions than anyone we care to name, they are so lazy and shiftless compared to rappers, models, marketing directors, etc etc.

Fact is that to see a correlation between hard work and the proportional reward through capitalism, you have to have an incredibly narrow focus.

"Well, I worked harder than the guy standing next to me on the production line, so I get more money."

Well, yeah, but there are people working in identical production lines using identical machines, putting in identical work-loads in factories across the world, and their rate of pay varies right across the board.

[ASsman]

Mmmm, the taste of socialism in the morning.

[SobaViolence]

Yup, Purple Jesus Punch(tm) for me...I love Everclear.

after 'sparkle and fade' i kinda lost interest.

plus they went all pussy. bad form.

[Qdrop]

The harder working seldom achieve more wealth and capital. Bill Gates cannot be said to have done "hard work" in any meaningful sense. However, even you, who claimsto be incredibly hard working and thus reaping the benefits, are worth less than a billionth of him.

i am no entrapranuer.
i do not deserve the money bill gates has.
but i do deserve more money than the people i mentioned.....and others like them.
i'm not being ignorant or stubborn....i'm being sensible.


Do you really think Big Bill works several billion times harder than you?

he is many times smarter and more cunning than you or I.

yes, we all know you don't agree....
we are all well aware of your stereotypical sentiments toward rich CEO types.

it gets old.



What about tricky Dick Cheney, with his dicky-ticker? Think he works a lot harder than you?

yes.
ethically?...no.


What about George Bush, the great oil-company-buster? He's surely done a lot of hard work on his ranch (as Moore points out) just like the hard work he put in making the oil businesses he was given cave in.

he got his power and money through "inheritance"....something socialists despise more than anything.
i don't love the idea much either.

hell, we all know that large amounts of power and money tend to stay stationary and get handed down through "inheritance" type structures. but that is the right of those that achieved that original wealth.

what totalitarian right to you or i have to say: "hey, dammit....your great great grandfather amassed this wealth and power...not YOU. you can't have it anymore....we're taking it away and giving it to the "people."


Of course, the kids in sweatshops in India, who all work longer ours in worse conditions than anyone we care to name, they are so lazy and shiftless compared to rappers, models, marketing directors, etc etc.

slanted, stereotypical examples.
virtual red-herrings....and very obvious ones.

why not compare starving crack babies to oil tycoons?



Fact is that to see a correlation between hard work and the proportional reward through capitalism, you have to have an incredibly narrow focus.

no, i don't.
i see it as evident in my own humble life.
for every generic, stereotypical, overboard example you give.....i can give several opposite real world examples.


"Well, I worked harder than the guy standing next to me on the production line, so I get more money."

that's the way it should be.
if it isn't...don't just blaim the system....blame those abusing it.


Well, yeah, but there are people working in identical production lines using identical machines, putting in identical work-loads in factories across the world, and their rate of pay varies right across the board.

work somewhere else.

[ASsman]

Smart? Pff, please. Having no dick is in now way being smart nor cunning. All he did was steal and cheat his way up. Any con-man can.

[Qdrop]

Smart? Pff, please. Having no dick is in now way being smart nor cunning. All he did was steal and cheat his way up. Any con-man can.

kay. must be real easy.

go for it....
then, when you amass your wealth.....give it back to the "people", starting with me.

the clock is ticking.....

[ASsman]

If you gave me the same oportunities Bill had. I'll do it in no time.

[Qdrop]

If you gave me the same oportunities Bill had. I'll do it in no time.

yeah?...well in the meantime...try clearing out your PM mailbox.

[Whois]

after 'sparkle and fade' i kinda lost interest.

plus they went all pussy. bad form.

Not the group, the grain alcohol...

[phinkasaurus]

he got his power and money through "inheritance"....something socialists despise more than anything.
i don't love the idea much either...

hell, we all know that large amounts of power and money tend to stay stationary and get handed down through "inheritance" type structures. but that is the right of those that achieved that original wealth.

why is that the right of "those that achieved that original wealth"? they made it, so they can do with it what they want? well, if you look at where the wealth was actually generated, very rarely do they do it ALL BY THEMSELVES. more often, there are several links in the chain. wasn't it you who used the 'pencil' example?
plus if you are a fan of people working hard and being smarter and more cunning in order to amass their great wealth, how can you defend inheritance? These people are gathering wealth and doing nothing to deserve it. nothing. not working or being cunning or inventing or doing anything constructive in order recieve this capital. All they "did" was be born into a family, something niether they nor their parents had any control over.

since I know you've been reading ParEcon, the following passage should look familiar:

ParEcon, on Remuneration, Chapter 7 (http://www.zmag.org/books/pareconv/parefinal.htm)
Private enterprise market (capitalist) economies distribute consumption opportunities according to personal contribution to social output plus the contribution of property owned, with large allowance, in practice, for the impact of bargaining power. Public enterprise market economies (market socialist or what we call “market coordinatorist� economies) distribute consumption opportunities according to personal contribution only, having removed ownership of productive property from the equation, but with allowance, again, for the impact of bargaining power.

We claim these approaches are inequitable in that they reward people for what does not deserve reward (such as a deed in one’s pocket, advantageous circumstances, or special genetic endowment); mis-reward people for things that do deserve reward if they are onerous (such as training and education); and do not properly reward people for what they have control over, are responsible for, and do merit compensation for—that is, the pain and loss they undergo while contributing to the social product. Contrary to these familiar norms of remuneration, we propose that desirable economies ought to distribute consumption opportunities only according to effort or sacrifice.

Whereas differences in contribution to output will derive from differences in talent, training, job assignment, tools, luck, and effort, if we define effort as personal sacrifice for the sake of the social endeavor, only effort merits compensation. Of course effort can take many forms. It may be longer work hours, less pleasant work, or more intense, dangerous, or unhealthy work. It may consist of training that is less gratifying than the training experiences others undergo or than the work others do during the same period.

[Qdrop]

why is that the right of "those that achieved that original wealth"? they made it, so they can do with it what they want? well, if you look at where the wealth was actually generated, very rarely do they do it ALL BY THEMSELVES. more often, there are several links in the chain. wasn't it you who used the 'pencil' example?

i don't think i used the pencil example, but i do agree with the sentiment of being aware and respecting all contributing members of society. i just don't think you can force that responsibility onto people by taking thier money away.


i guess the real crux of the capitalism vs. socialism debate comes down to ownership and worth.

can one man buy and own factory, and hire people to work in it?
or is that, by socialist definition, unethical?....and the workers should have part ownership of the factory the second they are hired...and share in all profit.

who is worth more? the entrapranuer who brings a profitable enterprise together....or the workers who work under him and do the manual labor?

or must they all be considered equal, thus getting equal benefit?

what is the incentive to be an entrapraneur or management,ect? would there be any?
while the labor stress may decrease...the overall stress increases.
if you disagree with that, then you have never been a manager.

it is easier to sweat and bleed in the labor fields then to plan, execute and be responsible for company success.
i have done both.
it does not take talent or intelligance to be labor....it does to be management.

but why become a manager? why be an entrapranuer?...
why build and run a business?...if you can obtain no monetary increase, what is the incentive?
if you cannot own, how can you progress and amass capital on your own regard?

[phinkasaurus]

it does not take talent or intelligance to be labor....it does to be management.


that is both untrue and insulting.

"labor" can be a monetnous<sp?> and repetiitve act, or it can be a highly specialized intricate series of actions. And simply because one is a manager does not make one more intelligent, nor does management need or require the "smartest" individuals.
your opinion on this matter greatly illuminates your reasoning for a lot of your economical beliefs. are all those laborers just too stupid or unintelligent to move up to management? this sounds like the same reasons the KKK gave for why the non-whites are doing are the hard work, "they're better suited for it"





and thanks for responding to the ParEcon quote.

[Ace42]

i am no entrapranuer.
i do not deserve the money bill gates has.
but i do deserve more money than the people i mentioned.....and others like them.
i'm not being ignorant or stubborn....i'm being sensible.

No, you are being pig-headed. Bill Gates does not deserve the money he has.

he is many times smarter and more cunning than you or I.

Than you. But this is beside the point. Smartness doesn't equate to wealth. There are plenty of rich stupid people, and plenty of poor smart people. Again, there is no correlation which is what you are trying to imply.

we are all well aware of your stereotypical sentiments toward rich CEO types.

it gets old.

Well, if you want to ignore my arguement because "it gets old" - go for it.

yes.

Then you must be one lazy SOB. And I should know, I am VERY lazy.

but that is the right of those that achieved that original wealth.

Who got other people to achieve it for them.

what totalitarian right to you or i have to say: "hey, dammit....your great great grandfather amassed this wealth and power...not YOU. you can't have it anymore....we're taking it away and giving it to the "people."

That is unnecessary and a misrepresentation. You'd be surprised how quickly capitalists would shed their superflous material wealth when people refuse to sell them food, on the grounds that they have been exploiting them and their families for years. I wonder how many jets the capitalists would sell when people refuse to sell them petrol to fuel them. Not much fun living in a mansion with 3 swimming pools when you can't get any water.

"Well, mr capitalist, the price for those things you suddenly need is now 50% of your entire wealth. Nothing wrong with keeping the prices artificially high, you have a choice not to buy these things of course".

slanted, stereotypical examples.

Ironic, considering you were implying that a socialist system must result in stealing property from the wealthy.

virtual red-herrings....and very obvious ones.

I for one am fed up of you labeling any contrary examples which prove your arguments to be flawed as "red-herrings."

Firstly, this is not a detective novel. They are not "clues designed to misdirect a reader" they are precise real-world examples that punch a massive hole through your argument. They are not "slanted" - we could give you a thousand or more examples of people who work long hard hours for a pittance, and people who sit on their arses for most of the day and rake in a fortune. Now, you might want to put these down to aberations or anomalies (not 'red-herrings') but the fact of the matter is that if you look at the statistics, these people are in a massive majority. It is the wealthy who are the aberations. The only reason you think the majority are "red-herrings" is because like me, you don't see them daily. The difference is that I am not deluding myself that "out of sight, out of mind" and pretending that they don't count.

no, i don't.
i see it as evident in my own humble life.

Hah, you can't get more narrow-focused than that.

for every generic, stereotypical, overboard example you give.....i can give several opposite real world examples.

I can give you several hundred thousand of "real world" examples of children working in sweatshops around the world. Or let me guess, third world poverty is a myth designed to make the wealthy majority feel bad about all the slackers who get what they deserve...

that's the way it should be.
if it isn't...don't just blaim the system....blame those abusing it.

It is not an abuse of the system, it is that the system is intrinsically flawed. There is NO, repeat *NO* correlation between rate of pay and variously:

work done (in kilojoules), intelligence of the employee, the conditions worked under, the hours spent, physical production.

Now, you pick your examples, and do us a little graph measuring all of these factors between you and your buddies, and produce a "line of best fit". Let's see how neatly it fits.

I think you'll find it is spread clear across the board.

work somewhere else.

Hah, that is particularly facile.

[Qdrop]

"labor" can be a monetnous<sp?> and repetiitve act, or it can be a highly specialized intricate series of actions. And simply because one is a manager does not make one more intelligent, nor does management need or require the "smartest" individuals.
good management does.
not everyone can be managment.
most can be labor.

if this upsets you, then reality upsets you.....thus your need to get lost in ideogical fantasy.

i am learning more about you as well.


your opinion on this matter greatly illuminates your reasoning for a lot of your economical beliefs. are all those laborers just too stupid or unintelligent to move up to management?

many, if not most, of the laborers in my plant would be incapable of supervisory or managment positions.
they have not either the mental inclination, the desire, or the emotional ability to do so.



this sounds like the same reasons the KKK gave for why the non-whites are doing are the hard work, "they're better suited for it"


yes, liken me to a racist.
thank you, phink.



not every person is mentally equal.
it has nothing to with race.

[Qdrop]

No, you are being pig-headed. Bill Gates does not deserve the money he has.

and i say he does.

does not.
does too.
does not.
does too.
ect.

this argument has played out already with no chance of finality.
it's opinion vs. opinion.

(for the love of racer's God, please don't start that "it's not my opinion, but rather objective truth and fact that bill gates does not deserve his money" shit)



Than you. But this is beside the point.

yeah, you're smarter than bill gates.
go ace.
you rule, dude.


Smartness doesn't equate to wealth. There are plenty of rich stupid people, and plenty of poor smart people. Again, there is no correlation which is what you are trying to imply.

your twisting.
i am equating smartness to enrtrapranuership (fuck the spelling), not to wealth.
successful entrapranuers are not stupid.
successful entrapranuers deserve all the money they can make....(as long as it from ethical practice).

*now comes the "what's ethical" debate*


Well, if you want to ignore my arguement because "it gets old" - go for it.

old, ignorant, stereotypical, contrived, generic.....
take your pick.


And I should know, I am VERY lazy.

i gathered.
as are most socialists.

if you weren't lazy, you would probably not be living with your parents, and would not spend the bulk of you time chattin on the internet and playing videogames.

i don't mean to personally attack....but your personal life and behaviors DO play a role in your sentiments.



Who got other people to achieve it for them.

good for him.



That is unnecessary and a misrepresentation. You'd be surprised how quickly capitalists would shed their superflous material wealth when people refuse to sell them food, on the grounds that they have been exploiting them and their families for years. I wonder how many jets the capitalists would sell when people refuse to sell them petrol to fuel them. Not much fun living in a mansion with 3 swimming pools when you can't get any water.

"Well, mr capitalist, the price for those things you suddenly need is now 50% of your entire wealth. Nothing wrong with keeping the prices artificially high, you have a choice not to buy these things of course".

like Atlas Shrugged in opposite world.
cute.

hey, go for it....make the market work for you.
let's see how far that will go for you.



Ironic, considering you were implying that a socialist system must result in stealing property from the wealthy.

at this point, i don't see how you could really aviod it.



I for one am fed up of you labeling any contrary examples which prove your arguments to be flawed as "red-herrings."

then stop using them.
that's the bulk of you bag.


They are not "clues designed to misdirect a reader"

that is EXACTLY what they are.
you are aware of this.


they are precise real-world examples that punch a massive hole through your argument. They are not "slanted" - we could give you a thousand or more examples of people who work long hard hours for a pittance, and people who sit on their arses for most of the day and rake in a fortune.

and i could do the opposite.
tit for tat.


Now, you might want to put these down to aberations or anomalies (not 'red-herrings') but the fact of the matter is that if you look at the statistics, these people are in a massive majority.

show me.


I can give you several hundred thousand of "real world" examples of children working in sweatshops around the world. Or let me guess, third world poverty is a myth designed to make the wealthy majority feel bad about all the slackers who get what they deserve...

yeah, that's it.

i have no love for sweat shops, outsourcing, slavery, ect.
and you know this.
don't pretent you don't in efforts to sway the onlookers.

drama queen.



It is not an abuse of the system, it is that the system is intrinsically flawed.

says you.


There is NO, repeat *NO* correlation between rate of pay and variously:

work done (in kilojoules), intelligence of the employee, the conditions worked under, the hours spent, physical production.

i would blame those running the system.
not the system.

let's cut to the chase: you think it's the system that's flawed....i think it's primarily those the run it that are flawed as well as other independant variable from outside the system.

you don't agree?
funny, that seems to be your stance when defending socialisms past failures.

can't have it both ways....ace.

[phinkasaurus]

good management does.
not everyone can be managment.
most can be labor.

and most people, given the right educatonal opportunities could learn to be management. Yes, some are better suited than others, based on individual genetics and personal leanings. But, very rarley is someone too stupid to learn how to manage or organize or maintian an office or plant.

if this upsets you, then reality upsets you.....thus your need to get lost in ideogical fantasy.
good dig. you can label your reality what ever you want, and you do. but you must at least allow me mine.

many, if not most, of the laborers in my plant would be incapable of supervisory or managment positions.
they have not either the mental inclination, the desire, or the emotional ability to do so.
and many people if not most do not get the same educational and societal opportunities that your Bill Gates and your Trump and your [insert wealthy capitalist here] have had. If you can say the playing field was level, than show me how some people are too stupid to be in management, I would and could agree with you. But the facts are the real reality. It's hard to better educate yourself when have to work since age 4 in a factory in Malaysia. Or when you have to leave your Medical industry job in a large urban area to move to the u.s. where the 6$ an hour you make as a bus boy pay more. there are many more red herrings I could throw out.
conversley, when your parents can pay for the finest schools and send you to all the right parties, then learning all the needed management skills is abit easier. If you can find the space between your golf game and your horse riding lessons, that is.


not every person is mentally equal.
it has nothing to with race.
I agree. I was simply pointing out the argument you made has been made before. By racists and fascists alike. that's all.

