| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
| |||||||
 Lallafa p_g monocle   Registered: 04/13/01 Posts: 2,598 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
would the US of A be a better place if we were a purely capitalist society?
would doing away with our "socialistic flavors" make the country more enjoyable to live in? would it be the fair/ethical thing to do? is socialism a bad thing? -------------------- my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson
| |||||||
 ~`Tursiops truncatus`~ enthusiast  Registered: 11/01/00 Posts: 105 Loc: CO... UsA Last seen: 21 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Better? I don't know what that means. Everything will work itself out though
| |||||||
|
mm. addict  Registered: 06/15/99 Posts: 605 Loc: England Last seen: 1 month, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
No. You would have complete de-regualtion of business, no employment laws, merger commisions etc.. Hell they could pay people in food and lodging only and have riot police to supress any dissent. The only thing that mattered would be maximising profits.... capitalism is based on competition. We could be the only sentient life-forms in the universe and we have a system of society that strongly encourages us to compete against each other. It lets us become enslaved to basic insticts of survival that are entirely inappropriate now that we have reached this level. Surely a society that encourages cooperation and facilitates expression of our higher powers of thought is what we should be working towards, and no, state socialism is as bad as capitalism.
Edited by mm. (11/08/01 03:38 PM)
| |||||||
|
Lallafa p_g monocle Registered: 04/13/01 Posts: 2,598 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
mm.
"society that strongly encourages us to compete against each other" i agree. i need to get some irc folk on this thread. they have some good points too, although i disagree with them.... -------------------- my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson
| |||||||
|
Innvertigo Vote Libertarian!!   Registered: 02/08/01 Posts: 16,296 Loc: Crackerville, Mi |
| ||||||
|
oh God ...not another "is capitalism terrible" thread..how many people on this site actually own a company...walk a mile people
--------------------  America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |||||||
|
Lallafa p_g monocle Registered: 04/13/01 Posts: 2,598 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
Innvertigo, why dont you read the question.
im not asking "is capitalism terrible" i am asking if hints of socialism are terrible. i know capitalism works. i am asking if people think PURE capitalism would be better. -------------------- my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson
| |||||||
|
Innvertigo Vote Libertarian!! Registered: 02/08/01 Posts: 16,296 Loc: Crackerville, Mi |
| ||||||
|
then yes pure capitalism would be better. Socialism catters to the lowest person and penalizes the "real workers"
-------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |||||||
|
Lallafa p_g monocle Registered: 04/13/01 Posts: 2,598 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
so we should do away with progams such as welfare and health care, correct?
if a child is born with a cureable disease, yet has no money to pay for treatment, should the child die? when there are people like Bill Gates walking around? its his money, he earned it, he should be able to do whatever he wants with it, correct? -------------------- my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson
| |||||||
|
Innvertigo Vote Libertarian!! Registered: 02/08/01 Posts: 16,296 Loc: Crackerville, Mi |
| ||||||
|
are you trying to bait me?........i'll bite....
****if a child is born with a cureable disease, yet has no money to pay for treatment, should the child die?**** No the child shouldn't die.......just because there is pure capitalism it doesn't mean that these needs will be eliminated. Insurance can be privatized along with hospitals, medical centers etc. You'd be amazed how cheap surguries would be if there were competition and how affordable medicine would be if they had to compete. Capitaliismn does not equal screw the little guy. The little guy is what keeps Capitalism going...look at the tabacoo companies..... ****when there are people like Bill Gates walking around? **** Bill Gates earned his money and owes noone...except the government (that's another topic) ****its his money, he earned it, he should be able to do whatever he wants with it, correct? **** correct.. -------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |||||||
|
Lallafa p_g monocle Registered: 04/13/01 Posts: 2,598 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
"are you trying to bait me?"
no. honestly i am just curious about this. some people told me recently that a purely capitalistic socity would be fair, and that it would operate smoother than our current system. i was always under the impression that a little socialism is a good thing as long as it doesnt move toward communism. and let me rephrase my question: -if a child is born with a cureable disease, yet has no money to pay for treatment, and has no insurance, should the child die? "Capitaliismn does not equal screw the little guy." what? "The little guy is what keeps Capitalism going" yes, i agree "...look at the tabacoo companies" how is the little guy not getting screwed in the tobacco industry? -------------------- my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson
| |||||||
|
Senor_Doobie Snake Pit Champion  Registered: 08/11/99 Posts: 22,678 Loc: Trump Train |
| ||||||
|
The child should become the property of the hospital, treated, and sold to the highest bidder.
If the parents could not provide insurance for the child, they are living in violation of the child's right to life. There will be no punishment, but all claims to any money or to the actual parenting of the child will be denied. -------------------- "America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.” -- Thomas Jefferson The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance. The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)
| |||||||
|
Crobih rap-cord Registered: 11/03/98 Posts: 2,015 Loc: cave Last seen: 11 years, 20 days |
| ||||||
|
The biggest problem with that thing is MONOPOLISM. Monopolism enables things wich are not good.
