Quote:

---

Lord_McLovin said:
No, I think you argue on another level and, in my opinion, draw short-sighted conclusions. Let me explain my position:

Capitalism is the concept that one or a small group of persons provide almost all the means of production (capital, land, machinery...), which they own privately, and use that capital to buy labor, i.e. employ people. The cost of labor (a.k.a. salary) is determined by the minimum amount of money the worker is willing to work for and by the capitalists' need for such work in relation to the size of the available work force.

Or to put it in easier words:
The "business owner" won't pay you more than he has to. You won't work, if you are not willing to do the job for the salary he/she offers you.
However, the more people that are unemployed and both willing and able to do your job, the less you get paid. Without a job, you can't survive, so you will set your wage limit rather low if you don't have a job already. If you don't have enough money or other assets to begin with (like you were born in a poor family and couldn't afford college), your chances of becoming even slightly 'rich' are pretty slim, even if you are willing to work your ass off.

Once the capitalist has purchased your work, he/she is able to produce goods/provide services and to make profit. If the profit is high, you don't automatically get paid more. If the profit is low or there is no profit, the capitalist will try to decrease the 'costs of production' - probably by cutting your wage or even firing you.
The system is inherently hierarchic and thus highly unegalitarian. As long as you don't become a capitalist yourself, you are part of the lower of the two classes (which doesn't necessarily imply that you are poor, just poor by the standards of the upper class).

Now that all this is taken care of, let's have a look at the bigger picture, the free market.
As you probably know, the idea is that the system is self-regulating and works without government interference in the sense that government only provides a basic framework and does not directly favor one business over the others.
Now the problem is that capital, in the long run, piles up in the hands of a few big businesses. For small businesses it is almost impossible to compete with the large ones, because:
The large ones in general have more capital. Even if business S (for small) is able to produce good A better and cheaper, business L will simply drop its prices for good A so low (even if no profit is made) and increase its advertising that business S cannot compete in the long run. Once business S is gone, business L will highly increase its prices because there is no competition. This is what Walmart likes to do with small local supermarkets and it works very well. As pris mentioned such businesses are called monopolies.

The other problem is that accumulated money, being the driving force for everything, means lots of power. You can use it to buy the media, control the media, control the masses. You can use it to pay for the election campaign of a politician, make him look better, make him win. Now that politician knows that he owes you his career, you have influence on him. You have influence on policies. For example you could ask him to keep the system intact that made you rich. You could ask him to vote for a regressive tax instead of a progressive one.

All that is just the tip of the iceberg.

---

Quote:

---

Lord_McLovin said:
No, I think you argue on another level and, in my opinion, draw short-sighted conclusions. Let me explain my position:

Capitalism is the concept that one or a small group of persons provide almost all the means of production (capital, land, machinery...), which they own privately, and use that capital to buy labor, i.e. employ people. The cost of labor (a.k.a. salary) is determined by the minimum amount of money the worker is willing to work for and by the capitalists' need for such work in relation to the size of the available work force.

Or to put it in easier words:
The "business owner" won't pay you more than he has to. You won't work, if you are not willing to do the job for the salary he/she offers you.
However, the more people that are unemployed and both willing and able to do your job, the less you get paid. Without a job, you can't survive, so you will set your wage limit rather low if you don't have a job already. If you don't have enough money or other assets to begin with (like you were born in a poor family and couldn't afford college), your chances of becoming even slightly 'rich' are pretty slim, even if you are willing to work your ass off.

Once the capitalist has purchased your work, he/she is able to produce goods/provide services and to make profit. If the profit is high, you don't automatically get paid more. If the profit is low or there is no profit, the capitalist will try to decrease the 'costs of production' - probably by cutting your wage or even firing you.
The system is inherently hierarchic and thus highly unegalitarian. As long as you don't become a capitalist yourself, you are part of the lower of the two classes (which doesn't necessarily imply that you are poor, just poor by the standards of the upper class).