[Qdrop]

and most people, given the right educatonal opportunities could learn to be management. Yes, some are better suited than others, based on individual genetics and personal leanings. But, very rarley is someone too stupid to learn how to manage or organize or maintian an office or plant.
you'd be surprised.

but yes, point taken.


and many people if not most do not get the same educational and societal opportunities that your Bill Gates and your Trump and your [insert wealthy capitalist here] have had. If you can say the playing field was level, than show me how some people are too stupid to be in management, I would and could agree with you. But the facts are the real reality. It's hard to better educate yourself when have to work since age 4 in a factory in Malaysia. Or when you have to leave your Medical industry job in a large urban area to move to the u.s. where the 6$ an hour you make as a bus boy pay more. there are many more red herrings I could throw out.
conversley, when your parents can pay for the finest schools and send you to all the right parties, then learning all the needed management skills is abit easier. If you can find the space between your golf game and your horse riding lessons, that is.

but why do you blaim capitalism for this?
if capitalism was run "correctly" AND proper priorities were placed on education and health care WORLD WIDE, many of these situations you speak of would be addressed.
capitalism is not to blame.
and socialism is not the answer.



I agree. I was simply pointing out the argument you made has been made before. By racists and fascists alike. that's all.
given EXACTLY the same environmental backdrop, you would still never have pefect aptitude equality. or even close to it.
capitalism allows for people to take advantage of thier higher aptitudes (do NOT read as: "to take advantage of others).
socialism does not , IMO.

yes, capitalism does ALLOW for some to expliot others, as in the privaledged exploiting the working poor, ect.

in a sense, while capitalism does not require a class of poverty to work....it does require that not all (in fact, few) can be very wealthy.

their must be labor....and lots of it....

capitalism, though, does not require the labor (or non-wealthy) to be empoverished.

while not all can be wealthy, all can be comfortable...IF the system is kept in check...
it is regulated capitalism that will allow for all to be comfortable.... not socialism.

fix the system.....purge the purpatrators....

allow room for ALL to compete and get a piece of the pie....not everyone can be equal....but all could have a chance at comfortable life.

[phinkasaurus]

in a sense, while capitalism does not require a class of poverty to work....it does require that not all (in fact, few) can be very wealthy.
their must be labor....and lots of it....
capitalism, though, does not require the labor (or non-wealthy) to be empoverished.
while not all can be wealthy, all can be comfortable...IF the system is kept in check...
it is regulated capitalism that will allow for all to be comfortable.... not socialism.

actually capitalism needs there always to be an empoverished class of laborers. that way you can keep the cost of labor down and maintain the complete dominance over the working class. if people are struggling, they will take your shitty job over starving.
what you hope for is that the money making capitalists will want to not totally exploit their workers, when there is no reason they shouldn't. more money, more capital, more wealth, more VOTES. (remember your association?)


allow room for ALL to compete and get a piece of the pie....not everyone can be equal....but all could have a chance at comfortable life.

why can't all have a comfortable life?
why does it have to be a competition?
why can't we create as much equality as possible, taking into account and celebrating our innate differences and strenghts?
why won't you read ParEcon?

[Qdrop]

actually capitalism needs there always to be an empoverished class of laborers. that way you can keep the cost of labor down and maintain the complete dominance over the working class. if people are struggling, they will take your shitty job over starving.

that is a brutally stereotypical view.
and factually unsound.



why can't all have a comfortable life?

i said all could...in the last post.


why does it have to be a competition?

that's nature.
and competition allowed for virtually all of human kinds great advances since we were swinging in trees...
competition breeds progress.

if we stopped competing....we would die faster then pollution would ever kill us.


why won't you read ParEcon?

i started....
let's trade.....i read ParEcon and you read....ummm....how about: Capitalism, Democracy, and Ralph's Pretty Good Grocery.
by John Mueller (it's on amazon)

[phinkasaurus]

that is a brutally stereotypical view.
and factually unsound.

how so?

if this was not the case, why are jobs being outsorced to the most impoverished countries? why are all the advancements in labor rights and minumum wage gained after hard fought battles with the capitalist class? and why are profits always put above people? ALWAYS.

and I'll read that book, once I can find a free copy at my local library. I am not giong to pay for a book that seeks to tell me capitalism actually encourages the most altrusitc behaviour from humans.

I gave you a free book about alternatives to capitalism and you gave me a book that costs money telling me how awesome capitalism is. Isn't that ironic?

[Ace42]

and i say he does.
it's opinion vs. opinion.

And your opinion is that he deserves more wealth than most nations can spend on their entire military for a spot of buggy coding that he ripped off from xerox 30 years ago...

As opinions go, is is pretty dumb.

yeah, you're smarter than bill gates.

Easily.

your twisting.
i am equating smartness to enrtrapranuership (fuck the spelling), not to wealth.

successful entrapranuers are not stupid.
successful entrapranuers deserve all the money they can make

Bullshit. Plenty of "Sucessful entrepreneurs" are posers and fuckwits. I've met a few. Many are only sucessful because they have competent and hard working staff who are working their arses off to keep head-in-the-clouds managing director in Jags and Mercs. And they are *not* making money, they are merely receiving it as the functions of the corporations they own (and not necessarily manage) are carried out autonomously.

Again, they make money solely by virtue of ownership, not actual work.

old, ignorant, stereotypical, contrived, generic.....
take your pick.

All of those are exceptional. In that they are blanket dissmissive responses which don't have any value, apart from creating the illusion of multiplicity when you don't have any *relevant* criticisms whatsoever.

"Your arguments are old..." - Yep, so are the ones on why the world can't be flat.

"Your arguments are ignorant" - except they follow clear and rational reasoning.

"Your arguments are stereotypical" - in that they have onions strung around their neck, striped shirts, eat a lot of cheese and go "haw-hee-haw" or merely that most non-capitalists use them to point out the flaws in the system? Funny how "widely supported" becomes "stereotypical" when it is something you don't personally believe.

"Contrived" - and stereotypical and generic? Are they stereotypically copying a contrived genre? It is your posts that constantly read like a murder-mystery with references to "red-herrings"

if you weren't lazy, you would probably not be living with your parents, and would not spend the bulk of you time chattin on the internet and playing videogames.

Yeah, I'd be running for veep and orchestrating the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis like a busy little beaver. And like tricky dick Cheney, I'd be doing laps around the white house while doing all these executive high-powered deals. Because, getting on the blower and telling an underling to get the spin-doctors working is like running a marathon. Dick Cheney deserves his wealth, because any person who can make a few phone calls a day, then hit the golf-course before evening *and* look after a weak heart must be a real workaholic...

i don't mean to personally attack....but your personal life and behaviors DO play a role in your sentiments.

Hell yeah. If *I* consider something lazy, then that means it is lazy.

hey, go for it....make the market work for you.
let's see how far that will go for you.

(...)
at this point, i don't see how you could really aviod it.

Like I said, it is not something you can do alone. However, all it takes is for a concensus among the people who *DO* work productively, and these rich and powerful people would be neither.

then stop using them.
that's the bulk of you bag.

What, citing the numerous examples which disprove your arguments? Yes, yes it is. You might be able to dismiss incongruece information without batting an eyelid (ironic considering your fondness for accusing everyone else of suffering from cognitive dissonance) but for those of us who dabble in Socratic Method, these exceptions prove that your assertion is flawed. Imprecise at least, and just plain wrong at worst.

that is EXACTLY what they are.
you are aware of this.

I'm aware that you are unable to accept anything which doesn't suit your preconceived notions. Red-herring, generic, stereotypical, etc etc. These are just labels you use to dismiss things that are too unconfortable to deal with.

and i could do the opposite.
tit for tat.

How, precisely, could you give a list of people who earn *exactly* the right amount for the amount of work they put in? And exactly HOW would you go about compiling this?

And how would that support your point? We are saying capitalism is unfair. Merely showing some examples where it does benefit some people does not make it *fair* - as long as there are even a few cases where it is legitimately unfair, that makes it *unfair*. No matter how many mitigating examples you can give, that doesn't make it fair.

It would be like a game where one player starts with arbitrary penalties against him saying "this is an unfair game" and all the other players saying "look, it's all the same for US."

The game's still unfair, no matter how many other people are not penalised. Adding people does not make it "fairer" it merely makes the injustice harder to see and easier to ignore.

Which is precisely what you are doing, rationalising.

show me.

Once again, I have to spend time and effort searching for links to show you what I already know...

A quarter of the world’s population, 1.3 billion people, live in severe poverty

Just FYI, US citizens make up less than 1/21st of the world's population. By My reckoning, you'd need another four USAs before the richest people in the world evened up the numbers with the poorest. And that is discounting the number of US citizens who are poverty-stricken themselves. I don't have the heart to google for that, and subtract that percentage from the 1/21st.

Nearly 800 million people do not get enough food, and about 500 million people are chronically malnourished..

The US currently have a population of 295,668,976, so again, even if you equate the US with a prosperous nation on the whole, that is still several times short of people who are starving.

The net wealth of the 10 richest billionaires is $ 133 billion , more than 1.5 times the total national income of the least developed countries.

Now, according to you, these entrepreneurs deserve every penny. That implies that those ten individuals work harder than the entire population of several nations. By my recoking, that means their work (not their companies, which would function without them) has to take several million hours per day. Are you proposing they have time-machines?

http://www.undp.org/teams/english/facts.htm

Those snippets come from the UN development program.

i have no love for sweat shops, outsourcing, slavery, ect.
and you know this.
don't pretent you don't in efforts to sway the onlookers.

I never said you did. However, you are arguing for a system for which these things are the epitome.

i think it's primarily those the run it that are flawed as well as other independant variable from outside the system.

you don't agree?
funny, that seems to be your stance when defending socialisms past failures.

can't have it both ways....ace.

The difference is that, as you admit, communism looks good on paper. Capitalism's inherant principle does not "Look good on paper" and it is a flaw which permeates the system. And the fact that the system is subject to external variables shows just how insular and artificial the system is, a point I made earlier, I believe. While that also applies to communist states so far, I have said previously that they were artificially instituted in a very contrived manner, and thus are no better.

However, you blame the people in charge? Just what criterion would you use for establishing the fair rate of pay in the meritocracy? Would it be a linear representation of the complexity of the task? If so, astro-physicists would be tearing in he billions, and the bullshit CEOs would be lower paid than their various under-managers who actually have to do more than attend lunches and hang out on the links. Ditto for the rarity of the qualifications. Complicated sciences are a lot harder to find proficient or superlative individuals in than it is to find a guy who gets his staff to do everything for them.

if capitalism was run "correctly" AND proper priorities were placed on education and health care WORLD WIDE, many of these situations you speak of would be addressed.

If by "properly" you mean in a way that is in direct violation with the inherant principle of capitalism, IE the centralisation of wealth. To centralise wealth, that means it must be stacked in an increasingly narrow and pointy pyrimid, and skimmed off the wealth of the workforce.

Choosing to give some of the money to the poor "because it benefits society is... Buh buh buh, Socialist.

capitalism, though, does not require the labor (or non-wealthy) to be empoverished.

Ah, but it does. If all the workers were "comfortable" then they would not be obliged to work or consume, thus reducing profits for the wealthy. This is unpermissable under capitalism. Capitalism by its very nature works on hunger. Keeping the working class hand-to-mouth is the very premiss of it. As soon as they are comfortable enough to work less, the system falls apart.

that is a brutally stereotypical view.
and factually unsound.

Says you. Orwell says otherwise. Besides, you cannot have an increase in wealth without an increase in production. You cannot have an increase in production without an increase in resources. The entire global capitalist system is based around unrenewable resources, the US alone already consumes more than 3x the sustainable amount of *world* resources on its own. Exporting that level of consumerism is more than just unfeasible. Fortunately, this is not necessarily the case for food, as food is generally produced from renewable agriculture. Fishing, however, is a big exception, as the near extinction of whales from Japanese whaling, and the depletion of European cod stocks can demonstrate.

Anyway, whilst I was looking on that, I noticed the following:

In contrast, countries that relied on preferential trade deals with Europe or America for their primary products - such as Caribbean banana producers - have generally fallen back in the poverty league.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/906238.stm

[Pres Zount]

that's nature.
and competition allowed for virtually all of human kinds great advances since we were swinging in trees...
competition breeds progress.

if we stopped competing....we would die faster then pollution would ever kill us.
No that's bullshit.

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=46803

[Bob]

i didn't really read the rest of the thread but i'm going to butt in anyway

i definitely don't have complete faith in capitalism. left completely unchecked, it could absolutely destroy society...what's best for the market isn't necessarily best for humanity, and we're a society of people, not wallets. an economic system HAS to understand that.

still, i think it's the best idea we've been able to come up with yet. it's not at all perfect but it's a step above what's below it. i'd like to get behind communism, but it's so hard. communism SOUNDS nice, but every time anyone's ever tried it, it ends up being a catastrophic failure. that doesn't necessarily mean that communist societies will always fail, but so far, they all have (the big ones, anyway). it's kind of disenchanting, i'm afraid to try it again.

i like what qdrop said, about capitalism being an engine fueled by greed, that if it's properly regulated will work quite well...i like that alot, actually. sort of, capitalism with a socialist twist. what "twist" means, i have no idea, that's for greater minds than me to figure out.

[Qdrop]

how so?

if this was not the case, why are jobs being outsorced to the most impoverished countries?

partly because they are being forced to by retailers such as Walmart.
(watch that frontline video i linked to on a previous thread-Walmart: the mark of satan).
in order for retailers such as walmart to sell certain products, they force the suppiers to cut costs, cut costs, and cut some more costs....so that walmart can sell for less and less.
in order for manufactures to comply, they have to outsource labor to china and other 3rd world countries to cut costs.....otherwise, Walmart (the biggest retailer in the country by far) will not stock thier product and bypass them to directly to a chinese producer instead.
soo...the manufacturer can either lose the walmart account and go bankrupt (see Rubbermaid), or try and stay alive and outsource.
it's ugly.


why are all the advancements in labor rights and minumum wage gained after hard fought battles with the capitalist class? and why are profits always put above people? ALWAYS.

see above....
manufacturers are slave to the market....



I gave you a free book about alternatives to capitalism and you gave me a book that costs money telling me how awesome capitalism is. Isn't that ironic?
cosmic.

[Qdrop]

And your opinion is that he deserves more wealth than most nations can spend on their entire military for a spot of buggy coding that he ripped off from xerox 30 years ago...

As opinions go, is is pretty dumb.

he saw the potential that Xerox did not.
Xerox had all but scrapped the program. it was sitting on the shelf.
i saw the movie too, ace.

and i've read countles bio's....

i stand by my statement: he deserves what he has.

that doesn't mean Microsoft shouldn't be regulated for anti-trust practices and broken up (ala ATT) as they become too big. which is probably about now.
must protect competition.


Bullshit. Plenty of "Sucessful entrepreneurs" are posers and fuckwits. I've met a few. Many are only sucessful because they have competent and hard working staff who are working their arses off to keep head-in-the-clouds managing director in Jags and Mercs. And they are *not* making money, they are merely receiving it as the functions of the corporations they own (and not necessarily manage) are carried out autonomously.

see, this is what i'm talking about.
we're just sharing stories of "people we have met"...
how does that make you right?
again, we can go tit for tat with such stories.
thier will be no victor.