So I say, pure capitalism is not good. The society I wish I lived is the one wich enables to every single individuum to becamo womething if the person wishes is it. but not to sell the soul to the "devil". I do not feel it is a right moment to discuss more thouroughly about it. So maybe next time, or find the thread old a year or more about monopoly.
| |||||||
|
Crobih rap-cord Registered: 11/03/98 Posts: 2,015 Loc: cave Last seen: 11 years, 20 days |
| ||||||
|
pure communism could be a good thing if it was possible. But that thing is not based on human model, but of a higher beings.
| |||||||
|
Lallafa p_g monocle Registered: 04/13/01 Posts: 2,598 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
"The child should become the property of the hospital, treated, and sold to the highest bidder."
thats fair? i agree 100% with every thing crobih just said. pure capitalism would not be a good thing. and i know its impossible to really get pure commumism or capitalism. -------------------- my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson
| |||||||
|
Lallafa p_g monocle Registered: 04/13/01 Posts: 2,598 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
"pure communism could be a good thing if it was possible. But that thing is not based on human model, but of a higher beings."
very true. thats why im not a communist. -------------------- my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson
| |||||||
|
Lallafa p_g monocle Registered: 04/13/01 Posts: 2,598 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
ok invertigo now im trying to bait you
"Capitaliismn does not equal screw the little guy." what? "The little guy is what keeps Capitalism going" yes, i agree "...look at the tabacoo companies" how is the little guy not getting screwed in the tobacco industry? this is the one i would most like explained. -------------------- my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson
| |||||||
|
Steppin_Razor journeyman Registered: 10/31/01 Posts: 53 |
| ||||||
|
Let's reverse that... how is the little guy getting screwed by the tobacco companies?
The tobacco companies have no power to force anyone to buy their product. It has been known for about forty years and widely advertised that smoking tobacco is potentially deadly. It has been thirty years since cigarette ads were banned on TV and radio, not much less than that since they were banned in print media. Legislation against smoking in public places, hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the government on anti-smoking campaigns, class-action lawsuits against tobacco companies, etc. Seems to me that the tobacco companies are the ones at a disadvantage here, NOT the little guy. The little guy has several options. Don't start smoking, reduce smoking, switch to lighter cigarettes, switch to smokeless tobacco, quit tobacco altogether. The tobacco companies have no way to prevent anyone from exercising any of those choices. And tobacco companies have nothing to do with whether life in America would be better under pure capitalism. -------------------- Walking in the future
| |||||||
|
Crobih rap-cord Registered: 11/03/98 Posts: 2,015 Loc: cave Last seen: 11 years, 20 days |
| ||||||
|
The problem is that in physical world things are not perfect. Big companies can use those not perfect things to fucks up all other compeition. It all leads to centralisation of the power and money to small % of the CHOOSEN ones. Not those who deserve to b the ones.
Thats just MHO.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son  Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Crobih writes:
"The biggest problem with that thing is MONOPOLISM. Monopolism enables things wich are not good. So I say, pure capitalism is not good." Sigh. Every Socialist, Fascist, Communist, Statist of whatever flavor -- sooner or later trots out this ridiculous statement. Anyone who THINKS about it for longer than five minutes rather than simply parroting Statist slogans can figure out for themselves that it is impossible for a monopoly to exist without government intervention. Since under pure Capitalism (which is what we are discussing here, NOT the quasi-socialist welfare state in place in all Western countries today) the government has no control over the economy whatsoever, monopolies are not possible. If in a Capitalist society I start a company making... ummm... toothpicks, for example, and I cannot meet demand, or am overpriced, or don't have a big enough selection, or sell shoddy toothpicks, then sooner or later someone else will decide to start producing and selling toothpicks. The government will not stop him from doing so. NO ONE will stop him from doing so. If I feel that the new toothpick producer is hurting my business, I can't hire a lobbyist to persuade the government to give me a subsidy, or to legislate my competitor out of business. All I can do is try to hold on to my existing client base. If I am incompetent, sooner or later I will start seeing reduced profits, and I may even decide to get out of the toothpick business altogether. Too bad for me. At this point, there is only one toothpick manufacturer left... my competitor. Does he hold a monopoly? Yes... for the moment. But the instant he decides to take advantage of the situation by cutting quality or bumping prices, or both, someone else will smell an opportunity, and jump into the toothpick market. End of monopoly. It is theoretically possible that my competitor turns out to be such an insanely great toothpick-maker that no one else wants to get into the toothpick business... they all figure he is just too damn good at what he does to make it worthwhile risking time and money trying to capture some of his market. If that happens... SO WHAT? Who is harmed? Certainly not the consumers of toothpicks. If you say that the biggest problem with Capitalism is "monopolism", then there is no problem with Capitalism. Monopolies can only exist under Statism. pinky -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Lallafa writes:
"would the US of A be a better place if we were a purely capitalist society?" Yes. "would doing away with our 'socialistic flavors' make the country more enjoyable to live in?" Yes. "would it be the fair/ethical thing to do?" Yes. "is socialism a bad thing?" Yes. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Ishmael enthusiast  Registered: 10/28/99 Posts: 224 |
| ||||||
|
Your argument fails to take into account the tendencies of large corporations to become conglomerates - that is to assimilate other 'competitors' and thus, remove the source of competition. This is the main basis for a monopoly, not merely the legislative route (though I do not deny that it is in fact a well trod route). Government anti-trust laws are aligned primarily to deal with this method (which is why so many companies choose the legislative route). If we had no governmental interference in the form of anti-trust laws, the companies would go about this method of producing monopolies. But since we do, they utilize another method to produce the desired results. And this is important - Monolpolies are the /desired/ result. A concentration of power (translates to: 'capital' in the capitalist lexicon) inside an non-governmental, publically unaccountable entity.