Now that all this is taken care of, let's have a look at the bigger picture, the free market.
As you probably know, the idea is that the system is self-regulating and works without government interference in the sense that government only provides a basic framework and does not directly favor one business over the others.
Now the problem is that capital, in the long run, piles up in the hands of a few big businesses. For small businesses it is almost impossible to compete with the large ones, because:
The large ones in general have more capital. Even if business S (for small) is able to produce good A better and cheaper, business L will simply drop its prices for good A so low (even if no profit is made) and increase its advertising that business S cannot compete in the long run. Once business S is gone, business L will highly increase its prices because there is no competition. This is what Walmart likes to do with small local supermarkets and it works very well. As pris mentioned such businesses are called monopolies.

The other problem is that accumulated money, being the driving force for everything, means lots of power. You can use it to buy the media, control the media, control the masses. You can use it to pay for the election campaign of a politician, make him look better, make him win. Now that politician knows that he owes you his career, you have influence on him. You have influence on policies. For example you could ask him to keep the system intact that made you rich. You could ask him to vote for a regressive tax instead of a progressive one.

All that is just the tip of the iceberg.

---

Quote:

---

Lord_McLovin said:
No, I think you argue on another level and, in my opinion, draw short-sighted conclusions. Let me explain my position:

---

Quote:

---

BlindSophist said:
It should be interesting to see how many people vote for Paul or Johnson--

---

Quote:

---

luvdemshrooms said:

Quote:

---

BlindSophist said:
It should be interesting to see how many people vote for Paul or Johnson--

---

So you're unaware Paul is out.

Any write ins he may receive will be insignificant.

---

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:

Quote:

---

Shins said:
business owners cannot price gouge customers because some other buisiness will always undercut them and take their market share.

---

you've never heard of a monopoly? that;s where a company either takes over
or puts out of business the competition in a market and once they become
the sole provider they can control the pricing. what about price fixing?
have you ever heard of it, that's where a group of 'competitors' decide to
charge an exorbitant price in order to get wealthy, these things are a
product of capitalism as well

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

when governments subsidise things and pick winners and losers it is not capitalism.

---

cereal grains are subsidized crops and you can pick up a 50lb bag of oats
for around $10, add a huge steel roller to squash it flat, a little
cardboard tube that costs a few cents and minimal marketing and you have a
product that's now $220 for that 50lb bag when sold by the pound

I like to call this price fixing, the breakfast cereal industry has been
doing it for many years, an 11oz box of fruit loops costing $4, about 15
years ago the public got wise to it and started demanding a cheaper price
which started a price war, they felt for some dumb reason that saving a
buck off the price was a fair price, they didnt realize they were still
getting fucked and started to enjoy the fucking, it was just a few years
later that the prices were right back where they started

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/11/business/as-the-cereal-war-heats-up-kellogg-reduces-prices.html
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-06-20/business/fi-16771_1_general-mills

guess what came back and guess what did not make a difference

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-09-21/industries/30759363_1_cereal-price-war-private-label-cereals-big-g-cereal

---

Quote:

---

Shins said:

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:

Quote:

---

Shins said:
business owners cannot price gouge customers because some other buisiness will always undercut them and take their market share.

---

you've never heard of a monopoly? that;s where a company either takes over
or puts out of business the competition in a market and once they become
the sole provider they can control the pricing. what about price fixing?
have you ever heard of it, that's where a group of 'competitors' decide to
charge an exorbitant price in order to get wealthy, these things are a
product of capitalism as well

---

WRONG, it is impossible to get a monopoly in capitalism, the only way to get a monopoly is through government.  in a free market ther eis ALWAYS someone who will undercut you.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Monopoly.html

---

Quote:

---

BlindSophist said:
Jill Stein in the hizzy.

It's a relief to see so many Obama votes on here. I would vote for Obama if California didn't go Democrat every time because I hate him so very much less than republican stooges, and I have no illusion that Stein is actually going to win.