Again, they make money solely by virtue of ownership, not actual work.

work is not just labor.

seriously, you're unbeleivable ignorant about the business world and what it takes to run and progress a company through management.

i am much closer to it than you and have experiance.......
obviously, you do not.

you are upholding the stereotypical "booksmart, not world smart" charicature very well.



All of those are exceptional. In that they are blanket dissmissive responses which don't have any value, apart from creating the illusion of multiplicity when you don't have any *relevant* criticisms whatsoever.

which is exactly how i feel about your stories about the "bad business people" and "bad busiensses like microsoft and the lot" you keep reciting about.



"Your arguments are ignorant" - except they follow clear and rational reasoning.


rational reasoning?
where?!!?!? you have no experiance in the business world that you criticize!
your making arguments based on generic view points and articles you've read from someone elses point of view- not rational reasoning.
you are "the author's bitch"....

oh yeah..."i know some guys who.."
oh come one....

sounds like the "some of my best friends are black" argument.

you have NO EXPERIANCE IN THE WORLD THAT YOU CRITICIZE. you are a young recent grad with no work experiance you just reads books and articles.

i hold a supervisory position at a nation wide $120million+/year company. (4th largest in the US for our industry) the CEO is literally on the other side of my office wall...i see him daily.
i meet with the Director of Operations daily....
i am IN THIS world that you criticize.

you are not, and have never been.

you read articles.

i talk to and work with the CEO.

hmph...."those that can't....become socialists."


Funny how "widely supported" becomes "stereotypical" when it is something you don't personally believe.

no, it's "stereotypical" because your stance is not based on rational thinking....but rather articles and books and NO real world experiance.



Yeah, I'd be running for veep and orchestrating the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis like a busy little beaver. And like tricky dick Cheney, I'd be doing laps around the white house while doing all these executive high-powered deals. Because, getting on the blower and telling an underling to get the spin-doctors working is like running a marathon. Dick Cheney deserves his wealth, because any person who can make a few phone calls a day, then hit the golf-course before evening *and* look after a weak heart must be a real workaholic...

yes, ace. that's it.
it's either sit in your parents house and play videogames on the internet all day and night
or
"orchestrating the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis like a busy little beaver" and "do laps around the white house while doing all these executive high-powered deals, getting on the blower and telling an underling to get the spin-doctors working is like running a marathon, make a few phone calls a day, then hit the golf-course before evening".

nothing in between.

i can see why the decision is so clear cut to you.

see, again....your youth and inexperiance is shining like a spotlight.



Like I said, it is not something you can do alone. However, all it takes is for a concensus among the people who *DO* work productively, and these rich and powerful people would be neither.

sounds great.
get to work and put it in action.



What, citing the numerous examples which disprove your arguments?

disprove? no.
they counterdict to some degree, but do not disprove.(not the same)
anymore than my recounts disrpove your view.
it's story vs. story.


Yes, yes it is. You might be able to dismiss incongruece information without batting an eyelid (ironic considering your fondness for accusing everyone else of suffering from cognitive dissonance) but for those of us who dabble in Socratic Method, these exceptions prove that your assertion is flawed. Imprecise at least, and just plain wrong at worst.

see below.


I'm aware that you are unable to accept anything which doesn't suit your preconceived notions. Red-herring, generic, stereotypical, etc etc. These are just labels you use to dismiss things that are too unconfortable to deal with.
again, in this case-- no, it's "stereotypical" because your stance is not based on rational thinking....but rather articles and books and NO real world experiance.


How, precisely, could you give a list of people who earn *exactly* the right amount for the amount of work they put in? And exactly HOW would you go about compiling this?

when have i advocated this?
the market sets salaries.


And how would that support your point? We are saying capitalism is unfair.

no system is fair for all.


Merely showing some examples where it does benefit some people does not make it *fair* - as long as there are even a few cases where it is legitimately unfair, that makes it *unfair*.

you just dropped your Logic....pick it up and put it back.


No matter how many mitigating examples you can give, that doesn't make it fair.

and vice- versa.

it not about perfect fairness.
it's about what is pragmatic....what works best for the situation for the most people.
not everyone can be a winner.


Just FYI, US citizens make up less than 1/21st of the world's population. By My reckoning, you'd need another four USAs before the richest people in the world evened up the numbers with the poorest. And that is discounting the number of US citizens who are poverty-stricken themselves. I don't have the heart to google for that, and subtract that percentage from the 1/21st.



The US currently have a population of 295,668,976, so again, even if you equate the US with a prosperous nation on the whole, that is still several times short of people who are starving.



Now, according to you, these entrepreneurs deserve every penny. That implies that those ten individuals work harder than the entire population of several nations. By my recoking, that means their work (not their companies, which would function without them) has to take several million hours per day. Are you proposing they have time-machines?

http://www.undp.org/teams/english/facts.htm

Those snippets come from the UN development program.


you blaim the system.
i blaim those that abuse it.
and those that do not properly regulate and limit the system to promote competition and the spreading of wealth.


I never said you did. However, you are arguing for a system for which these things are the epitome.

they needn't be.


The difference is that, as you admit, communism looks good on paper.

no, i think it works on paper.
while i do support certain socialist sentiments and practices, i don't think it "looks good".


Capitalism's inherant principle does not "Look good on paper" and it is a flaw which permeates the system.

bullshit. you're talking out of your arse.



And the fact that the system is subject to external variables shows just how insular and artificial the system is, a point I made earlier, I believe. While that also applies to communist states so far, I have said previously that they were artificially instituted in a very contrived manner, and thus are no better.

HA! so they both suck?

now's who's rationalising?



However, you blame the people in charge? Just what criterion would you use for establishing the fair rate of pay in the meritocracy? Would it be a linear representation of the complexity of the task? If so, astro-physicists would be tearing in he billions, and the bullshit CEOs would be lower paid than their various under-managers who actually have to do more than attend lunches and hang out on the links. Ditto for the rarity of the qualifications. Complicated sciences are a lot harder to find proficient or superlative individuals in than it is to find a guy who gets his staff to do everything for them.

no.
the market set's the salaries.


If by "properly" you mean in a way that is in direct violation with the inherant principle of capitalism,

incorrect.


IE the centralisation of wealth. To centralise wealth, that means it must be stacked in an increasingly narrow and pointy pyrimid, and skimmed off the wealth of the workforce.

incorrect.
if regulated and capped, the centralization can only go so far...enforcing constant competition with no chance of monopoly.
rather than 2 or 3 giant Pyramids....you would have about "1000" in each industry (random number), and they could get no bigger....thus they must constantly improvise and innovate to stay alive...they cannot buy out competition..they must compete.
this includes competative salaries for the workers and proper working conditions....ect.


Choosing to give some of the money to the poor "because it benefits society is... Buh buh buh, Socialist.

i wouldn't say "give"....that would be in direct contrast to the "give a fish, teach to fish" parable....
but yes, it is somewhat socialist.
i'm fine with that.


Ah, but it does. If all the workers were "comfortable" then they would not be obliged to work or consume,

the fuck are you talking about?
in order to mantain that comfort, they must continue working. earn thier paycheck and mantain their comfort.
i think you are confusing this with socialism...har de har har.


Capitalism by its very nature works on hunger. Keeping the working class hand-to-mouth is the very premiss of it. As soon as they are comfortable enough to work less, the system falls apart.

bullshit.
capitalism allows for workers to work harder and move up...progress and gain more wealth. which everyone wants.


socialism does not.

poverty is not required to keep workers working.

incentive is required.--which socialism does not have.


You cannot have an increase in production without an increase in resources. The entire global capitalist system is based around unrenewable resources, the US alone already consumes more than 3x the sustainable amount of *world* resources on its own. Exporting that level of consumerism is more than just unfeasible.

agreed.
but capitalism itself is not based on unrenewable resources, it does (currently) run off them though.

[EN[i]GMA]

I'm coming out of exile to post this: http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/2005/03/10/cz_lk_lg_0310billintro_bill05.html

Until later.

Resume booing and hissing

[Qdrop]

GMA']I'm coming out of exile to post this: http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/2005/03/10/cz_lk_lg_0310billintro_bill05.html

Until later.

Resume booing and hissing

the point being that many of are non-american or don't come from an american capitalist system?

[EN[i]GMA]

the point being that many of are non-american or don't come from an american capitalist system?

'More than half of them are entirely self-made.'

EDIT: But those are actually very good points as well.

[ASsman]

AH SHIT! Bring it BACK JO!

Round 2.

Ding, Ding.

[Pres Zount]

capitalism allows for workers to work harder and move up...progress and gain more wealth. which everyone wants.


socialism does not.


socialism gives no incentive to work?

Like "Human Nature", this is another common myth repeatadley spouted by the capitalist apologisers, and it's just as easy to debunk as well.

The main problem is that obviously Qdrop has NO IDEA what Socialism is AT ALL. He's heard this crap on TV or in some anti-commie book from the 50's. To put it simply, a Socialist run economy does not mean that everyone is paid the same, or that peole who do more work, or more demanding work, are not rewarded. This is straight up trippin!

Here we go:

Socialism DOES pay more money for more work.
Socialism DOES pay more money for harder or more trained (doctors etc) work.

Learn what you are talking about!

Socialism is the transitional period between Capitalism and Communism. Therefore, there will be remenants of the old system for as long as necessary (police, state, some market economy, wages labour), much like there is still remenants of Feudalism in todays society.


Nowadays the incentive to work harder is "work so you can pay your rent, your mortgage, your interest on credit card and school loans, your over-priced food, healthcare, transportation, and so on: or STARVE". THAT is the only incentive capitalism offers us! Why work more efficiently at work if you know you have to be there for 8 hours no matter what?



And do I even have to bother arguing that most workers do not "move up"?

[Uru-Nitro]

capitalism allows for workers to work harder and move up...progress and gain more wealth. which everyone wants.

socialism does not.

socialism allows for people to live

capitalism does not

[Ali]

Socialism is the transitional period between Capitalism and Communism. Therefore, there will be remenants of the old system for as long as necessary (police, state, some market economy, wages labour), much like there is still remenants of Feudalism in todays society.


Nowadays the incentive to work harder is "work so you can pay your rent, your mortgage, your interest on credit card and school loans, your over-priced food, healthcare, transportation, and so on: or STARVE". THAT is the only incentive capitalism offers us! Why work more efficiently at work if you know you have to be there for 8 hours no matter what?
Socialism just means higher taxes and better public services. The incentive to work hard and earn more is still there, you just pay more tax for the same services, that's all. Any French or Swedish person will tell you that there's very little other difference, essentially.

Communism does not and cannot exist on a global or national scale. It exists only at a very local level, within a small community and operates on the basis of mutual trust and the exchange of favours, instead of currency. The moment you introduce currency, you exclude all chance of Communism working at all. But it doesn't have to be all-or nothing. You can have small co-operative communities existing and operating very well on a local level, within a larger Capitalist or Socialist or Capitalist/Socialist society. On a National scale, people can earn a salary and pay taxes, but on a local level, communities can co-operate to grow food, make things and exchange services instead of money. This happens naturally, in rural Scotland, for example, where people don't earn much, but manage to maintain a better standard of living through this local 'favour currency' than they would if they were entirely dependant on what their income can buy them. Here (http://nerve.fugacious.net/drf/archives/000173.html) is something I wrote when I was young and idealistic, trying to set up a Self-Sufficient Community Network in Cape Town, South Africa.

[Qdrop]

socialism gives no incentive to work?

The main problem is that obviously Qdrop has NO IDEA what Socialism is AT ALL. He's heard this crap on TV or in some anti-commie book from the 50's. To put it simply, a Socialist run economy does not mean that everyone is paid the same, or that peole who do more work, or more demanding work, are not rewarded. This is straight up trippin!

granted, i will be the first to admit i often get socialism and communism confused...and am in the process of researching and reading more about it (to heed my own advice).
however, i have YET to have one person write thier ideal socialist society and how it would work- in comparison to capitalism.
i have asked several on this board to do so...none have made an attempt...curious.


Here we go:

Socialism DOES pay more money for more work.
Socialism DOES pay more money for harder or more trained (doctors etc) work.

hmmm....sounds like capitalism.
what's the advantage?


Nowadays the incentive to work harder is "work so you can pay your rent, your mortgage, your interest on credit card and school loans, your over-priced food, healthcare, transportation, and so on: or STARVE". THAT is the only incentive capitalism offers us! Why work more efficiently at work if you know you have to be there for 8 hours no matter what?

ah christ....
another sentiment that reeks of someone who is just fusterated with thier own lack of success.

it's funny how you never hear people who are doing well for themselves (and no, i don't just mean the filthy rich) yelling the virtues of socialism.

again, "those that can't....become socialists".

i just can't get over the fact that virtually all of the pro-socialist people i have met (including my best friend) seem to have the same MO: barely getting by, not many bright future prospects, repeated bouts of financial insecurity and debt....
hmmm.....wonder if that has anything to do thier personal lives....rather than just pure "rational thought" on the subject.


And do I even have to bother arguing that most workers do not "move up"?
i do....
i am not rich...never will be.
i paid my way through college and grad school.......i worked hard at my job in my industry.....changing jobs when i found a competing one that was better suited for me and paid more.
i got a promotion and a raise...
i used the prospect of moving to another competing company as leverage to get more money at my current job (free market competition at work)...
i have never explioted anyone...
i do not walk on the backs of the poor.
i am very happy.

tell me....what am i doing wrong?
how would socialism make my life better?

those that are the "labor" at my plant often make a higher salary then i do with their overtime pay...alot more.
they have no union....nor have they shown any interest in one ( i know many of them personally).
my US company has a track record of being among the safest in the country.
our benefits are top notch.
tell me, how would socialism make me and the other workers at my plant's lives better?

[ASsman]

Hahaha.

[Schmeltz]

"Completely self-made billionaires"? What a crock of shit. Yeah, I'm real sure those men had nobody else helping them out... like armies of wage slaves with no capital assets, forced to market their labour to keep from starving.

Keep dreaming.

Equally, Q, one can note that most of the pro-capitalist people you will find are those who haven't been disadvantaged by the system. This doesn't mean that capitalism works for everybody except for people too lazy to take advantage of it, that's an assumption as baseless as the ones you decry. Just because you're winning out doesn't mean that somebody else who works just as hard is going to as well. And you do walk on the backs of the poor; all of us wealthy enough to use a computer do - it's just that we're far removed enough from their experience not to realize it. Do you buy your clothes from unionized operations or do you buy them from companies who have eight-year-olds working sixteen-hour days? It might be indirect exploitation, but it's still exploitation; and I'm just as guilty of it as you are, before you call me sanctimonious.

By the by, how'd you get such a fancy job when you can't spell "frustrated" or "exploited"? Competition indeed.

[EN[i]GMA]

"Completely self-made billionaires"? What a crock of shit. Yeah, I'm real sure those men had nobody else helping them out... like armies of wage slaves with no capital assets, forced to market their labour to keep from starving.

Keep dreaming.

Equally, Q, one can note that most of the pro-capitalist people you will find are those who haven't been disadvantaged by the system. This doesn't mean that capitalism works for everybody except for people too lazy to take advantage of it, that's an assumption as baseless as the ones you decry. Just because you're winning out doesn't mean that somebody else who works just as hard is going to as well. And you do walk on the backs of the poor; all of us wealthy enough to use a computer do - it's just that we're far removed enough from their experience not to realize it. Do you buy your clothes from unionized operations or do you buy them from companies who have eight-year-olds working sixteen-hour days? It might be indirect exploitation, but it's still exploitation; and I'm just as guilty of it as you are, before you call me sanctimonious.

By the by, how'd you get such a fancy job when you can't spell "frustrated" or "exploited"? Competition indeed.

But those billionares WERE supposed 'wage slaves' at one point. Your argument has no basis.

And I fail to see how socialism reduces the 'wage slavery'. Society as a whole has to work just as much to produce just as much, barring any unlikely uber-refinements to labor.

Socialism doesn't allow to work 12 hours a week, it's purveyors just sell it as some panacea.

Tell me this: In a collectivist society would people work more or fewer hours and would more or fewer goods be produced?

[ASsman]

Hijos de puta!