I'll say it again, simply because I think it begs to be repeated: Capitalism's goal is to create powerful non-governmental entities - corporations and monopolies. And because it's the /goal/ capitalists will go about accomplishing it in whatever way they can. That includes /using/ the government towards that end. Ish
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Ishmael writes:
"Your argument fails to take into account the tendencies of large corporations to become conglomerates - that is to assimilate other 'competitors' and thus, remove the source of competition." A conglomerate is not a monopoly, it is a conglomerate. A conglomerate cannot force me to join them. If I, as a toothpick maker, want to accept a buyout offer from MegaCorp, I will. If I don't want to, I won't, I will continue making toothpicks. Just because they WANT to assimilate me doesn't mean they can. It is MY choice either way. "And this is important - Monolpolies are the /desired/ result." Wrong. Profit is the desired result. "I'll say it again, simply because I think it begs to be repeated: Capitalism's goal is to create powerful non-governmental entities - corporations and monopolies." And I'll say it again, because it begs to be repeated: WRONG! A Capitalist's goal is to maximize return on his investment with as little risk and effort as possible. A monopoly does not guarantee maximization of profit: quite the reverse. In order to maintain a monopoly under pure Capitalism, a company has to be so excellent, operating under such a razor-thin profit margin, that it is unattractive for anyone else to try to compete. This is hardly maximization of profit. Maintaining a monopoly is a tremendous amount of effort... so much effort that no one has ever done it without government assistance. This is clearly not the best way to maximize ROI. And, again, even IF one day someone actually establishes the first monopoly in the history of pure Capitalism, someone manages to be so excellent at making toothpicks that no one else wants to get into the toothpick business, WHO IS HARMED? Whose rights are being violated? Nobody's. Whose tax dollars are being spent subsidizing an incompetent competitor just so the consumer has a choice of two brands of toothpicks to choose from? No one's. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
- newbie Registered: 02/26/01 Posts: 11 Last seen: 21 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
pinksharkmark, oh pinksharkmark...still caught up in your lonely Randian fantasy world? how cute :)
A more accurate term for Capitalism would be Market Stalinism - yet another bogus ideology that would bring much suffering to the world while power-hungry men attempt to initiate it from above & (of course) fail. Sound familiar? Good luck with your blueprint for humanity! I can see the ruins already. Cheers
| |||||||
|
Jammer Computers areMOR  Registered: 11/04/00 Posts: 3,998 Loc: (God's Country) Last seen: 18 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
The short and sweet: All I know is that you can count on US President Bill Gates to see to it that he always gets his way by brain-washing others to believe that a monoplisitic style business is good for the rest of us.
... never trust the greedy... big or small. -------------------- >>Jammer>> Edited by Jammer (11/14/01 06:54 PM)
| |||||||
|
jihead addict Registered: 06/08/00 Posts: 399 Last seen: 16 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
Have you ever heard of the Industrial Revolution? Rockafeller? Mellon? Carnegie? let me give you a low-down. they didnt need subsidies. they held horizontal as well as vertical monopolies over their respective industries. For instance, when Rockafeller became powerful enough to control the railroads and set his own rates, he was able to cut his prices so much that he undercut all of the small oil distributers in the mid-west, forcing them to join or go bankrupt because of the simple fact that Rockafeller was able to produce on such a huge scale. He controlled the oil wells, the train cars, the refineries, and the outlets. the horizontal monopoly. sure, it was a good product, but eventually he would have owned all of amerika if the government hadnt stepped in.
using your toothpick analysis, when the toothpick company held that monopoly for a long enough time, they would take over the shipping involved in the wood and packaging materials, they would probably be able to outbid any prospective toothpick buyer for the natural resources (trees!) and operate on such a large scale that they could regionaly cut prices and manipulate the market enough to destroy and prospective competitors. also in this day and age, they would be such a brand name that no one would be able to compete in terms of recognition. of course, toothpicks are arnt a very good example, as they are so small and inexpensive that they can be generically made. but new technology for example, well, your argument falls to shit without laws. gooooooooooooooooooooooo syndicalists. -------------------- kill white noise
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
jihead writes:
"using your toothpick analysis, when the toothpick company held that monopoly for a long enough time..." What's to say they would hold it for longer than a few months? "...they would take over the shipping involved in the wood and packaging materials..." Why? What possible benefit would there be? Where would the capital come from to do so? This is an unsupported assertion. "...they would probably be able to outbid any prospective toothpick buyer for the natural resources (trees!)..." Again, why is that? Prove it. "... and operate on such a large scale that they could regionaly cut prices and manipulate the market enough to destroy and prospective competitors." Again, unwarranted assertions. And, even if they did, WHO IS HURT? A would-be competitor who made a wrong business decision. Not toothpick consumers. Just because someone WANTS to get into the toothpick business, there is no guarantee he will be any good at it. "also in this day and age, they would be such a brand name that no one would be able to compete in terms of recognition." Brand recognition does not guarantee a monopoly. Coca-Cola has a pretty darn excellent brand recognition, yet it does not hold a monopoly in the cola market. MacDonald's is pretty recognizable, yet it doesn't hold a monoply on the fast food hamburger market. "but new technology for example, well, your argument falls to shit without laws." Give me an example. Microsoft doesn't hold a monopoly on operating systems. IBM doesn't hold a monopoly on personal computers. Sony doesn't hold a monopoly on game consoles. Panasonic doesn't hold a monopoly on televisions. Exactly what kind of high technology are you talking about that is available from only a single monopolistic supplier? pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
- writes:
"still caught up in your lonely Randian fantasy world?" Ayn Rand didn't invent the concept of pure Capitalism, and it is not necessary to have read any of her work to understand how it operates. "A more accurate term for Capitalism would be Market Stalinism" Please explain what you mean. Stalin ruled by force. Capitalism outlaws the initiation of force in human affairs. How is Capitalism Stalinism? "- yet another bogus ideology that would bring much suffering to the world..." How so? Give me a specific example of how people dealing with each other voluntarily, as traders trading value for value, would bring suffering to the world? "...while power-hungry men attempt to initiate it from above & (of course) fail." I don't know what you are talking about, but it isn't Capitalism. Under Capitalism, government is restricted to the protection of individuals. Government has nothing to do with the economy whatsoever. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