It should be interesting to see how many people vote for Paul or Johnson-- I expect it will be a pretty wide margin. I'm hoping it mostly hurts Romney, but I know a few born-again formerly-liberal libertarians who have been lured to the dark side by their promises of candy (by which I mean legal drugs).

Gilgamesh, why do you have a Communism-themed avatar?

---

Quote:

---

BlindSophist said:
Jill Stein in the hizzy.

It's a relief to see so many Obama votes on here. I would vote for Obama if California didn't go Democrat every time because I hate him so very much less than republican stooges, and I have no illusion that Stein is actually going to win.

It should be interesting to see how many people vote for Paul or Johnson-- I expect it will be a pretty wide margin. I'm hoping it mostly hurts Romney, but I know a few born-again formerly-liberal libertarians who have been lured to the dark side by their promises of candy (by which I mean legal drugs).

Gilgamesh, why do you have a Communism-themed avatar?

---

Quote:

---

I am not quite sure were you are getting the idea that capitalism should be a totally a fair and egalitarian system.

---

It simply isn't.

Quote:

---

Humans are not equal in intelligence and natural ability so society should reflect that.

---

Quote:

---

I think you're working from the textbook ideals of what free market capitalism
is and ignoring many of the human factors that help it to evolve, they dont
always play by the rules

---

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:

Quote:

---

DeadHearts said:
"Romney was recorded saying 47% of voters will back Obama because they're dependent on the government and said his "job is not to worry about those people."

---

he doesnt have to worry about them, they're on welfare. it's taken care of

---

zing!



I seriously dont get how anyone could vote for Obutthole.

Quote:

---

This is a 1934 Chicago Tribune political cartoon that many say rings true in today's political and economic climate. What do you think?

---

Quote:

---

Lord_McLovin said:

Quote:

---

I am not quite sure were you are getting the idea that capitalism should be a totally a fair and egalitarian system.

---

It simply isn't.

Quote:

---

Humans are not equal in intelligence and natural ability so society should reflect that.

---

But the problem is, that the system does not naturally favor those people. It favors those that already have a certain amount of wealth.
I don't have a problem with hierarchy in general, after all it's something that cannot be prevented. Yet I think it should arise naturally and, ideally, in consent with everyone in the group. In practice it should arise out of utilitarian principles. That's the core of the democratic idea along with the concept of "natural law".

Imagine a group of people whose aim is to learn e.g. something about mathmatics. Of course the group will appoint the one that knows most about mathematics as a teacher. This is a naturally formed hierarchy, which is formed because it benefits the group as a whole, and thus the individual, in the most effective way.

An economic system should also fulfill that utilitarian property. Capitalism does that to a certain degree, otherwise it wouldn't have survived for that long, but, as we have seen in history and as we see it today, in the long run it leads to an unwanted hierarchy in society more or less independent of the individuals natural abilities and contribution to society: Those that invest and make profit, those that provide work to get a small portion of that profit and those that do not work for various reasons. All three classes are needed and are naturally formed to keep the system intact. If you were to take one class out of the equation suddenly, the system would break down.

Moreover our humanistic worldview demands that everyone has his basic needs satisfied regardless of their choice of lifestyle and contribution to society as a whole. 

But thats it just because someone invests does not mean that they are contributing less to the economy than someone who is a plumber or construction worker. They are taking there money and risking it on the hopes that a certain company or futures contract whatever you have a stake in will net you a profit. I see nothing inherently wrong with that as for people who inherit wealth again do you think the wealth does nothing but sit in a bank account. Most of Bill Gate's net worth is in his company Microsoft it is not sitting in a bank doing nothing. Simply put the vast majority of the wealthiest people's assets are in investments. 

Quote:

---

Lord_McLovin said:

Quote:

---

I am not quite sure were you are getting the idea that capitalism should be a totally a fair and egalitarian system.