[Schmeltz]

My point was that even if these billionaires were humble labourers at one point (which I doubt), they didn't get rich on their own; they got rich by exploiting people with no other asset but their labour power. If people hadn't sold them their labour, they wouldn't be rich, they'd still be slaves to the wage.

I've never heard a socialist tell me that people would only have to work twelve hours per week if I voted him in. You're totally right when you say that a socialist society has to exert just as much labour in order to produce just as much goods, but in a more collectivist society the goods produced are used to the benefit of all. Labour isn't marketed to a class of individuals who accumulate its proceeds for themselves, it is directed so as to benefit the group in general. That's the idea, anyhow.

[EN[i]GMA]

My point was that even if these billionaires were humble labourers at one point (which I doubt), they didn't get rich on their own; they got rich by exploiting people with no other asset but their labour power. If people hadn't sold them their labour, they wouldn't be rich, they'd still be slaves to the wage.

I've never heard a socialist tell me that people would only have to work twelve hours per week if I voted him in. You're totally right when you say that a socialist society has to exert just as much labour in order to produce just as much goods, but in a more collectivist society the goods produced are used to the benefit of all. Labour isn't marketed to a class of individuals who accumulate its proceeds for themselves, it is directed so as to benefit the group in general. That's the idea, anyhow.

That's the idea.

So how is new wealth created?

Why would I create some new amazing product, invest hours in it? Why would I create new means of production?

My belief is that a socialist economy would stagnate or even roll back in time because it couldn't keep up with previous production and there is no incentive to move society forward.

Without those profits you so deride, many capitalists wouldn't have been anything other than exceptional laborers.

Yes, that would be FAR more fair, but you might not be driving a car or using [insert product here].

To put it simply, capitalism creates wealth and socialism maintains it.

Socialism is more equal, but only because everyone is equally poor.

[Qdrop]

Equally, Q, one can note that most of the pro-capitalist people you will find are those who haven't been disadvantaged by the system. This doesn't mean that capitalism works for everybody except for people too lazy to take advantage of it, that's an assumption as baseless as the ones you decry. Just because you're winning out doesn't mean that somebody else who works just as hard is going to as well.
.
so therefore, i should recant my current successes as well as those around me and embrace a another system that may be a step-down for me (likely) because there are others who are not able to compete well (for a variety of reasons, both personal and enviromental)?
stop thinking of myself and others and think of those that have it bad.
the minority that are not doing well are more important then the majority that are doing well (not in abject poverty or deep in uncontrolled debt, and have legitamate hopes of progress in the future).

if it's not "fair" for all, and not everyone is doing well....then it's a unfair system that is unethical.

okay, so by that logic, i could referance ANY socialist or communist system in the world at any point in history and likely find a mass minority (if not majority) that feel the system is unfullfilling and unfair...so therefore socialism is unfair.

who decides if a system is fair?.....those within it?(you will never have perferct consensus)...or the "really smart intellectuals" who can "see a system objectively from the outside" and deam it fair or unfair?


By the by, how'd you get such a fancy job when you can't spell "frustrated" or "exploited"? Competition indeed.
you gotta be fuckin kidding me.
every fuckin person on here litters their posts with typos.
yeah..it's a direct corrolation to our intelligence.

you just make yourself a target for the inevitable typos you will produce.
idiot.

[Qdrop]

My point was that even if these billionaires were humble labourers at one point (which I doubt), they didn't get rich on their own; they got rich by exploiting people with no other asset but their labour power. If people hadn't sold them their labour, they wouldn't be rich, they'd still be slaves to the wage.

I've never heard a socialist tell me that people would only have to work twelve hours per week if I voted him in. You're totally right when you say that a socialist society has to exert just as much labour in order to produce just as much goods, but in a more collectivist society the goods produced are used to the benefit of all. Labour isn't marketed to a class of individuals who accumulate its proceeds for themselves, it is directed so as to benefit the group in general. That's the idea, anyhow.

this leaves no room for the entrapranuer......or the inventor.
who will lead?
why would they bother?

cause they love thier fellow man?

"kum bi ya...my lord....kum bi ya....."
:D

[Schmeltz]

So the only reason anybody ever invented anything new was so they could personally profit from selling it?

I don't deride the idea of profit, I deride the concentration of profit in the hands of a tiny minority, instead of a more equitable distribution of profit to those who produce it - which doesn't mean I support pure communism either. I just believe in balance.

With that in mind, you're asking me to engage in a discussion on terms that I don't actually support. Your entire thinking on these issues - like your belief that under "socialism" everybody is equally poor - stems from your inability to see this issue in anything but starkly extremist terms, as we've discussed before. You can't conceive of any incentive other than monetary profit because you conceive of capitalism and socialism in extreme, purist terms that have no chance of realistic application. Balance and compromise are the key; pure unregulated free-market capitalism is just as unrealistic a notion as a purely classless society. Through a process of constant renegotiation of social and economic relationships, we can (and do) arrive at a system wherein everybody profits and, though inequality might persist, at least it won't be as unjust.

-Edit-

No, Qdrop, I'm not suggesting you do any of those things. And besides, in all likelihood there wouldn't be a step down for you at all - you're the middle class, like me. It's the stupendously wealthy, the people worth more than they can spend, who would suffer most. Any contribution you and I could make could hardly alleviate the situation; whereas the ridiculously rich have the capital to really change things. We stand to gain, you and I. Not that I'm advocating rushing to the barricades.

See my above post for why your other question is irrelevant.

And yes, I do happen to believe that the manner in which a person represents him or herself in the written medium is a direct correlation to his or her intelligence. If you want people to respect your ideas, you ought to look to their presentation and phrase them in as technically pleasing a manner as possible. Sure a lot of people litter their messages with typos. A lot of people are also morons. What kind of comments generally follow ericg's posts? Capiche?

[Qdrop]

So the only reason anybody ever invented anything new was so they could personally profit from selling it?
.
not to knock the innate creative spirit of man (which has genetic roots, btw) but profit does have ALOT to do with it.

tell me, what is the point of a patent?
why was such a system put into place?


I don't deride the idea of profit, I deride the concentration of profit in the hands of a tiny minority, instead of a more equitable distribution of profit to those who produce it - I just believe in balance.
.
regulated and capped capitalism could achieve this.


With that in mind, you're asking me to engage in a discussion on terms that I don't actually support. Your entire thinking on these issues - like your belief that under "socialism" everybody is equally poor - stems from your inability to see this issue in anything but starkly extremist terms, as we've discussed before. You can't conceive of any incentive other than monetary profit because you conceive of capitalism and socialism in extreme, purist terms that have no chance of realistic application. Balance and compromise are the key; pure unregulated free-market capitalism is just as unrealistic a notion as a purely classless society. Through a process of constant renegotiation of social and economic relationships, we can (and do) arrive at a system wherein everybody profits and, though inequality might persist, at least it won't be as unjust.
i agree virtually 100% with this.

[EN[i]GMA]

So the only reason anybody ever invented anything new was so they could personally profit from selling it?

I don't deride the idea of profit, I deride the concentration of profit in the hands of a tiny minority, instead of a more equitable distribution of profit to those who produce it - which doesn't mean I support pure communism either. I just believe in balance.

With that in mind, you're asking me to engage in a discussion on terms that I don't actually support. Your entire thinking on these issues - like your belief that under "socialism" everybody is equally poor - stems from your inability to see this issue in anything but starkly extremist terms, as we've discussed before. You can't conceive of any incentive other than monetary profit because you conceive of capitalism and socialism in extreme, purist terms that have no chance of realistic application. Balance and compromise are the key; pure unregulated free-market capitalism is just as unrealistic a notion as a purely classless society. Through a process of constant renegotiation of social and economic relationships, we can (and do) arrive at a system wherein everybody profits and, though inequality might persist, at least it won't be as unjust.

-Edit-

No, Qdrop, I'm not suggesting you do any of those things. And besides, in all likelihood there wouldn't be a step down for you at all - you're the middle class, like me. It's the stupendously wealthy, the people worth more than they can spend, who would suffer most. Any contribution you and I could make could hardly alleviate the situation; whereas the ridiculously rich have the capital to really change things. We stand to gain, you and I. Not that I'm advocating rushing to the barricades.

See my above post for why your other question is irrelevant.

And yes, I do happen to believe that the manner in which a person represents him or herself in the written medium is a direct correlation to his or her intelligence. If you want people to respect your ideas, you ought to look to their presentation and phrase them in as technically pleasing a manner as possible. Sure a lot of people litter their messages with typos. A lot of people are also morons. What kind of comments generally follow ericg's posts? Capiche?

I rather agree with that statement.

The problem is, where is the correct balance?

[Qdrop]

And yes, I do happen to believe that the manner in which a person represents him or herself in the written medium is a direct correlation to his or her intelligence. If you want people to respect your ideas, you ought to look to their presentation and phrase them in as technically pleasing a manner as possible. Sure a lot of people litter their messages with typos. A lot of people are also morons. What kind of comments generally follow ericg's posts? Capiche?

so are you insinuating that i have an all around poor manner of written speech and grammar?
do i come across as an idiot (jokes aside)?

this is a fuckin internet message board.....not a boardroom.
you sound like my stepfather.

[Schmeltz]

There, ya see? We both believe in balance. You won't find Enigma supporting the idea of "regulated and capped capitalism," but I think a mixture of socialism and capitalism is the way of the future - entrepreneurs and innovators are rewarded with a greater share of monetary and social profit, but the mass of people who labour to implement their ideas receive a share as well. And before you ask, I can't describe the right mix because you can't lay it down in fixed terms. It has to be constantly renegotiated by the respective actors as society changes; change, after all, is inescapable.

Why does the patent system exist? Because rich people make the laws, and they look out for their own interests. They created an abstract system whereby it's socially unacceptable to steal other people's ideas, because it is in their interest to protect the institution of profit. Easy. ;)

-Edit-

No, you're obviously not a moron. But take some pride in yourself, goddammit. Would you take your girlfriend out wearing a potato sack and tell her "Damn, baby, it's not like we're going to Studio 54"?

[Qdrop]

Why does the patent system exist? Because rich people make the laws, and they look out for their own interests. They created an abstract system whereby it's socially unacceptable to steal other people's ideas, because it is in their interest to protect the institution of profit. Easy. ;)

no, no....
patents also protect the average joe from having his invention or idea raped and pilaged by the "big boys".

the average joe can innovate and profit from it....change an industry even.
and the big boys have to pay for it if they want to use it.....they can't just steal it and further their monopoly.

where is this little seguay (yeah bad spelling) even going?
never mind....so off track now.



No, you're obviously not a moron. But take some pride in yourself, goddammit. Would you take your girlfriend out wearing a potato sack and tell her "Damn, baby, it's not like we're going to Studio 54"?
dude, drop it...
this is a fucking stupid argument.
typos mean a lack of personal respect?
what a twat.
and people on this board call ME arrogant.
who the fuck are you tell ME to take some pride in myself?
you don't even fuckin know me.
christ, if you were in front of me right now, i would smack you off your pompous highchair...

then buy you a beer.

[EN[i]GMA]

There, ya see? We both believe in balance. You won't find Enigma supporting the idea of "regulated and capped capitalism," but I think a mixture of socialism and capitalism is the way of the future - entrepreneurs and innovators are rewarded with a greater share of monetary and social profit, but the mass of people who labour to implement their ideas receive a share as well. And before you ask, I can't describe the right mix because you can't lay it down in fixed terms. It has to be constantly renegotiated by the respective actors as society changes; change, after all, is inescapable.

Why does the patent system exist? Because rich people make the laws, and they look out for their own interests. They created an abstract system whereby it's socially unacceptable to steal other people's ideas, because it is in their interest to protect the institution of profit. Easy. ;)

-Edit-

No, you're obviously not a moron. But take some pride in yourself, goddammit. Would you take your girlfriend out wearing a potato sack and tell her "Damn, baby, it's not like we're going to Studio 54"?

Have you by any chance, read the Road to Serfdom?

As a slight side note, I'm much more inclined to more extreme forms of socialism as being viable as more 'moderate' (Read: statist) forms of state socialism. If the system is going to exist, better through an anarchistic compact among like minded men than some heavy-handed state.

[EN[i]GMA]

Let me just post this:

It is important not to confuse opposition against the latter kind of planning with a dogmatic laissez faire attitude. The liberal argument does not advocate leaving things just as they are; it favors making the best possible use of the forces of competition as a means of coordinating human efforts. It is based on the conviction that, where effective competition can be created, it is a better way of guiding individual efforts than any other. It emphasizes that in order to make competition work beneficially a carefully thought-out legal framework is required, and that neither the past nor the existing legal rules are free from grave defects. Liberalism is opposed, however, to supplanting competition by inferior methods of guiding economic activity. And it regards competition as superior not only because in most circumstances it is the most efficient method known but because it is the only method which does not require the coercive or arbitrary intervention of authority. It dispenses with the need for "conscious social control" and gives individuals a chance to decide whether the prospects of a particular occupation are sufficient to compensate for the disadvantages connected with it. The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But the fact that we have to resort to direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function. To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies— these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity. This does not mean that it is possible to find some "middle way" between competition and central direction, though nothing seems at first more plausible, or is more likely to appeal to reasonable people. Mere common sense proves a treacherous guide in this field. Although competition can bear some admixture of regulation, it cannot be combined with planning to any extent we like without ceasing to operate as an effective guide to production. Both competition and central direction become poor and inefficient tools if they are incomplete, and a mixture of the two - means that neither will work. Planning and competition can be combined only by planning for competition, not by planning against competition. The planning against which all our criticism is directed is solely the planning against competition.

Taken from http://jim.com/hayek.htm, which was further taken from The Road to Surfdom by F.A. Hayek.

That right there is a good summarization of what I believe.

Hayek was a little statist for my preferances (He supported the New Deal, supports some minimum wage laws) but I find I agree with him moreso than the more dogmatic and ideological libertarians.

You guys think I'm overly idealistic; I'm not, I just think this form of capitalism is the most pragmatic system.

[Schmeltz]

Anarcho-capitalism like the type advocated on that site is not pragmatic, it is poison and we should all fall down on our knees and give thanks that it will never be implemented, and that we won't have to suffer quite the same viciously feudal society as was endured by so many millions in past centuries.

I like that idea of "planning for competition," though. The description of the tension between the state and capitalism feels similar to the idea of negotiation that I mentioned - so long as the state serves the interests of the general populace, and not exclusively those of the capitalist elite. Unfortunately, so long as governments continue to be dominated by the capitalist elite, there's little scope for the implementation of any theory other than the current reality.

[EN[i]GMA]

Anarcho-capitalism like the type advocated on that site is not pragmatic, it is poison and we should all fall down on our knees and give thanks that it will never be implemented, and that we won't have to suffer quite the same viciously feudal society as was endured by so many millions in past centuries.

I like that idea of "planning for competition," though. The description of the tension between the state and capitalism feels similar to the idea of negotiation that I mentioned - so long as the state serves the interests of the general populace, and not exclusively those of the capitalist elite. Unfortunately, so long as governments continue to be dominated by the capitalist elite, there's little scope for the implementation of any theory other than the current reality.

He's not even close to an anarcho-capitalist, did you read where he advocated hour restrictions, workplace safety regulations and, farther down, a minimum wage?

His idea of 'planning for capitalism' isn't what you think. He doesn't advocate any type of central planning. What he meant was 'planning for competition' by staying out of the market (Within respectable limits, ergo safety regulations) as he stated here:

"Although competition can bear some admixture of regulation, it cannot be combined with planning to any extent we like without ceasing to operate as an effective guide to production. Both competition and central direction become poor and inefficient tools if they are incomplete, and a mixture of the two - means that neither will work."


Where we deviate is just how much regulation is necessary to corral capitalism into working for the common man; I say very little, you say a great deal.

But one thing we very heartily agree on is this:

"he description of the tension between the state and capitalism feels similar to the idea of negotiation that I mentioned - so long as the state serves the interests of the general populace, and not exclusively those of the capitalist elite. Unfortunately, so long as governments continue to be dominated by the capitalist elite, there's little scope for the implementation of any theory other than the current reality."