jihead addict Registered: 06/08/00 Posts: 399 Last seen: 16 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
What's to say they would hold it for longer than a few months? "
why wouldnt it? you think competitors are going to spring up over night with the resources to start a competitor? fat chance. "Why? What possible benefit would there be? Where would the capital come from to do so? This is an unsupported assertion. " heres some second grade economics: if you control all aspects of production, you have a distince advantage over your competitors in that they are forced to pay market/retail value for sed services. that goes for the trees too. if you control all the wood used for making toothpicks, you have no competition. this isnt that hard. "Again, unwarranted assertions. And, even if they did, WHO IS HURT? A would-be competitor who made a wrong business decision. Not toothpick consumers. Just because someone WANTS to get into the toothpick business, there is no guarantee he will be any good at it. " of course, but what if someone is better at it but cant get a foothold in the market because he is squeezed out everytime he tries. you think we would be able to afford desktop computers in our homes if it wasnt for regulated competition?? IBM was the first to make computers and would have been able to out pace any competitors in pure capitalism because they would have been able to hold complete ownership rights to the patents. of course, without government grants and funding, we wouldnt have computers or the internet at all. but lets ignore that and remember that Adam Smith is always right. "Brand recognition does not guarantee a monopoly. Coca-Cola has a pretty darn excellent brand recognition, yet it does not hold a monopoly in the cola market. MacDonald's is pretty recognizable, yet it doesn't hold a monoply on the fast food hamburger market. " very much true, but if a company held a true monopoly, they would have enough money to out advertise any upstart competitor that isnt going to be able to afford commercials and billboards. you refer wayyyyy to much to companies in a our mixed system. if you really want to have abstract discussions, refer to abstract ideas, not examples in reality. Give me an example. Microsoft doesn't hold a monopoly on operating systems. IBM doesn't hold a monopoly on personal computers. Sony doesn't hold a monopoly on game consoles. Panasonic doesn't hold a monopoly on televisions. Exactly what kind of high technology are you talking about that is available from only a single monopolistic supplier? " right, again, this is all under our current system, which protects smaller companies against monopoly. these have no relevance to a purely capitalist society, so dont even bring it up. if it wasnt for our patent laws, we would still be listening to RCA radios. -------------------- kill white noise
| |||||||
|
Crobih rap-cord Registered: 11/03/98 Posts: 2,015 Loc: cave Last seen: 11 years, 20 days |
| ||||||
|
pink... Do you think that people are mature enough to act in a way they should, or in a way it is easier to them? You know that giving money with big interests is FORBIDEN in a most of the countries. You know why? That is because the SYSTEM protects the one who is in SHIT. Why? Because system have more use of the one, if the one is working fine under 30% interest in 30 years than under 100% interests in one year.
But, here come the bad guys (aka big coorporations which hold the monopoly over some things) who act in a parasitic way. They want as much money as they can get, and go on! In that way the SYSTEm goes backwards and everything goes to shit. So the whole system goes to SHIT*. Monopoly. I do not know have ou ever runned some sort of bussines? But if you did, you will understand that established company is a way infront of you. If you want to take some market from them, the company will deciede to CRUSH you. And that is the way how their MONOPOLY acts. The monopoly does not mean you have the only PRODUCT in the world. It means that if somebody else tries to enter that market, wont succeed without a HUUUUUUGE amount of money. And regular peron doen not have that HUUUUUUGE amount of money. And even if they did, the first hypothetical company can get more money and stay in that bussines. All in all that thing tend to make ELITISTIC minority of the capitalists who RUN the world. And you turn out to be just a workingpower with low PAY. According to the history, it seems that nowdays bad guys have learned that when things go to shit, people start the new SYSTEM. So they act in a shadow manner with fale democracy system and so on, wich is pretty obvious in the US.
| |||||||
|
- newbie Registered: 02/26/01 Posts: 11 Last seen: 21 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
In reply to: Quite right, but I never stated the contrary. Just pointing out your silly adherence to the psuedo-philosophy of Objectivism and how it has warped your logic. In reply to: Never said Capitalism is Stalinism - rather I said it was Market Stalinism. I'll leave it up to you figure out the difference & what exactly that term means. Not that difficult. In reply to: Specific? Okay - Chile.
| |||||||
|
MeltingPenguin Pooh-Bah  Registered: 08/29/01 Posts: 2,138 Loc: new england |
| ||||||
|
>The government will not stop him from doing so. NO ONE will stop him from doing so.
that is very untrue pink shark. If the first toothpick company i mob run, then the second one gonna experince a little trouble getting offa the ground -------------------- Growing anything is good for the soul
| |||||||
|
Jimi Thing member Registered: 02/17/01 Posts: 34 Loc: Home - MD; Schoo Last seen: 21 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
This is a very interesting thread. Jihead makes some very good points about 19th century America and horizontal and vertical monopolies. Pinksharkmark also has some valid points on the ability of competition to spring up uninhibited. Well, I just thought I'd throw this out, see how you guys interpret this. In my home county Comcast Cable has a county-mandated monopoly. They have exclusive rights to the cable wires running on state phone polls, and have exclusive rights all cable business in the county. For the longest while they were the only alternative to regular rabbit ears, and one could expect the prices to rise fairly steadily. However, since they were a luxury, they still technically competed with regular rabbit ears and so would push special deals and lowered ratesevery so often. But for the most part they charged whatever they wanted. Now however, even though they still maintain their exclusive rights, they are starting to receive more and more competition from satellite dish companies now that their products are much more affordable. So, I've noticed Comcast's prices have remained fairly static over the last few years, and not only are they hawking more deals they also now actually have regular advertisments. It's a very interesting spin on the concept of monopolies and competition.