---

It simply isn't.

Quote:

---

Humans are not equal in intelligence and natural ability so society should reflect that.

---

But the problem is, that the system does not naturally favor those people. It favors those that already have a certain amount of wealth.
I don't have a problem with hierarchy in general, after all it's something that cannot be prevented. Yet I think it should arise naturally and, ideally, in consent with everyone in the group. In practice it should arise out of utilitarian principles. That's the core of the democratic idea along with the concept of "natural law".

Imagine a group of people whose aim is to learn e.g. something about mathmatics. Of course the group will appoint the one that knows most about mathematics as a teacher. This is a naturally formed hierarchy, which is formed because it benefits the group as a whole, and thus the individual, in the most effective way.

An economic system should also fulfill that utilitarian property. Capitalism does that to a certain degree, otherwise it wouldn't have survived for that long, but, as we have seen in history and as we see it today, in the long run it leads to an unwanted hierarchy in society more or less independent of the individuals natural abilities and contribution to society: Those that invest and make profit, those that provide work to get a small portion of that profit and those that do not work for various reasons. All three classes are needed and are naturally formed to keep the system intact. If you were to take one class out of the equation suddenly, the system would break down.

Moreover our humanistic worldview demands that everyone has his basic needs satisfied regardless of their choice of lifestyle and contribution to society as a whole. 

Quote:

---

I think you're working from the textbook ideals of what free market capitalism
is and ignoring many of the human factors that help it to evolve, they dont
always play by the rules

---

Yes, and I have trust that it does evolve due to that factor. But eventually society will reach a point at which it will want to fundamentally change the system and replace it by a (seemingly) better one. I don't believe that the parlamentary system will be able to reform it, but I would be glad to be proven wrong on this point as it would involve less violence.

---

But thats it just because someone invests does not mean that they are contributing less to the economy than someone who is a plumber or construction worker. They are taking there money and risking it on the hopes that a certain company or futures contract whatever you have a stake in will net you a profit. I see nothing inherently wrong with that as for people who inherit wealth again do you think the wealth does nothing but sit in a bank account. Most of Bill Gate's net worth is in his company Microsoft it is not sitting in a bank doing nothing. Simply put the vast majority of the wealthiest people's assets are in investments, and these investments fuel the global economy.

Quote:

---

But thats it just because someone invests does not mean that they are contributing less to the economy than someone who is a plumber or construction worker.

---

Quote:

---

Simply put the vast majority of the wealthiest people's assets are in investments, and these investments fuel the global economy.

---

Quote:

---

Lord_McLovin said:

Quote:

---

But thats it just because someone invests does not mean that they are contributing less to the economy than someone who is a plumber or construction worker.

---

I never claimed that. As I said, all three classes are needed in order for the system to work.

Quote:

---

Simply put the vast majority of the wealthiest people's assets are in investments, and these investments fuel the global economy.

---

The more capital one has the better it can be reasonably distributed in various investments, the lower the risk. The lower the risk and the higher the investments, the higher the profit (averaged over time!). Again, people with money accumulate more money resulting in a highly unequal distribution of wealth. This is what we have, just have a look around.

---

Quote:

---

RonaldFuckingPaul said:

Quote:

---

BlindSophist said:
Jill Stein in the hizzy.

It's a relief to see so many Obama votes on here. I would vote for Obama if California didn't go Democrat every time because I hate him so very much less than republican stooges, and I have no illusion that Stein is actually going to win.

It should be interesting to see how many people vote for Paul or Johnson-- I expect it will be a pretty wide margin. I'm hoping it mostly hurts Romney, but I know a few born-again formerly-liberal libertarians who have been lured to the dark side by their promises of candy (by which I mean legal drugs).

Gilgamesh, why do you have a Communism-themed avatar?

---

If you like Jill Stein then you should vote for her.  Why vote for Obama if you like Stein better?

---