The government should not play favortists to anyone, man or corporation in it's laws. I don't support giving one person more rights than another, but giving everyone total, fully equal rights.

Government assistance to corporations abhors me as much as it seems to abhor you.

But if you dislike this relationship, why do you support government interferance in the market that can only lead to more of it?

With your regulatory government, isn't the threat of government and business colluding far greater than in even the current system?

It just seems to me that the further codifying the relationship between business and government can do only harm. Far more lethal than government abuses or market abuses are government-market abuses.

It seems illogical to say that to make people more free, you give the government more power.

That's all.

[Schmeltz]

Sorry, I meant that website in general, not the article specifically, when I referred to anarcho-capitalism. My bad, yo.

I suppose I don't have as much faith as you in the goodwill of the capitalist elite. I think that without government intervention in the form of things like minimum wage laws there will only be so much provision made for the needs of the greater mass of people as the market (controlled and dominated by the wealthy) sees fit to allow, and history shows that that ain't much. No matter which way you look at it, capitalism in its purest form doesn't work for the working man, it works for the capitalist. The working man has to make it work for him through a process of negotiation and compromise wherein he takes a hand in setting the value of his own labour. This can be done through the regulatory actions of his elected representatives, or through the kind of mass class conflicts that are more destructive to the social and economic fabric than any amount of government regulation, but either way it's going to be done.

When the government is the people (and I submit that in most places in the world, it is decidedly not), then giving it more power is inherently liberating for the vast majority of citizens. I say that government should indeed play favourites - it should always be biased in favour of those who are subject to exploitation by others with greater economic clout. Again, this isn't to say that the process should go so far as to erode entrepreneurship and competition to the point of stultification - balance, after all, is the key. The threat of government and business collusion is mitigated through the constant process of democracy: a government that fails to safeguard the interests of the people simply isn't returned to power. Likewise, too much government regulation, even for a good cause, will produce economic regression - history shows us that lesson as well.

The only productive guarantor of equal rights before the law is a degree of statist regulation by democratic governments. If that leads to some interference in the market - too bad. People come before ideology. The trick is to limit that regulation to the point where the interests of all are served to a satisfactory degree, which inevitably involves compromise on the part of both the elite and the majority. To forge a progressive, comprehensively beneficent society we need compassionate arbitration, not invisible artibration. Government - constantly monitored, renewed, and checked - is the only possibility.

[EN[i]GMA]

Sorry, I meant that website in general, not the article specifically, when I referred to anarcho-capitalism. My bad, yo.

I suppose I don't have as much faith as you in the goodwill of the capitalist elite. I think that without government intervention in the form of things like minimum wage laws there will only be so much provision made for the needs of the greater mass of people as the market (controlled and dominated by the wealthy) sees fit to allow, and history shows that that ain't much. No matter which way you look at it, capitalism in its purest form doesn't work for the working man, it works for the capitalist. The working man has to make it work for him through a process of negotiation and compromise wherein he takes a hand in setting the value of his own labour. This can be done through the regulatory actions of his elected representatives, or through the kind of mass class conflicts that are more destructive to the social and economic fabric than any amount of government regulation, but either way it's going to be done.

When the government is the people (and I submit that in most places in the world, it is decidedly not), then giving it more power is inherently liberating for the vast majority of citizens. I say that government should indeed play favourites - it should always be biased in favour of those who are subject to exploitation by others with greater economic clout. Again, this isn't to say that the process should go so far as to erode entrepreneurship and competition to the point of stultification - balance, after all, is the key. The threat of government and business collusion is mitigated through the constant process of democracy: a government that fails to safeguard the interests of the people simply isn't returned to power. Likewise, too much government regulation, even for a good cause, will produce economic regression - history shows us that lesson as well.

The only productive guarantor of equal rights before the law is a degree of statist regulation by democratic governments. If that leads to some interference in the market - too bad. People come before ideology. The trick is to limit that regulation to the point where the interests of all are served to a satisfactory degree, which inevitably involves compromise on the part of both the elite and the majority. To forge a progressive, comprehensively beneficent society we need compassionate arbitration, not invisible artibration. Government - constantly monitored, renewed, and checked - is the only possibility.

It isn't goodwill, it's just business.

As of now, only 8% of workers are on minimum wage so it isn't really a huge percantage. I could go into all the arguments and what-not but I really don't feel like it.

I'm even willing to concede a minimum wage (It isn't BAD per-se, just not good) if it will save the market from more regulation.

Also, I think you place to much faith in 'the people' and not 'persons'. As much as you may or may not like it, society isn't so much 'the people' as it is a bunch of individuals or individual family units.

What's best for the people is often very bad for some persons. I fear that this is a case of this.

I really think you need to read The Road to Serfdom; Hayek talks about just this, democratic socialism, and how it is essentially the same thing. It erodes freedom the same way, albeit at a slower rate.

But what scares me is this, states that attempt this sort of thing, to degrees only slightly greater than the U.S., are almost universally failing.

Germany, France, Sweden, etc, are all having significant problems keeping their massive states afloat. I doubt the long term validity of socialism.

I think it works in the short term only by stagnating growth (Redistributing the capital downwords), and once the growth slows, and more people grow old, are born, or vote for more spending, the state is fucked.

It can't increase taxes, the people aren't making enough. It can't tax businesses, they aren't growing fast enough, it can't cut spending, the people won't go for it, it can't more finely tune the economy, the economy has stagflated.

This seems to be what's happening, from my amatuer economics perspective.

I forsee bad things happening to the EU very shortly in regards to it's economics.

You can quote me on that; with the rise of China and India and the (I predict) resurgance of the US through China and India, Europe could be left in the dust.

And tell me, as a ballpark estimate, how much more legislation do you propose and what form would it likely take?

[Schmeltz]

It isn't goodwill, it's just business.


Exactly. And what we need isn't more business, but more goodwill.


I think you place to much faith in 'the people' and not 'persons'.


Actually, you're right. In this modern world, defining the collective interests of a segmentalized, heterogenous population is difficult unless done only with reference to the most general commonalities. Class structures are less rigidly defined and social mobility is much more prevalent than it was when rhetoric was being written about "the people." But the fact is that the concentration of capital in the hands of a minority means that it is still possible to set the interests of most people against the interests of a few, and even if we do accept that what's good for most persons can be bad for some, is that not preferable to a scenario in which what is good for some persons is bad for most? Isn't that where democracy comes from?

And anyway, surely the rich can draw comfort from their vast amounts of capital, even if they have to suffer some market regulation to protect the interests of the rest of us... it's not like people are going to stop being stupendously wealthy. The wealthy under the current systems can still accumulate more money than they can ever hope to spend - what would be the point of deregulating the market further? What can you do with a hundred billion dollars that you can't do with ten? Or one? Or five hundred million? If hundreds of people have to spend decades earning a pittance so you can putt solid gold golf balls around a green made of emeralds, maybe it's not worth it.


Germany, France, Sweden, etc, are all having significant problems keeping their massive states afloat.


Physician, heal thyself. Surely you're aware that the Bush administration has created the most gargantuan edifice of bureaucracy in history. How many new departments with how many tens of thousands of new employees have been formed in the last five years? Taxes have been cut while spending has increased exponentially - what are the deficit levels now? Almost a trillion dollars when all's said and done? And yet I doubt you'd call the USA a beacon of democratic socialism, or assert that its capital is being redistributed downwards. Any resurgence of the USA can only come about after the current situation is made up for - you have to get back to zero before you get into the positives. What I'd like to see is people working to help each other out, instead of using each other to leave others in the dust.


And tell me, as a ballpark estimate, how much more legislation do you propose


I'm not talking about adding more legislation; as you say, our states are up to their asses in themselves already. I'm talking about a complete revamping of how our societies function, a reduction in legislation if anything. All of the problems we're discussing are of our own making, products of the push-pull between competing groups in increasingly top-heavy societies. But we made all this shit up, all the social and economic systems and the way we interact with them, and we can do anything we want with it - if we can reach an appropriate compromise. Hopefully we can do that before things get ugly and somebody sets off a nuke or something.


I really think you need to read The Road to Serfdom


Maybe I will, he seems aiight. I can't stomach Rand, I get about two sentences down before they start coming back up. But let me ask you this: what freedom do you mean? Do you mean the freedom to live peacefully and healthfully, or the freedom to exploit others for your own benefit? I have no problem with people being less free to erode the interests of others who might not have the benefit of massive capital assets to see them through.

[Pres Zount]

The content of this thread lures me in, but the length escapes me.

Ali: you have mixed up Social-Democracy with Socialism. a common mistake.

Qdrop: I will try to give a guide to a socialist soiety and how it might work. Since one has never fully been achieved, it is hard to predict the future.

[Ali]

The content of this thread lures me in, but the length escapes me.

Ali: you have mixed up Social-Democracy with Socialism. a common mistake.Maybe you could help me understand the difference (http://users.ox.ac.uk/~magd1368/archive/gov98f1/utopians.htm)?
Finally, a short note about the use of the term "socialist", "social-democrat" and "communist". Marx called his pamphlet the Communist Manifesto in order to distinguish his politics from earlier socialists, who tended to be middle-class propagandists without any connection to the proletariat. As these earlier socialist thinkers and groups died away, Marx and Engels and their Marxist followers became more and more content to be called socialists or social-democrats, denying that there was any difference between a "socialist" and a "communist" politics. The German Marxist party, for example, was called the Social Democrat Party, and the party in Russia was the Russian Social Democrat Party, of which Lenin's Bolsheviks made up the majority faction. Because of the "treachery" of the European Social Democrat parties in 1914, when they supported their national governments at the outbreak of the First World War, Lenin revived the older name Communist, as in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and then insisted that parties that supported the Russian Revolution call themselves Communist Parties too. This led to the familiar division we are used to between pro-Moscow revolutionary Communist Parties and anti-Moscow parliamentary reformist Socialist or Social Democratic Parties. And can you tell me whether French (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3575779.stm) Socialism is 'real' socialism?

socialism (http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/socialism)

social-democracy (http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/social-democracy )

[EN[i]GMA]

Exactly. And what we need isn't more business, but more goodwill.


Really, it's more business and goodwill.

Being poor and nice is about as bad as rich and mean in regards to equality.


Actually, you're right. In this modern world, defining the collective interests of a segmentalized, heterogenous population is difficult unless done only with reference to the most general commonalities. Class structures are less rigidly defined and social mobility is much more prevalent than it was when rhetoric was being written about "the people." But the fact is that the concentration of capital in the hands of a minority means that it is still possible to set the interests of most people against the interests of a few, and even if we do accept that what's good for most persons can be bad for some, is that not preferable to a scenario in which what is good for some persons is bad for most? Isn't that where democracy comes from?

Neither is desirable.

What we need is Rule of Law that is fair to everyone, majority or minority, demos or select few, large or small.


And anyway, surely the rich can draw comfort from their vast amounts of capital, even if they have to suffer some market regulation to protect the interests of the rest of us... it's not like people are going to stop being stupendously wealthy. The wealthy under the current systems can still accumulate more money than they can ever hope to spend - what would be the point of deregulating the market further? What can you do with a hundred billion dollars that you can't do with ten? Or one? Or five hundred million? If hundreds of people have to spend decades earning a pittance so you can putt solid gold golf balls around a green made of emeralds, maybe it's not worth it.

I'm not for degegulating the market to make the rich richer(Which is what would happen), or even to make the poor richer (Which is also what would happen) but because it's the fair and morally right thing to do.

But you're getting mixed up here. You're stating that the rich getting richer prevents the poor from getting richer; that just isn't true.

Both the rich and poor can get richer under capitalism, and that is indeed what's happen.

The average poor person today is more well off in niceties and ammenities the richest of the rich were 100 years ago. Even though the gap between rich and poor has expanded, the absolute wealth of both 'the rich' and the 'the poor' has gone up so much, it hardly matters.

And regulation doesn't help the poor so much as it hurts the rich and, by proxy, makes it look like it helps the poor by reducing this 'wealth gap'.

Taking a bunch of money from the rich and pissing it away doesn't make the poor richer, it just wastes a lot of money that could have been used to raise wages, hire more workers or make products available more cheaply.


Physician, heal thyself. Surely you're aware that the Bush administration has created the most gargantuan edifice of bureaucracy in history. How many new departments with how many tens of thousands of new employees have been formed in the last five years? Taxes have been cut while spending has increased exponentially - what are the deficit levels now? Almost a trillion dollars when all's said and done? And yet I doubt you'd call the USA a beacon of democratic socialism, or assert that its capital is being redistributed downwards. Any resurgence of the USA can only come about after the current situation is made up for - you have to get back to zero before you get into the positives. What I'd like to see is people working to help each other out, instead of using each other to leave others in the dust.


When have I ever been a fan of the Bush administration?

And the debt is actually between 4 and 7 trillion depending on which made-up numbers you subscribe to.

I wouldn't say we're a beacon of democratic socialism but a failed experiment in it.

We're nothing like the welfare states of Europe (That are suffering from the problems we are, to generally greater degrees) in our attempts to end poverty but we have far to great a government apparatus.


I'm not talking about adding more legislation; as you say, our states are up to their asses in themselves already. I'm talking about a complete revamping of how our societies function, a reduction in legislation if anything. All of the problems we're discussing are of our own making, products of the push-pull between competing groups in increasingly top-heavy societies. But we made all this shit up, all the social and economic systems and the way we interact with them, and we can do anything we want with it - if we can reach an appropriate compromise. Hopefully we can do that before things get ugly and somebody sets off a nuke or something.

But how? The worst failures of the last century have unanimously been planned states.

What kind of planning could possibly do anything to help?


Maybe I will, he seems aiight. I can't stomach Rand, I get about two sentences down before they start coming back up. But let me ask you this: what freedom do you mean? Do you mean the freedom to live peacefully and healthfully, or the freedom to exploit others for your own benefit? I have no problem with people being less free to erode the interests of others who might not have the benefit of massive capital assets to see them through.

He isn't a great writer but he's smart.

He's no Rand, that's for damn sure.

But he very well states the problems of a planned economy and of using a state to regulate economic concerns.

You use the term exploit interestingly. I would think giving someone a job and providing him and everyone else useful goods and services would be the anti- of exploitation.

[Schmeltz]

Both the rich and poor can get richer under capitalism, and that is indeed what's happen... Even though the gap between rich and poor has expanded, the absolute wealth of both 'the rich' and the 'the poor' has gone up so much, it hardly matters.


Yes - but only thanks to the process of negotiation that informs the relationship between the two. The poor haven't gotten richer due to any generosity or goodwill on the part of the capitalist elite, they have made capitalism work for them by negotiating the role they play within it, as I've been saying all along. The majority aren't better off because the system works in principle, but because they changed the system to make it work in practice. Now you want to undo the very changes that have made the system workable


The worst failures of the last century have unanimously been planned states.


Perhaps - but why? Simply because they've been planned states? There's more to the historical trajectory of nations than economics - or are you a closet Marxist? History is an experiment that can only be run once; planning could very well have turned out better given different historical circumstances. But we'll never know.


I would think giving someone a job and providing him and everyone else useful goods and services would be the anti- of exploitation.


A slave has a guaranteed standard of living and is not subject to the winds of fortune like a dispossessed free person, but nobody would claim that slaves are not people exploited and maltreated to the highest degree. Capitalism is far, far removed from slavery but the fact is that the capitalist sees the employee purely in terms of profit; his investment in the employee is made on the expectation of a surplus return, not for the benefit of the employee. I have no doubt that every good capitalist is willing to give the lower orders only so much as is necessary to maintain the status quo. In that, there is an inescapable element of exploitation. People are merely another resource to be manipulated to a certain end. That's no basis for a progressive society.

[EN[i]GMA]

Yes - but only thanks to the process of negotiation that informs the relationship between the two. The poor haven't gotten richer due to any generosity or goodwill on the part of the capitalist elite, they have made capitalism work for them by negotiating the role they play within it, as I've been saying all along. The majority aren't better off because the system works in principle, but because they changed the system to make it work in practice. Now you want to undo the very changes that have made the system workable

What exactly are you talking about? Labor unions? They've been minor players at best.