Anyway, I realize this is about pure capitalism, which the above example is obviously not a representative of. In my opinion nothing pure is good, but a balance of many economic systems are the best. -------------------- Jizzout
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
- writes:
"Just pointing out your silly adherence to the psuedo-philosophy of Objectivism and how it has warped your logic." The arguments I have used in this thread to defend pure Capitalism neither originated with Ayn Rand nor are unique to Objectivism. You have not pointed out any logical flaws in my statements, merely labelled me an Objectivist, implying that my statements therefore MUST be incorrect. "Never said Capitalism is Stalinism - rather I said it was Market Stalinism. I'll leave it up to you figure out the difference & what exactly that term means. Not that difficult." It is up to you to define your terms, not me. If my attempt to guess at exactly what you mean by "Market Stalinism" turns out to be incorrect, you will castigate me for putting words in your mouth. To prevent that, why not provide a definition? "Specific? Okay - Chile. " Are you seriously suggesting that anything even remotely resembling pure Capitalism ever existed in Chile? If so, you are in error. You seem enamored of the standard Statist approach to debate; i.e. slinging buzzwords and catch phrases willy-nilly rather than using clarity and reason. Is it because you are incapable of refuting my points, or do you just lack the patience to articulate your arguments fully? pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
jihead writes:
"you think competitors are going to spring up over night with the resources to start a competitor?" It takes relatively few resources to start a toothpick company. Or a pasta company, or hundreds of other enterprises. So, yes, I do think that competitors can spring up overnight. "if you control all the wood used for making toothpicks, you have no competition." No one has ever been able to corner the market on wood production. No one ever will. "you think we would be able to afford desktop computers in our homes if it wasnt for regulated competition?" Yes, I do. I am typing this post on a Mac. Apple computer received no government assistance. Their success had nothing to do with regulated competiton. "IBM was the first to make computers and would have been able to out pace any competitors in pure capitalism because they would have been able to hold complete ownership rights to the patents." Apple violated no patent laws in constructing their personal computer. Nor did Sun, or DEC or Honeywell or Hewlett Packard in the mini and mainframe business. And, the reason IBM flubbed the personal computer market so badly has nothing to do with government regulation, and everything to do with bad business decisions and poor product design. "of course, without government grants and funding, we wouldnt have computers or the internet at all" Nonsense. Computers were developed by private industry. "very much true, but if a company held a true monopoly, they would have enough money to out advertise any upstart competitor that isnt going to be able to afford commercials and billboards." Just because a company holds a monopoly (and so far, none does) does not necessarily mean that it will have unlimited funding for advertisements. And, just because a company advertises more than its competitors does not mean it is guaranteed to survive. In the seventies, I used to see TV ads for a soft drink called "Gini" countless times every day for years... more often than I would see Coke or Pepsi ads, and that is saying something! Where is "Gini" today? "you refer wayyyyy to much to companies in a our mixed system. if you really want to have abstract discussions, refer to abstract ideas, not examples in reality. " I use existing companies merely as concrete examples of the abstract principles I am describing. While it is not strictly necessary to use concrete examples, it clarifies things. "this is all under our current system, which protects smaller companies against monopoly. these have no relevance to a purely capitalist society. if it wasnt for our patent laws, we would still be listening to RCA radios." Are you saying that a Capitalist society would have no patent laws? Would you care to defend that assertion? pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Crobih writes:
"I do not know have ou ever runned some sort of bussines?" Yes. More than one. "But if you did, you will understand that established company is a way infront of you." You mean the way IBM used to be way in front of Compaq and Dell and Gateway? Or the way that A&W used to be way in front of MacDonald's? Or the way that Zeller's used to be way in front of WalMart? "If you want to take some market from them, the company will deciede to CRUSH you." Not always true. Besides, just because a company might WANT to crush another company doesn't mean it WILL. See my examples above, just a short sample of many examples of established companies getting knocked off by newcomers. "And that is the way how their MONOPOLY acts. The monopoly does not mean you have the only PRODUCT in the world." Ummm... yes it does, actually. That is the definition of monopoly, honest. You can check a dictionary if you don't believe me. "It means that if somebody else tries to enter that market, wont succeed without a HUUUUUUGE amount of money. " Nonsense. See WalMart. Or Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak of Apple. "And regular peron doen not have that HUUUUUUGE amount of money. And even if they did, the first hypothetical company can get more money and stay in that bussines." As I have demonstrated, being first does not guarantee success. Even being first, having an enormous amount of money, having a better product, having a huge advertising campaign, and fantastic brand recognition does not guarantee success. Example? Sony and their Beta format VCR. pinky pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Crobih rap-cord Registered: 11/03/98 Posts: 2,015 Loc: cave Last seen: 11 years, 20 days |
| ||||||
|
pink. I have to say that I am really sorry that you did not agree with me in ANY point.
I see your point. BUT. First. Monopoly... you may be right about its meaning in a dictionary. the meaning of the Monopoly I mentioned is the one I wrote. I do not know exact word for it, so please help me out with it. Its a true that we live in a dynamic world. With dynamic rules. Your examples are totally valid. But you have to understand that IBM was established in a very much running industry where you can have a possibility to enter with a NEW product. It is same with sony and beta format and with many other examples. My concern is on things wich are not so DYNAMIC. And you can imagine there is many of them in a world. Maybe even more than not so dynamic things. I live in a small country with no money for investition. In last time big companies made malls and those malls destroyed all those little shops wich where here before. They are strong enough that they can keep low profits for extended period of time and destroy all others. Thier only interest is maximisation of profit. Now there are 3 or 4 centers for shoping here. 3 or 4... they can easily find thier interests and join together to take as much money form the poor people as they possibly can. That is the problem of monopoly I am talking about. there is many more examples, but this one is pretty good IMO. Next, all those things even IT are going to establishment, real establishment. IBM had bad politics in their past and that is their main problem. But what will happen when there is not going to be big space for better? ( I assume that IT IS POSSIBLE) I assume the best will form some sort of monopoly and move out every other. That is concern I am talking about. PS What about WalMart? "As I have demonstrated, being first does not guarantee success. Even being first, having an enormous amount of money, having a better product, having a huge advertising campaign, and fantastic brand recognition does not guarantee success. Example? Sony and their Beta format VCR. " - you No it does not guarantee success. Good managment plus those two things guarantee MONOPOLY (wich I am talking about).
| |||||||
|
carbonhoots old hand  Registered: 09/11/01 Posts: 1,351 Loc: BC Canada |
| ||||||
|
Pure Capitalism would create a situation where a very few own everything, and the vast majority own nothing.
It would suck Socialism isn't bad. Many great countries (Sweden, Iceland, not to mention Norway, the 1st best place on earth to live acording to the UN) have what Americans would call a socialist economy. Pure capitalism is undemocratic, unfair and down right evil. It's about me me me and the hell with everybody else -------------------- -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Crobih writes:
"Monopoly... you may be right about its meaning in a dictionary. the meaning of the Monopoly I mentioned is the one I wrote. I do not know exact word for it, so please help me out with it." I think you are confusing "Monopoly" with "Dominance". It is true that if one is first into a new market, or has more money than the established players already in a market, one has an INITIAL advantage over others. It is not true (as has been demonstrated over and over again) that this initial advantage is a PERMANENT one. At least it isn't true under pure Capitalism, since in a Capitalist society the only way a given company can maintain its dominance is through excellence. Under our current economic system (which is NOT pure Capitalism), however, the first one into a market often DOES hold an advantage, because of government interference. There are endless examples of shitty companies that couldn't deliver quality by themselves being kept afloat through government interference. Just one of many examples: the big Chrysler bailout about twenty years ago. Under pure Capitalism, Chrysler would have vanished in the 80s. "But you have to understand that IBM was established in a very much running industry where you can have a possibility to enter with a NEW product. It is same with sony and beta format and with many other examples." Are you saying that my examples only hold true for NEW inventions? Not so. I used MacDonald's as an example. Hamburger places existed long before MacDonald's did. I also used WalMart as an example. Department stores existed long before WalMart did. Neither of these companies introduced ANYTHING new. Neither was the first into their particular market. Neither of them had ANY money at all to enter the battle against older, richer, well-established companies with brand-recognition and big advertising budgets. Yet now each one is the leader in its field. And each did so with no help from government, either economic help (such as subsidies or special tax breaks) or legislative help (such as restriction of their competitors). "I live in a small country with no money for investition. In last time big companies made malls..." Malls are NOT built by MacDonald's or by WalMarts. They are built by real-estate developers who rent their spaces to ANYONE who wants to pay the higher rent that malls charge. "...and those malls destroyed all those little shops wich where here before." The owners of those little shops had the right to move their businesses from their old locations into a new location in a mall, if they so chose. I don't know what it's like in Croatia, but that happens all the time in North America. "They are strong enough that they can keep low profits for extended period of time..." So what is the problem? Everyone always seems to be screaming at businessmen all the time for being so profit-oriented. Seems to me you would be DELIGHTED to see a businessman accept LESS profit. If a business decides to accept lower profits by lowering prices, then the sacred consumers are getting a good deal, right? If a poor family can save enough on its clothing bill because they can now buy their clothes for 70% at WalMart instead of 100% at "Mom and Pop's Clothing Shop", then that family now has extra money it can spend on a computer to help the kids get ahead in school, right? Or on a new car to replace their twenty year old Yugo. And there is not just one poor family, there are THOUSANDS of poor families that shop at WalMart. So thousands of people benefit by the new WalMart store in the new mall, against one family (Mom and Pop, who are BUSINESSMEN also, don't forget) who have a tough business decision to make. You used the phrase "extended period of time", but in reality, that period of time is unlimited. WalMart will ALWAYS have low prices, because they know that as soon as they lift their prices too much, a hundred more "Mom and Pop" businesses will jump in. All the anti-Capitalists use the same argument: "The prices will only stay low until WalMart (or whoever) drives its competitors out of business. Then they will jack up the prices and rob us blind because there will be no competition left!" Well, guess what? That never happens. I challenge you or anyone else to provide me with a single example of that prediction coming true. Take all the time you want. "Thier only interest is maximisation of profit." Of course. Mom and Pop didn't go to all the trouble of running their own business because they were interested in MINIMIZING their profit, either. "Now there are 3 or 4 centers for shoping here. 3 or 4... they can easily find thier interests and join together to take as much money form the poor people as they possibly can." Well, I have already shown that poor people benefit from a WalMart more than rich people do. WalMart certainly does not "take as much from the poor people as they possibly can". WalMart takes less from Joe and Sally for a kid's dress than Mom and Pop's Clothing Shop ever did. Besides, no one is forcing the poor people to shop at the malls. Poor people shop at malls because they are convenient. No need to drive all over the city to pick up a dozen different items... they can save time and transportation money by making one trip to the mall instead. If the poor people WANT to continue shopping at individual stores that exist outside malls, they can. And don't tell me that the ONLY stores that exist in your town are in one of 3 or 4 malls. That is an exaggeration. "That is the problem of monopoly I am talking about. there is many more examples, but this one is pretty good IMO." Well, first of all, it is not monopoly that you are describing when you talk about shopping malls. It is centralization. Secondly, you haven't even demonstrated that centralization is harmful to "poor people". So I can't agree that it is a good example of anything. "Next, all those things even IT are going to establishment, real establishment. IBM had bad politics in their past and that is their main problem. But what will happen when there is not going to be big space for better? ( I assume that IT IS POSSIBLE) I assume the best will form some sort of monopoly and move out every other. That is concern I am talking about." I'm sorry, Crobih. I respect your ability to communicate in many languages (I only know three, and can write well only in one, English... so I am much worse than you), but I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say here. Can you put it into different words? "Good managment plus those two things guarantee MONOPOLY" No, it does NOT guarantee monopoly, it doesn't even guarantee dominance. I have given concrete examples to support my points. Can you give me even ONE example to support yours? pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