The system does work, in principal and in practice. Now, the system isn't perfect or, as you've stated, magananimous, but, it works. None can dismiss the fact that a market comprised of the the free exchange of goods is good for everyone, this goes back to Adam Smith.


Perhaps - but why? Simply because they've been planned states? There's more to the historical trajectory of nations than economics - or are you a closet Marxist? History is an experiment that can only be run once; planning could very well have turned out better given different historical circumstances. But we'll never know.

Being planned states is the only thing they have in common (Along with totalitarian leaders). Now, I'm not absolutely stating a planned state will inevietably fail and turn into to Nazi Germany, neither is Hayek, but that's the basis of the book.

State socialism is the road to serfdom.

Totalitarian leaders are necessary to make a planned state work, are they not?


A slave has a guaranteed standard of living and is not subject to the winds of fortune like a dispossessed free person, but nobody would claim that slaves are not people exploited and maltreated to the highest degree. Capitalism is far, far removed from slavery but the fact is that the capitalist sees the employee purely in terms of profit; his investment in the employee is made on the expectation of a surplus return, not for the benefit of the employee. I have no doubt that every good capitalist is willing to give the lower orders only so much as is necessary to maintain the status quo. In that, there is an inescapable element of exploitation. People are merely another resource to be manipulated to a certain end. That's no basis for a progressive society.

Truly, a capitalism pays his workers in relation to the profit they provide for him.

And you state this is no basis for a progressive society. Maybe not, but it is a basis for functioning, free, society, which I prefer.

Freedom over equality any day of the week.

[Schmeltz]

Labor unions? They've been minor players at best.


By whose interpretation? The trade and labour union movement in America has a long tradition of wrenching concessions out of exploitative, greedy barons of commerce. Furthermore, there are other social and cultural paths to compromise - Irving Sinclair's depiction of the atrocious conditions in the stockyards and packing plants of Chicago sparked the overhaul of the entire industry, for example. I'm talking, broadly, about all the various ways, formal and informal, in which the disparate social actors play their roles to achieve a compromise - the only method of actually making the system workable. Again, if the system does work it's because it is reshaped and reformed in order to be workable, not due to dogma or principle.


State socialism is the road to serfdom.


I don't think I'm a promoter of state socialism as such, but what's the real difference between capitalism and serfdom anyway? The worker still labours for a baron who professes to own the means of production; only by his grace and to his profit are the rest of us permitted to barely get by. Nowadays there's much more scope for meritorious penetration of the system from below (which the elite fought tooth and nail to prevent for hundreds of years) but that doesn't alter the fact that the "freedom" you describe is simply the freedom to exploit others. Fortunately, the system nowadays also provides much more potential for the rest of us to exert some leverage and negotiate our position - another essential difference attained through education, which it seems you'd prefer to see discarded. But you can't turn back the clock.


Totalitarian leaders are necessary to make a planned state work, are they not?


I don't see why, but even if they were I'm not talking about a fully planned state but a continous process of renegotiation and redressal aimed at ensuring a more thorough distribution of the benefits of free enterprise to all the members of society involved in their production.


Truly, a capitalism pays his workers in relation to the profit they provide for him.


No, a capitalist strives to produce the greatest profit margin possible and so pays his workers the bare minimum that they will accept and still keep producing. The workers cannot count on his goodwill (especially since, like you, he values the notion of his personal freedom over any abstract notions of equality) so they have to take it on themselves to get as much out of him as possible. It's a two-way tension with no permanent resolution; it must be subject to constant revisitation in order to be fruitful to both parties.


Freedom over equality any day of the week.


Western civilization is founded on the principle that freedom does not exist without equality. You're not going to get anywhere spouting Dark Age truisms like that - shame to see the Enlightenment passed you by.

[EN[i]GMA]

By whose interpretation? The trade and labour union movement in America has a long tradition of wrenching concessions out of exploitative, greedy barons of commerce. Furthermore, there are other social and cultural paths to compromise - Irving Sinclair's depiction of the atrocious conditions in the stockyards and packing plants of Chicago sparked the overhaul of the entire industry, for example. I'm talking, broadly, about all the various ways, formal and informal, in which the disparate social actors play their roles to achieve a compromise - the only method of actually making the system workable. Again, if the system does work it's because it is reshaped and reformed in order to be workable, not due to dogma or principle.

The supposed gains of labor unions are vastly overstated.

They quite simply, were not a signifigant player, never comprising more than 30% of the work force. It was advances in capitalism that increased wages and decreased hours.


I don't think I'm a promoter of state socialism as such, but what's the real difference between capitalism and serfdom anyway? The worker still labours for a baron who professes to own the means of production; only by his grace and to his profit are the rest of us permitted to barely get by. Nowadays there's much more scope for meritorious penetration of the system from below (which the elite fought tooth and nail to prevent for hundreds of years) but that doesn't alter the fact that the "freedom" you describe is simply the freedom to exploit others. Fortunately, the system nowadays also provides much more potential for the rest of us to exert some leverage and negotiate our position - another essential difference attained through education, which it seems you'd prefer to see discarded. But you can't turn back the clock.

Do you realize how hollow your rhetoric rings? This isn't 1890 anymore, society has evolved infinitely in these last 100 years, for the better for rich and poor alike.

The poor of today are better off than the rich of 100 years ago.

This miracle wasn't achieved via socialism or government intervention or labor unions, it was due to capitalism, and the capitalist system of wages, profits, and labor.

And tell me, how is it exploitation? It is mutually consented to (In leiu of any more of the thousand of occupations that person could take), it benefits both parties, it serves a purpose to society and is utterly fair to each party involved.

What more could you ask for? What is your definition of 'fair'?


I don't see why, but even if they were I'm not talking about a fully planned state but a continous process of renegotiation and redressal aimed at ensuring a more thorough distribution of the benefits of free enterprise to all the members of society involved in their production.

Who negotiates with whom and what do these 'negotiations' entail? They seem to me nothing more than hollow kangaroo courts where the poor continually rob the rich until they are no rich left, at which point society collapses.

Do you know how free enterprise works? The benefits of free enterprise aren't 'given' by anyone or taken by anyone. They are consented to by the parties involved, free from coercion.

How can YOU take what someother person has rightly earned?

How can you use coercion to take from someone what he got from non-coercive means?

How is what you propose any different than robbery?



No, a capitalist strives to produce the greatest profit margin possible and so pays his workers the bare minimum that they will accept and still keep producing. The workers cannot count on his goodwill (especially since, like you, he values the notion of his personal freedom over any abstract notions of equality) so they have to take it on themselves to get as much out of him as possible. It's a two-way tension with no permanent resolution; it must be subject to constant revisitation in order to be fruitful to both parties.

Than why are wages so high? Why are people throughout the Western world so wealth? Why has wealth increased so greatly since the advent of capitalism?


Western civilization is founded on the principle that freedom does not exist without equality. You're not going to get anywhere spouting Dark Age truisms like that - shame to see the Enlightenment passed you by.

There was zero freedom in the dark ages, how is your comment at all relevent?

Freedom supercedes equality. I would rather be free to be unequal than equally unfree.

[D_Raay]

Physician, heal thyself. Surely you're aware that the Bush administration has created the most gargantuan edifice of bureaucracy in history. How many new departments with how many tens of thousands of new employees have been formed in the last five years? Taxes have been cut while spending has increased exponentially - what are the deficit levels now? Almost a trillion dollars when all's said and done? And yet I doubt you'd call the USA a beacon of democratic socialism, or assert that its capital is being redistributed downwards. Any resurgence of the USA can only come about after the current situation is made up for - you have to get back to zero before you get into the positives. What I'd like to see is people working to help each other out, instead of using each other to leave others in the dust.

It's people like this who guarantee my faith in humanity... You are easily my favorite poster Schmeltz.

[Schmeltz]

Aww, thanks D. :)


They quite simply, were not a signifigant player, never comprising more than 30% of the work force. It was advances in capitalism that increased wages and decreased hours.


Again, there's much more to the point than the simple presence of labour unions (whose role I think you dismiss too superficially). But you're not going to make me believe that all the advances in conditions for the working class made in the last century and a half were the work of goodhearted capitalists eager to dispense more of their profits to the bottom. Workers had to fight and suffer (and sometimes die) before they were treated decently - before capitalism could be made to work for them.


This isn't 1890 anymore, society has evolved infinitely in these last 100 years, for the better for rich and poor alike.


Yes, this is true. The question is why? You say because of the capitalist system of wages, profits, and labour - yet you don't explain how that system provided any benefits like minimum wages, hour restrictions, standard workplace conditions, retirement plans, employment insurance, and so on. The fact is that all of those things are set down by legislation drafted by governments providing for the interests of the working man. You seem to think that they naturally accrue to the implementation of abstract principles, but history does not take place in a vacuum. You sound more hollow than I could ever hope to.


What more could you ask for? What is your definition of 'fair'?


You're missing my point altogether. I can't set down a static definition of what amounts to a fair relationship between the wealthy and the poor, it would merely become increasingly obsolete as time passed and society changed. But for society to operate on the basis of equal representation, a framework wherein different groups in society can peacefully negotiate the distribution of profit to the mutual benefit and satisfaction of all parties - I would call that fair. Obviously it isn't fair to outright rob the rich (at least not always); equally it isn't fair for for wealthy capitalists to derive their rewards in the form of the exploitation of others. Balance, as always, is the key.


Who negotiates with whom and what do these 'negotiations' entail? They seem to me nothing more than hollow kangaroo courts where the poor continually rob the rich until they are no rich left


Of course it seems that way to you, you're a purist out of touch with reality. Different groups within society - whether you classify them in ethnic, economic, religious, or social terms (in our society, a complex integration of all of these) - negotiate with each other. These negotiations can entail any of a multitude of formal and informal cultural, social, and economic concessions, but for society to function concessions have to be made. Otherwise violence erupts between groups and society breaks down. If you'd like a good historical example, read a bit about Republican Rome and the Social War fought between the Romans and the Latin Allies, or perhaps the Greek side of the Greco-Persian wars of Classical antiquity.

Your rhetoric of "mutual consent" ignores the tension between groups within society. Workers don't consent to market their labour because of the benefit it will bring others, but because otherwise they'll starve. Capitalists don't consent to hire people because they're interested in distributing profits, but because they cannot produce profits without the labour of others. Symbiosis isn't necessarily consensual, only necessary and, ironically in view of your remarks, coercive to a certain degree - which raises the stakes in negotiation and ultimately makes it essential to the dynamism and survival of society.


Than why are wages so high? Why are people throughout the Western world so wealth? Why has wealth increased so greatly since the advent of capitalism?


There are vastly too many assumptions behind these questions than I can address. Why are people in the Western world so wealthy? Partly because the forms of sweatshop and child labour no longer socially acceptable here are carried on elsewhere to our benefit. Why are our wages so high? Because previous generations fought and suffered for basic standards for all of us, and because wages elsewhere in the world are so low. Why has wealth increased so greatly since the advent of capitalism? Because capitalism works - if we make it work.


Freedom supercedes equality.


No, equality defines freedom. There was zero freedom in the Dark Ages, and there was zero equality as well. Freedom to be unequal means slavery and barbarism.

[EN[i]GMA]

Again, there's much more to the point than the simple presence of labour unions (whose role I think you dismiss too superficially). But you're not going to make me believe that all the advances in conditions for the working class made in the last century and a half were the work of goodhearted capitalists eager to dispense more of their profits to the bottom. Workers had to fight and suffer (and sometimes die) before they were treated decently - before capitalism could be made to work for them.

I have no problem with organized labor or even, if enacted correctly, laws restricting child labor, maintaining workplace safety and making sure mutual contracts are carried out by both sides and coercive contracts are struck down.

At the same time, it needs to be understood that gains of capitalism you so derisively deign to 'goodhearted capitalists' were capitalist inventions.

The advances in all of those areas were necessary extents of the capitalist system. As technology evolved, productivity increased by drastic amounts. Capitalists gained little by working their workers 12 and 16 hours, as opposed to working them 8 and enjoying increased productivity.

A good anecdote is this: In Detroit in the late 1890s and 1900s cars were made. Not a lot of them, but a decent amount. These factories were your stereotypical robber baron factories, unsafe, unclean, workers working 12 hour days for meagre pay.

And you know what? Productivity sucked. Something like 40% of workers didn't show up on fridays, 30% didn't come in on mondays, they didn't work hard, they didn't do their jobs well, they slogged through their days, spending their pittance on alcohol.

The owner of one such plant was Henry Ford. He figured that if he trippled the pay, more workers would work harder, EVERY worker in Detroit would want to work there and he could pick and choose the best and most motivated and fire the lazy and impetitent.

He was right; productivity soared. His manufacturing style made it necassary for every position to be filled so for him, this was a small investment, increasing wages and lowering hours.

He shot to the forefront of the auto industry.

It was like this in every industry since.

This is how capitalism works. It isn't 'nice', Ford wasn't a kindly man who did this for the good of his workers, but he wasn't a bad man either. He was a pragmatic man.

All the altruism in the world does no good when you can't produce the necessary goods. All the cold hearted machinations of capitalist are mana from heaven when they result in a better life for the worker.

All the major advances, work hours, child labor, pay, started with capitalists and were later codifed by the government.

And labor unions were useless. They increased pay for their own members at the expense of non-union members.


Yes, this is true. The question is why? You say because of the capitalist system of wages, profits, and labour - yet you don't explain how that system provided any benefits like minimum wages, hour restrictions, standard workplace conditions, retirement plans, employment insurance, and so on. The fact is that all of those things are set down by legislation drafted by governments providing for the interests of the working man. You seem to think that they naturally accrue to the implementation of abstract principles, but history does not take place in a vacuum. You sound more hollow than I could ever hope to.

Firstly, it isn't really necessary to explain it.

I can't tell you how a pencil is produced yet they most surely are.

Secondly, I can explain it to you. Wages increased as profit and production increased. Wages were raised to attract the best workers, increase worker morale and lifestyle and keep productivity high.

Hour restrictions are very simple. A person cannot do repitive tasks for 12 hours a day and still do them will any level of competance.

Workplace conditions? Death and injury of workers is anathema to capitalists. Talented workers won't work at your dangerous factory, production will be slowed and you will hemmorage money for death settlements.

You will go out of business.

All of the those benefits fall under pay essentially, along with the fact that having healthy workers pays for itself. You can't have your chief engineer die during the big project simply because you wouldn't pay for his pills.

That's poor planning.

All of those things were of capitalist advent, codified later, codified at the expense of workers everywhere.

Exceptions exist, but these exceptions soon go out of business. That isn't to say government should completely stay out of things like workplace safety or work hours, merely that their position should be one of nuetrality and sparse action.


You're missing my point altogether. I can't set down a static definition of what amounts to a fair relationship between the wealthy and the poor, it would merely become increasingly obsolete as time passed and society changed. But for society to operate on the basis of equal representation, a framework wherein different groups in society can peacefully negotiate the distribution of profit to the mutual benefit and satisfaction of all parties - I would call that fair. Obviously it isn't fair to outright rob the rich (at least not always); equally it isn't fair for for wealthy capitalists to derive their rewards in the form of the exploitation of others. Balance, as always, is the key.

You clamor for balance yet can't explain how this balance will work?

Let me slightly restate this; we currently have a system that works exorbitantly well. You propose to replace it with a system where the only definite thing you can say about it is 'It will change'.

Sign me up.

But as for what you stated, profit being distributed is no longer profit.

Profit cannot just be given away, it must be invested in that company. If you just pissed my profits away, why would I strive to maintain a profit margin? Why would I make money when you just take it away?


Of course it seems that way to you, you're a purist out of touch with reality. Different groups within society - whether you classify them in ethnic, economic, religious, or social terms (in our society, a complex integration of all of these) - negotiate with each other. These negotiations can entail any of a multitude of formal and informal cultural, social, and economic concessions, but for society to function concessions have to be made. Otherwise violence erupts between groups and society breaks down. If you'd like a good historical example, read a bit about Republican Rome and the Social War fought between the Romans and the Latin Allies, or perhaps the Greek side of the Greco-Persian wars of Classical antiquity.

I have a basic understanding of Republican Rome and all I know about the Greco-Persian wars is how much of a worthless leader Xerxes was compared to Darius. Getting his kicked at Salamis like that.

Anywho, your point isn't valid. You cannot treat every group as it would like to be treated due to conflicts of intrest. As such, there will always be dissatisfaction.

Treating them fairly is the ideal, but how do you go about it? What is fair to one is often very unfair to the other?

What you need is a Rule of Law that defines what is fair and not fair; like what we have now.

But this Rule of Law, to be fair, has to treat everyone equally.

To use an anecdote of mine: A sport has any number of rules. Basketball for instance, has a set of rules that clearly govern how the sport is played. These rules function because they are mutually agreed upon and more importantly, are fair. They aren't 'equality based' they don't treat Micheal Jordan differently than a high school player. Travelling is travelling. The weaker player doesn't get special rules that help him out and make him equal. That is unfair. It doesn't matter how much he wants travelling to mean 3 steps to him and only him, it's unfair.

But let's imagine a rule that doesn't have any strict meaning, that is fully open to the whims of the majority, or the weak.

Let's say for example, that at the beggining of the second half, in the name of fairness, the ref gets to randomely give some points to a team, generally the losing team, in the interest of fairness.

This rule certainly makes the game more equal, but certainly less fair.

It violates the Rule of Law that any law must treat everyone equally and fairly.

Society must cope with the laws, if indeed those laws are fair. It cannot overule them because it dislikes their fairness.

That's anarchy.


Your rhetoric of "mutual consent" ignores the tension between groups within society. Workers don't consent to market their labour because of the benefit it will bring others, but because otherwise they'll starve. Capitalists don't consent to hire people because they're interested in distributing profits, but because they cannot produce profits without the labour of others. Symbiosis isn't necessarily consensual, only necessary and, ironically in view of your remarks, coercive to a certain degree - which raises the stakes in negotiation and ultimately makes it essential to the dynamism and survival of society.

This is Adam Smith's invisible hand at work. I see no problem with it.

Would a system where people are given jobs because it's the 'nice thing to do' be any better? What if everyone were poor and starving?


There are vastly too many assumptions behind these questions than I can address. Why are people in the Western world so wealthy? Partly because the forms of sweatshop and child labour no longer socially acceptable here are carried on elsewhere to our benefit. Why are our wages so high? Because previous generations fought and suffered for basic standards for all of us, and because wages elsewhere in the world are so low. Why has wealth increased so greatly since the advent of capitalism? Because capitalism works - if we make it work.

And you lambaste me for assumptions.

Child labor and sweatshops, firstly, are the fault of consumers and capitalists alike.

There would be no sweatshops if shoes were not purchased from purveyors of them.

And sweat shot labor is preferable to starvation which is the undeclared alternative. It's not ideal, but it's a start.

Just like in America, things change in regards to working situations.



No, equality defines freedom. There was zero freedom in the Dark Ages, and there was zero equality as well. Freedom to be unequal means slavery and barbarism.

Freedom to be equal is freedom to be exactly like everyone else and serve everyone else over yourself, i.e, not being free at all.

You cannot be free if you serve somone else, by choice or coercion. If I serve society before myself, I'm not free.

End of story.

[yeahwho]

To use an anecdote of yours, Michael Jordon as well as all NBA players, Referees, are Union Workers!

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[EN[i]GMA]

To use an anecdote of yours, Michael Jordon as well as all NBA players, Referees, are Union Workers!

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Good for them.

It just goes to show how pointless labor unions are anymore.

And I'm not against labor unions, as a free-market supporter, I support the right to organize into unions, I just think think their supposed gains are overstated and their tactics often deplorable.

[D_Raay]

Child labor and sweatshops, firstly, are the fault of consumers and capitalists alike.

There would be no sweatshops if shoes were not purchased from purveyors of them.

So, in other words, these companies that participate in these labor practices are , in fact, letting it be widely known in their advertisements that they are engaged in this sort of practice?

I hardly think most of the kids buying these shoes have any idea how they are manufactured. Yet you claim the consumers are as responsible? Ridiculous argument if you ask me. Why the blind faith in a system so easily taken advantage of by fat cats?

You know you are essentially and ironically taking the same view of the American people as Ward Churchill...

[Schmeltz]

Jesus, you haven't understood a thing I've said. I'm beginning to question whether or not this is a worthwhile conversation.


it needs to be understood that gains of capitalism you so derisively deign to 'goodhearted capitalists' were capitalist inventions.


Everything that follows this sentence is dogmatic conjecture. You simply cannot expect me to believe that the capitalist barons of earlier generations simply woke up to the error of their ways; this is entirely a revisionist conclusion that ignores the fundamentals of history. Rather, capitalists were able to philosophically and socially rationalize the developments within capitalism that had inevitably proceeded from the increased education and organization of the workers who made their production possible. It's all part of the process of negotiation: the capitalists of the past made and justified a concession to workers negotiating (in the broadest sense of the word) their position in the system. And it worked! Capitalism became workable and profitable to all the parties involved (although one must supplement this achievement with a thorough understanding of the historical trajectory in which it took place).

Not so much a capitalist invention as the process of fruitful negotiation between two competing groups. This is how social change comes about.


All the cold hearted machinations of capitalist are mana from heaven when they result in a better life for the worker.


Yes, I agree. But the worker has to define, at least in part, the conditions under which those machinations are practically beneficial. Otherwise the system will disintegrate and the society practicing it will wither and die. And if you're going to claim that all the benefits we of the West enjoy today originated purely from the generosity of capitalists, you'd damn well better justify it.


Wages were raised to attract the best workers, increase worker morale and lifestyle and keep productivity high.


The phenomenon you describe was a result of the changes in social thought brought about by the very Enlightenment principles you so vehemently deny. You cannot seriously believe that the capitalist system that operated on the foundation of child labour and culturally-defined exploitation of the poor switched of its own volition, without any external stimulus, to conceiving of the worker as an investment with culturally constructed value. This was a change in thinking brought about by the rise of secular individualism and its adoption as the founding principle by societies due to efforts from below. Randist philosophy dates from generations after Marx and the other great 19th century sociologists; workers' rights came first - and their interpreted adoption by libertarians is a sign of the process of negotiation and concession that takes place between social groups at every level of every society.


Exceptions exist, but these exceptions soon go out of business.


Because capitalism doesn't work for them. This is according to your own logic on the matter - capitalism works best where the terms of its operation function on the basis of a negotiated compromise between all parties involved. This is getting too easy.


You clamor for balance yet can't explain how this balance will work?


I explained exactly how it will work, and how it does work, and how it has always worked since the dawn of civilization. The balance operates in flux as does the society that produces it; it is defined differently and on the basis of social compromises uniquely negotiated by different groups in society over space and time. A system that we would consider balanced might not be considered balanced by our grandchildren. You see? The balance is there whether you want to acknowledge it or not, but it takes a form you might not recognize - particularly if you belong to a fringe group with a weak position from which to negotiate. Which I think you do.


That isn't to say government should completely stay out of things like workplace safety or work hours, merely that their position should be one of nuetrality and sparse action.


Well said. I agree. Justice for all.


You cannot treat every group as it would like to be treated due to conflicts of intrest. As such, there will always be dissatisfaction.


Ah, you're catching on! Yes, dissatisfaction is unavoidable. As are the negotiated social compromises that mitigate it for all parties involved.


They aren't 'equality based' they don't treat Micheal Jordan differently than a high school player. Travelling is travelling.


But this is a complete oxymoron. The very fact that travelling is travelling means that the rule is based on the principle of equality: three steps with the ball is travelling no matter how few points you score - or how many. It's a two-way street: better players don't get to take more steps simply because they've "earned" the right to transcend the rules. And furthermore, global society shouldn't consist of a game that distinguishes between winners and losers. The objective must be to negotiate a way of life beneficial and fruitful for all. We can put a man on the moon but we can't decode a system of social values that espouses mutual benefit and progression? What a depressing, pessimistic view of life you must have.


Society must cope with the laws, if indeed those laws are fair. It cannot overule them


What complete and utter bullshit. Laws are invented by society and can be changed at any time to reflect changes in the negotiated interaction between disparate social groups. We're on the verge of legalizing marijuana in Canada; tell me, how close are you in America? The cultural divergence reflects differences in the negotiated relationships that inform the interaction between the groups that compose our respective societies. We made all this shit up and we can change it anytime we want to.


And sweat shot labor is preferable to starvation which is the undeclared alternative. It's not ideal, but it's a start.


Yes! Well put. As the negotiated relationship between our world and the Third changes over time, so will the economic relationship between the two blocs. Sweatshops are a product of the current round of negotations; it will be a powerful tribute to capitalism if a more just and sophisticated mode of production takes their place, as I think it very well might in a generation or two.


You cannot be free if you serve somone else, by choice or coercion.


Wow. I never expected you to admit that capitalism is inherently an unfree system, given that it is founded on the notion of many serving the few. I congratulate you on your conversion, but advise you to temper your position; many on the internet do not take kindly to such views.

[Schmeltz]

all I know about the Greco-Persian wars is how much of a worthless leader Xerxes was compared to Darius. Getting his kicked at Salamis like that.


Oh, damn. I cannot let this go. You ain't read about Marathon? If any single event can be considered the foundation of the principle of invididualism that is the Classical world's most powerful cultural legacy to the West, it's the immortal battle of Marathon! How can the phalanx of a single Greek city rout a force ten times their size, fielded from an empire exponentially more wealthy and territorially voracious than their own?

No, wait. I'm totally wrong. The stand of the Spartan three hundred at Thermopylae... that is the root of the most pivotal expression of individualism in Western history. And how often do you hear about the two thousand or so helots that stood side by side with the Spartans, fighting to their death to save the society that enslaved them? Those men and the status they occupied are virtually ignored by the Western world - yet those few men had a hand in saving the foundation of our culture.

And how about the Peloponnesian war that followed the defeat of the Persian hordes? The Delian League vs. the Peloponnesian League; the failure of the Greeks to negotiate a compromise that resolved the schism in their society; the monotonous and destructive social dislocation of stasis and the domination of Greece by the barbaric Macedonians? The subsequent stultification of Hellenistic society and its dismantling by the Roman Empire under whom technology and culture fossilized until the West was brought through fire and sword into a millennia of darkness?

Son, you can't know where you're going until you know where you been. Plus ca change, plus ca reste.

[D_Raay]

Excellent.... (y) It's quite enjoyable to read your posts... More often I am hoping..

[Schmeltz]

Come on, man. Don't believe the hype.

I'll keep posting so long as I feel I can put off my term papers, which is probably damn near indefinitely.

[D_Raay]

Yeah I don't mean to come off as a kiss-ass, but you are the most sensical poster I have seen on this topic which has been discussed at nausea....

[EN[i]GMA]

Jesus, you haven't understood a thing I've said. I'm beginning to question whether or not this is a worthwhile conversation.

I think so, I've rather enjoyed it at least.


Everything that follows this sentence is dogmatic conjecture. You simply cannot expect me to believe that the capitalist barons of earlier generations simply woke up to the error of their ways; this is entirely a revisionist conclusion that ignores the fundamentals of history. Rather, capitalists were able to philosophically and socially rationalize the developments within capitalism that had inevitably proceeded from the increased education and organization of the workers who made their production possible. It's all part of the process of negotiation: the capitalists of the past made and justified a concession to workers negotiating (in the broadest sense of the word) their position in the system. And it worked! Capitalism became workable and profitable to all the parties involved (although one must supplement this achievement with a thorough understanding of the historical trajectory in which it took place).

It was a mixture of both. I'm not denying that it was the worker's wish to have higher wages that spurred the change, merely that it occured in the capitalist system and was justified (At least to a great deal) by capitalist reasons.

It shows the solvency of the system

But it must also be noted that the reasons for the change weren't so much idealatic or pragmatic as just a continuation of 19th century capitalism.

Once efficiency reached a certain level, it made no sense to work people 12 hours a day. The markets reached a level of saturation that prevented break neck production from being a necessity.

I'm not denying that there was social negotiation involved, or even that that's not a good thing (Because it is), merely that relatively unfettered capitalism is a system that can and does work for the benefit of all.

Particularly if both parties make concessions and attempt to make it work.

Not so much a capitalist invention as the process of fruitful negotiation between two competing groups. This is how social change comes about.


Yes, I agree. But the worker has to define, at least in part, the conditions under which those machinations are practically beneficial. Otherwise the system will disintegrate and the society practicing it will wither and die. And if you're going to claim that all the benefits we of the West enjoy today originated purely from the generosity of capitalists, you'd damn well better justify it.

Of course the worker has to define the conditions. It is mutual contract.

And the benefits we enjoy are the products of capitalism, but not generally generosity.

I believe you slightly mistook me. By: All the altruism in the world does no good when you can't produce the necessary goods. All the cold hearted machinations of capitalist are mana from heaven when they result in a better life for the worker.

I was saying that altruism is secondary to a functioning system, only in such a system can altruism even be considered.



The phenomenon you describe was a result of the changes in social thought brought about by the very Enlightenment principles you so vehemently deny. You cannot seriously believe that the capitalist system that operated on the foundation of child labour and culturally-defined exploitation of the poor switched of its own volition, without any external stimulus, to conceiving of the worker as an investment with culturally constructed value. This was a change in thinking brought about by the rise of secular individualism and its adoption as the founding principle by societies due to efforts from below. Randist philosophy dates from generations after Marx and the other great 19th century sociologists; workers' rights came first - and their interpreted adoption by libertarians is a sign of the process of negotiation and concession that takes place between social groups at every level of every society.

It wasn't a change heart so much as a change in actions. Before, you had to do those things to compete. As production advanced, it no longer became necessary to work your workers as much. Also, you noticed very low morale and poor workmanship among your workers, because you were making very good profits, you could afford to raise their pay. This in turn, increased your profits even more.

There was no fundamental change; there didn't need to be. The problem corrected is itself is it almost always does.

Obviously the intents of the workers helped in this advancement but it was much less a negotiation than a logical continuation of capitalism.

As productivity increases, necessary worker input to maintain production decreases. As such, you can work those workers less.


Because capitalism doesn't work for them. This is according to your own logic on the matter - capitalism works best where the terms of its operation function on the basis of a negotiated compromise between all parties involved. This is getting too easy.

It's not that capitalism doesn't work for them, it's that they made mistakes in the capitalist system.

They made a choice and took a risk in running their operation they way they did. It turned out to a costly mistake as their workers deserted them or their plant burned down or they went bankrupt due to losses.


I explained exactly how it will work, and how it does work, and how it has always worked since the dawn of civilization. The balance operates in flux as does the society that produces it; it is defined differently and on the basis of social compromises uniquely negotiated by different groups in society over space and time. A system that we would consider balanced might not be considered balanced by our grandchildren. You see? The balance is there whether you want to acknowledge it or not, but it takes a form you might not recognize - particularly if you belong to a fringe group with a weak position from which to negotiate. Which I think you do.

How does libertarianism prevent me from comprehending said renegotiations?

I see what you're saying about negotiations, but quite simply, I don't think one is necassary.

Those negotiations are only necessary when something is fundamentally flawed in society, and one group notices it and demands change.

The 'problem' is, capitalism is working rather well. It could be made to work better.

This is where we diverge.



Well said. I agree. Justice for all.

Who can disagree with that?



Ah, you're catching on! Yes, dissatisfaction is unavoidable. As are the negotiated social compromises that mitigate it for all parties involved.

But said compromises are very rarely truly compromises.

The French Revolution for instance. One side wants to 'renogotiate' the other, does too, but in a far different manner.

Long story short: The other group gets killed.

Not the best example of a 'social negotiation' (Though a good one of one gone awry) but I think the point is made; there is a hell of a lot of room for error in these readjustments.