carbonhoots writes:
"Pure Capitalism would create a situation where a very few own everything, and the vast majority own nothing." Got any facts to back that up with? The only societies where the vast majority own nothing are Statist ones. "Pure capitalism is undemocratic..." How so? Everyone is allowed to vote, wealthy and impoverished alike. What's undemocratic about that? "...unfair..." In what way? Specifics... we need specifics, here! "...and down right evil." Since the ultimate evil in human affairs is the initiation of physical force, which is expressly forbidden under pure Capitalism, but accepted as natural and necessary under Socialism, I submit that Socialism is the more evil of the two. "It's about me me me and the hell with everybody else" Under Capitalism, "me me me" looks after himself, and leaves others in peace. Under Capitalism, "me me me" doesn't insist that the government take money from some and give it to others, wasting two thirds of it in the process. Under Capitalism, "me me me" deals with others voluntarily if it is to the benefit of both parties, and minds his own business when it is not. Which "me me me" would you prefer as a neighbor? pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
carbonhoots old hand Registered: 09/11/01 Posts: 1,351 Loc: BC Canada |
| ||||||
|
How bout American society? It's pretty capitalist.
The three richest American citizens, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and John Walton have combined financial assets worth more than the pooret 100,000,000 Americans combined. Capitalism is undemocratic because a vote don't count for shit. The whole point of these "Free Trade Deals" is to further remove the economy from any government (democratic) control. Under capitalism it's one dollar. one vote. The previous paragraph emphasizes how centralized economic control is. It's unfair because by giving exclusive ownership rights to shareholders, and no propriety rights to labour, many men and women give their time and heart and soul for a company that pays them as little as it can, and may just leave them behind when they relocate to some place like Thialand where they can pay workers pennies a day. Me me me is a very narrow perspective. After all, there's a whole universe out there. And whatever else evil may be, it's rooted in the Me Me Me. That perspective says to burn down rainforest for a few years of pasturland. Or to forgo R&D in alternate energy, and just burn more and more oil. A good example is Edison (inventer of lightbulb). He had a great business in providing DC power. When Tesla discovered AC power, Edison did all he could to supress the technology. Why? Not because he thought DC was better for developing civilization. No. Simply, he was selling DC, and he didn't want to chance losing his money making business. If Edison would have succeeded, he would have held back the progress of the human race. That is evil. -------------------- -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES Edited by carbonhoots (12/17/01 11:55 PM)
| |||||||
|
Sweat_Pants Stranger  Registered: 12/06/01 Posts: 17 Last seen: 21 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Here is Idea:
Gov offers Social programs...but they are not mandatory, only the citizens using the programs pay for it in taxes, letting those who want Socialism to do so and and those who are Capitalist can do so, everyone is making the decision that is right for them, not the Gov, LEFT and RIGHT platforms do not belong in Gov. being conservative or liberal should not be a political position, it is a personal choice that you apply only to yourself, not a whole nation. Separate Political and Personal beliefs!!! America's failure to do so has led to the erosion of the constitution and our civil liberties, We no longer have a Constitution, we have a supreme courts interpretation of the Constitution, and no one is going to do anything about it, until over many decades we are in a police state, we are becoming more and more Totalitarian everyday, and yes folks, it takes things like genocide to get people to start reacting, if were rich and fat, we let anything slide. Campaign Reform is our only hope, if we can not have open debates and be able to recognize other options, how can we ever change, if not, private interests and religion will continue to run our country. And of course the Libertarian Party www.lp.org the only political party that seems to understand this and is working to restore the American Dream. (please ignore trier Economic issues, in principle yes, in life...NO) BE a CIVIL libertarian. RANT RANT RANT...shit, i got work to do As Judge Learned Hand once said, "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." -------------------- Okoy Ho...Oh Yoko
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
carbonhoots writes:
"How bout American society? It's pretty capitalist." The debate is not about the current form of American government. It is about pure Capitalism vs. Socialism. That is why in the sub-debate entitled "The Myth of Monopolies" I have been using as examples only companies that are not kept in existence by government regulations, even though those companies are based in America. "The three richest American citizens, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and John Walton have combined financial assets worth more than the pooret 100,000,000 Americans combined." So what? Completely irrelevant. What if they were less wealthy? They all were, at one time. What if their combined wealth was only as great ast the poorest 10,000,000 Americans? Or the poorest 1,000,000? Or the poorest 100,000? At what point is it acceptable for someone to have more money than others? What is the magic point beyond which one must stop making money to avoid being called evil? What IS relevant is that the poorest 100,000,000 Americans have a combined wealth greater than the richest 100,000,000 citizens of any Statist country you can name. Even the crippled form of quasi-Capitalism in place in America today leaves the "poor" better off financially. "Capitalism is undemocratic because a vote don't count for shit." Irrelevant. Of course no SINGLE vote is worth more than any other single vote... by definition that is the way Democracy works. What IS relevant is that the vote of a Bill Gates counts no more than the vote of a Welfare Mom. "The whole point of these "Free Trade Deals" is to further remove the economy from any government (democratic) control." Of course. Under pure Capitalism there is a total separation of Economy and State, just as there is a total separation of Church and State. In a Socialist society, the reverse is true. "Under capitalism it's one dollar. one vote." You are confusing economics with politics. While the two are inextricably intermeshed in a Socialist or "mixed economy", that is not the case under