But this is a complete oxymoron. The very fact that travelling is travelling means that the rule is based on the principle of equality: three steps with the ball is travelling no matter how few points you score - or how many. It's a two-way street: better players don't get to take more steps simply because they've "earned" the right to transcend the rules. And furthermore, global society shouldn't consist of a game that distinguishes between winners and losers. The objective must be to negotiate a way of life beneficial and fruitful for all. We can put a man on the moon but we can't decode a system of social values that espouses mutual benefit and progression? What a depressing, pessimistic view of life you must have.

I don't believe in that. As you said a little on up 'Justice for all'. I believe in equal representation under the Rule of Law.

I think the current societal is system is optimal, why change it?

And as for the 'moon' thing, it's not quite that easy. We've spent more on ending poverty than on getting to the moon and you see where that's gotten us.



What complete and utter bullshit. Laws are invented by society and can be changed at any time to reflect changes in the negotiated interaction between disparate social groups. We're on the verge of legalizing marijuana in Canada; tell me, how close are you in America? The cultural divergence reflects differences in the negotiated relationships that inform the interaction between the groups that compose our respective societies. We made all this shit up and we can change it anytime we want to.

So could society make it 'legal' to murder, rape and steal?

Or are some things clearly wrong, regardless?

See, this is why I partake in an individualist philosophy. I'm not tied to society if I don't want to be. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

But there has to be a Rule of Law that is objective and beyond the whims of society, for anything to be fair.

See: French revolution.


Yes! Well put. As the negotiated relationship between our world and the Third changes over time, so will the economic relationship between the two blocs. Sweatshops are a product of the current round of negotations; it will be a powerful tribute to capitalism if a more just and sophisticated mode of production takes their place, as I think it very well might in a generation or two.

I share your dream for a better capitalism in a generation or two.

World poverty will be almost ended, at least I hope.

I think about fixing the problems very differntly than you, but I think our goals are similar.




Wow. I never expected you to admit that capitalism is inherently an unfree system, given that it is founded on the notion of many serving the few. I congratulate you on your conversion, but advise you to temper your position; many on the internet do not take kindly to such views.

It's inherently unfree to a degree, that's obvious. None can say capitalism is PERFECTLY free; nothing is, short of nihilism and not a lot of people are clamoring for that.

The key is trading some of your freedom for certain benefits, benefits that you think outweigh the lost freedom.

Such is the current capitalist system.

But it's more free than anything else, as far as I can tell. It allows you to do what you want, build what you want, talk to who you want and all that good stuff.

[EN[i]GMA]

Oh, damn. I cannot let this go. You ain't read about Marathon? If any single event can be considered the foundation of the principle of invididualism that is the Classical world's most powerful cultural legacy to the West, it's the immortal battle of Marathon! How can the phalanx of a single Greek city rout a force ten times their size, fielded from an empire exponentially more wealthy and territorially voracious than their own?

No, wait. I'm totally wrong. The stand of the Spartan three hundred at Thermopylae... that is the root of the most pivotal expression of individualism in Western history. And how often do you hear about the two thousand or so helots that stood side by side with the Spartans, fighting to their death to save the society that enslaved them? Those men and the status they occupied are virtually ignored by the Western world - yet those few men had a hand in saving the foundation of our culture.

And how about the Peloponnesian war that followed the defeat of the Persian hordes? The Delian League vs. the Peloponnesian League; the failure of the Greeks to negotiate a compromise that resolved the schism in their society; the monotonous and destructive social dislocation of stasis and the domination of Greece by the barbaric Macedonians? The subsequent stultification of Hellenistic society and its dismantling by the Roman Empire under whom technology and culture fossilized until the West was brought through fire and sword into a millennia of darkness?

Son, you can't know where you're going until you know where you been. Plus ca change, plus ca reste.

I have an essay in one of the history books I own about the Persians winning at Salamis.

I'll read that.

And as for Marathon, I know more about it than most but I haven't read on it.

I'm not currently reading a lot of history, though I probably should be.

Speking of Delium, there's another essay in here about what would have happen should Socrates have died in the battle there.

[yeahwho]

GMA']Good for them.

It just goes to show how pointless labor unions are anymore.

And I'm not against labor unions, as a free-market supporter, I support the right to organize into unions, I just think think their supposed gains are overstated and their tactics often deplorable.

And so it goes. Corporate tactics are so worker friendly, corporations are so adamant about making sure all employees get proper gains each quarter.

Speaking of pointless, this is what the NBA players union did (http://www.nbpa.com/) for the players. You don't turn your back on that. This is why unions exsist. The NBPA union is the most successful union on the planet earth. It may be pointless to someone of a lesser ability to grasp such things, but I grasp it fully.

I support a corporation to maximise it's profits, but compensation for the people who dedicate a large chunk of their lifes to make this happen is fair. Unions have been demonized unfairly IMO, they do work for both sides.

[EN[i]GMA]

And so it goes. Corporate tactics are so worker friendly, corporations are so adamant about making sure all employees get proper gains each quarter.

Speaking of pointless, this is what the NBA players union did (http://www.nbpa.com/) for the players. You don't turn your back on that. This is why unions exsist. The NBPA union is the most successful union on the planet earth. It may be pointless to someone of a lesser ability to grasp such things, but I grasp it fully.

I support a corporation to maximise it's profits, but compensation for the people who dedicate a large chunk of their lifes to make this happen is fair. Unions have been demonized unfairly IMO, they do work for both sides.

Yeah, the attacking and murdering of 'scabs, the burning down of factories and stores, the assualt on employees who failed to unionize, the continued clamor for government assistance when they didn't get their way, unions are such magnificant organizations.

I'm sorry if I don't feel that NBA players are the people who need fair representation the most.

Unions are beatified, not demonized by most people. The true ground is somewhere in the middle.

[yeahwho]

GMA']Yeah, the attacking and murdering of 'scabs, the burning down of factories and stores, the assualt on employees who failed to unionize, the continued clamor for government assistance when they didn't get their way, unions are such magnificant organizations.

I'm sorry if I don't feel that NBA players are the people who need fair representation the most.

Unions are beatified, not demonized by most people. The true ground is somewhere in the middle.

What does "Made in America" mean to you? Are you saying corporate America has the citizens and workers of the United States in it's best interests? The future is not rosy in the good 'ol USA, do you have the slightest clue?

This Country was at it's strongest when unions were at their strongest. To deny recent history is silly, good luck to you in the working world, specialized skills are shopped around not only to the cheapest labor pool, American corporations are more than happy to sell their souls to enemies of the state.

Of course that isn't in the equation of scabbing is it. That's just good business. ;)

When being a chump is the only option left, that is when the American Dream will truly only be for the few elite. Where are these great benefits employees in this country are recieving today?

You seem to think "Goon Squads" did not exsist. Goons hired to beat the living shit out of workers organizing to earn a decent living, yes death was part of their tactics. I have a feeling your middle is way off the bubble.

Society is falling apart in our country. People need a decent job to have a decent life. What is your proposal? Checkout Las Vegas, the Hotel workers union. One of the biggest success stories in labor of the past decade. It works for both the Casino's and the employees. Don't hand me BS about rough and tumble tactics. Bring your A game and give me solutions.

I've already given to the rich.

[EN[i]GMA]

What does "Made in America" mean to you? Are you saying corporate America has the citizens and workers of the United States in it's best interests? The future is not rosy in the good 'ol USA, do you have the slightest clue?

This Country was at it's strongest when unions were at their strongest. To deny recent history is silly, good luck to you in the working world, specialized skills are shopped around not only to the cheapest labor pool, American corporations are more than happy to sell their souls to enemies of the state.

Of course that isn't in the equation of scabbing is it. That's just good business. ;)

When being a chump is the only option left, that is when the American Dream will truly only be for the few elite. Where are these great benefits employees in this country are recieving today?

You seem to think "Goon Squads" did not exsist. Goons hired to beat the living shit out of workers organizing to earn a decent living, yes death was part of their tactics. I have a feeling your middle is way off the bubble.

Society is falling apart in our country. People need a decent job to have a decent life. What is your proposal? Checkout Las Vegas, the Hotel workers union. One of the biggest success stories in labor of the past decade. It works for both the Casino's and the employees. Don't hand me BS about rough and tumble tactics. Bring your A game and give me solutions.

I've already given to the rich.

The future is fine here. Only Asia has a better future than us.

The country was at it's strongest when unions were at their strongest? Is there any correlation?

Unions were no longer necessary once their goals were achieved, once they got their pay, many broke up.

I've never gotten this; the very people who complain night and day about the plight of the poor complain when jobs are shipped overseas. How do you expect to make the poor unpoor without giving them jobs?

We're doing just fine here, we can do without some jobs, Asia cannot.

This just shows how hollow your humanitarianism is. Which is it today? Humanitarianism or nationalism?

You can't complain about jobs moving overseas and than say that poverty is rampant over there. They're contradictory.

The great benefits they are recieving? Take a drive down the road and look around. Look at all the businesses and the nice cars and the healthy, contented people.

And you 'people need decent jobs' routine is also running low. Unemployment is under 5.2% and wages are continually increasing.

Things are continually getting better. You act like there is a full-on panic going on but really it's business as usual in America.

And I deplore goon squads whether they are union or corporate. Equality, isn't that what you want?

[yeahwho]

The only thing I agree with you on is goon squads.

The rest is ridiculous once you say, "Unions were no longer necessary once their goals were achieved, once they got their pay, many broke up." Do you even realize how stupid that statement sounds?

You want it one way. I'm willing to listen to people who can balance efforts for wage earners. You deny statistics, good jobs, with health benefits and vacations, job security, overtime....not flippin' burgers and Wal-Mart.

This just shows how hollow your humanitarianism is. Which is it today? Humanitarianism or nationalism? You obviously don't live in a major US city, missed a few days food, been held up recently by one of our countries crime statistics....or become one of them yet. I'm living here and I'm acting locally.....try that in China. You can continue with your international economics all you want (I don't care, you are in a free land), I disagree that my nieghbor should see his job go "bye bye" just because somebody else needs it now. For many more reasons than there is space on this board.

[EN[i]GMA]

The only thing I agree with you on is goon squads.

The rest is ridiculous once you say, Do you even realize how stupid that statement sounds?

You want it one way. I'm willing to listen to people who can balance efforts for wage earners. You deny statistics, good jobs, with health benefits and vacations, job security, overtime....not flippin' burgers and Wal-Mart.

You obviously don't live in a major US city, missed a few days food, been held up recently by one of our countries crime statistics....or become one of them yet. I'm living here and I'm acting locally.....try that in China. You can continue with your international economics all you want (I don't care, you are in a free land), I disagree that my nieghbor should see his job go "bye bye" just because somebody else needs it now. For many more reasons than there is space on this board.

As for the unions, why then, did they break up? If they were so effective, surely they would stay around?

It's only stupid if it isn't true, and as far as I can tell, it is.

And as for globalization, fair enough.

It truly is topic too complex to fully expound upon here.

[yeahwho]

GMA']As for the unions, why then, did they break up? If they were so effective, surely they would stay around?

It's only stupid if it isn't true, and as far as I can tell, it is.

And as for globalization, fair enough.

It truly is topic too complex to fully expound upon here.

They broke up? News to me (http://www.aflcio.org/). Very "complex" only if you try and justify hurting your employees. Otherwise it is really quite simple isn't it?

[EN[i]GMA]

They broke up? News to me (http://www.aflcio.org/). Very "complex" only if you try and justify hurting your employees. Otherwise it is really quite simple isn't it?

Wow.

It must hurt the poor so much that they like it! The poor must be masochists!

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=1934
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/185topline.pdf

[DroppinScience]

Ugh, you nerds still battling over whether "capitalism is mega-awesome" or not?

Let me know when you guys finally figure out the perfect system and then you start that revolution of yours.

Until then, I'm going back to sleep. ;)

[EN[i]GMA]

Ugh, you nerds still battling over whether "capitalism is mega-awesome" or not?

Let me know when you guys finally figure out the perfect system and then you start that revolution of yours.

Until then, I'm going back to sleep. ;)

DUDE! My penis is TOTALLY bigger than yours!

LOLZ, fag!

[yeahwho]

GMA']Wow.

It must hurt the poor so much that they like it! The poor must be masochists!

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=1934
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/185topline.pdf

You must be either very young or never plied a trade you've trained many years for, or maybe your residing in Asia. Your replies are goofy. Take it downtown to the street corner with your world banker clip, stop off at the unemploynent office, preach it to the big city firefighters and police depts. I'm sure you'll get a universal response to how much cutbacks and globalization have enriched the lives of these people.

I don't mean to belittle your view, it just isn't reality, I'm living there now and it isn't the well balanced everybody is happy planet you think it is. The whole world would love to have our jobs, and they are getting them....somebody unfotunately is losing the job that goes overseas, because the corporations want to help everybody.

You have 0 chance of convincing me my relatives or nieghbors should lose their jobs to make the world a better place, so give up.

[Qdrop]

concerning the underlying "is it a fair system (capitalism)" debate:

the claim seems to be that capitalism (free market) causes an "unjust" distribution of wealth.

the problem i and others have with this is that the notion of justice only makes sense when applied to human decisions within a framework fo laws, not when applied to an abstraction called "society".

"the manner in which the benefits and burdens are apportioned by the market mechanism would in many instances have to regarded as very unjust if it were the result of a deliberate allocation to particular people."
-Friedrich Hayek

the concern with social justics rests on a confusion, he states, because "the particulars of a spontaneous order (free market) cannot be just or unjust"

the free market represents nature.
how can nature be unjust?

is it "unfair" when a fox kills a rabbit?

[abcdefz]

Capitalism is like democracy -- I don't like it, but it's about the best we've got.

[phinkasaurus]

Capitalism is like democracy -- I don't like it, but it's about the best we've got.

bullshit.

that's settling.

fight for change, don't settle.

[Ali]

Here's (http://capmag.com/index.asp) a nice resource for all you Capitalists.

[EN[i]GMA]

Here's (http://capmag.com/index.asp) a nice resource for all you Capitalists.

I've thought about getting it.

I prefer the Economist though.

It's much less biased, but still pro-gree market, and beats the shit out of Newsweek and Time in every way.

[Schmeltz]

Quite to the contrary, my dear phinkasaurus - it's all about settling. All you want to do is make an opposing group settle on terms more favourable to you.

[Ali]

GMA']I've thought about getting it.

I prefer the Economist though.

It's much less biased, but still pro-gree market, and beats the shit out of Newsweek and Time in every way.The Economist RULES!

[zorra_chiflada]

ah good. i liked this thread

[ToucanSpam]

I have 20% faith in capitalism.

[EN[i]GMA]

NOW WHO THE FUCK WANTS SOME MORE!!!!?!??!?!

ARRRRGHGHHGH!!!!

Fuck it, I'm going to sleep.

[EN[i]GMA]

Isn't that post by Ace old?

Only like 3 months.

[zorra_chiflada]

haha! yeah! this thread is like 6 months old. hence the "BUMP"

[zorra_chiflada]

I don't have complete faith in anything that is man made.

I suggest you do the same.

like the belief in god?

[Documad]

I love The Economist. But it costs a fortune.
I liked it better when I was a student and got the discount. :(

[travesty]

That is not man made. Thanx for playing!

Hence, your small mindedness. You choose to have complete unwaivering faith in one book while discounting the vast libraries of the world.

PS- Even if "God" exists, belief in a diety is a disticly human characteristic, thus MAN MADE. Deer don't go to church!

[travesty]

God is not man made. So belief in God is not man made. It is faith. Faith comes from God. You should try to have some. God Bless You.

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

By that definition and based on your posts-
I have faith that you are intelligent.
I have faith that you are rational
I have faith that you can think for yourself
I have faith that you are heterosexual (baaaaa)
I have faith Bush will make this country better

[zorra_chiflada]

That is not man made. Thanx for playing!

ok then. prove to me god exists. go on!

[marsdaddy]

My "faith" in Capitalism is that:
- greed will rule, if unchecked and unregulated
- those with more will have access to more
- and those with less will continue to have less
- outcomes are predictable, and, if "public good" and "fair access" are driving principles, can be controlled to better society as a whole.