a system where elected officials have no power over the economy. "It's unfair because by giving exclusive ownership rights to shareholders, and no propriety rights to labour, many men and women give their time and heart and soul for a company that pays them as little as it can, and may just leave them behind when they relocate to some place like Thialand where they can pay workers pennies a day." How is that unfair? Workers are free at any time to either change jobs, or to go into business for themselves. How many workers are there who give "heart and soul" for their companies vs. how many that just show up to punch a clock and scan the "help wanted" section of the newspaper every night? You say that employers pay as little as they can, but is it not also true that employees take a job (and switch from job to job) to make as much as they can? How many kids right out of school start working for MacDonald's then stay there for the rest of their lives? "A good example is Edison (inventer of lightbulb). He had a great business in providing DC power. When Tesla discovered AC power, Edison did all he could to supress the technology. Why? Not because he thought DC was better for developing civilization. No. Simply, he was selling DC, and he didn't want to chance losing his money making business. If Edison would have succeeded, he would have held back the progress of the human race. That is evil. " This is an excellent example in favor of pure Capitalism. Note that at the time all of this was taking place, the US was still very close to being a pure Capitalist society. And, what happened? Even though Edison tried his darndest, he FAILED to get his way. His wealth meant nothing in this battle, because the battle took place in a Capitalist society. Regardless of his genius, his stature, and his economic "power", Capitalism did not give him the tools with which to prevent AC power from supplanting DC power. AC power is now the standard. BUT... if the same situation arose in today's quasi-socialist America, he could have bribed politicians, spent millions on lobbyists, and probably succeeded in getting legislation passed banning the construction of AC power plants, perhaps on the grounds that it would throw all his workers into the unemployment line, perhaps on the grounds that AC power was "a threat to the environment", perhaps on the grounds that the government would lose all that DC tax revenue... whatever. The government (once sufficiently bribed) would have found SOME way of justifying its protectionism. Which scenario would have held back the progress of the human race? Which scenario is more evil? pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
MokshaMan enthusiast Registered: 03/12/01 Posts: 280 |
| ||||||
|
>> I challenge you or anyone else to provide me with a single example of that prediction coming true.
Well, up in Canada there was one big airline carrier(Air Canada) and a couple small ones with the biggest being Canada 3000, since Canada 3000 has gone out of business Air Canada has raised the price to any of the places it used to compete with Canada 3000. There's an example of someone lowering the price to cause another business to go under and then robbing the consumer. Of course that's in Canada, which is a lot further from pure capitalism than the US. Just figured I'd mention that there are examples... not many and I'm sure soon enough another company will step in to compete, but hey right now it's true. -------------------- Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness. -- George Owell Edited by MokshaMan (12/18/01 03:05 PM)
| |||||||
|
jihead addict Registered: 06/08/00 Posts: 399 Last seen: 16 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
"No one has ever been able to corner the market on wood production. No one ever will. "
no shit, thats because we live in a mixed market. if it were pure capitalism, one company would eventually come to own all rights to lumber in the world. "Yes, I do. I am typing this post on a Mac. Apple computer received no government assistance. Their success had nothing to do with regulated competiton" mixed market again. they may not have received grants, but because of our patent laws, it is possible for them to copy ibm's designs and use them in their computers after 5? years. again, if your going to argue about a speculative scenario, dont use real life examples :) "Apple violated no patent laws in constructing their personal computer. Nor did Sun, or DEC or Honeywell or Hewlett Packard in the mini and mainframe business. And, the reason IBM flubbed the personal computer market so badly has nothing to do with government regulation, and everything to do with bad business decisions and poor product design. " read up on amerikan patent laws, in our MIXED economy, we make sure competition exists and patents expire after a certain time. "Nonsense. Computers were developed by private industry. " learn your history, our government put huge amounts of money into the development of the computer. same with the internet, funded almost entirely by the military. "Just because a company holds a monopoly (and so far, none does) does not necessarily mean that it will have unlimited funding for advertisements. And, just because a company advertises more than its competitors does not mean it is guaranteed to survive. In the seventies, I used to see TV ads for a soft drink called "Gini" countless times every day for years... more often than I would see Coke or Pepsi ads, and that is saying something! Where is "Gini" today? " good point. but advertising effects way more people than moral or conscienscious decisions and people are way more willing to buy what they see on tv and what is cheapest as opposed to what is the most moral choice. "I use existing companies merely as concrete examples of the abstract principles I am describing. While it is not strictly necessary to use concrete examples, it clarifies things." nope, cant do it, its like citing alice in wonderland for examples in our society. "Are you saying that a Capitalist society would have no patent laws? Would you care to defend that assertion?" well, a purely capitalistic society would have no limitations on the way business pursues its goals, so patent laws would be in direct violation of a purely capitalist society as they are in direct conflict with a system that has no government interference. ask innvertigo for an explanation on this, hes the libertatian. i saw in some of your other responses that you site a lot of examples in our current system, but as ive said before, these are completely irrelevant as we live in a mixed market with regulations out the asshole, which make all current examples void as they cannot be applied to the purely capitalist society you propose. btw, this is a great thread, no flames and bickering, only intelligent debate on a great topic. my hats off to you pinkshark, youve made this a solid debate and im glad such quality discussions exist on this board. peace. -------------------- kill white noise
| |||||||
|
Innvertigo Vote Libertarian!! Registered: 02/08/01 Posts: 16,296 Loc: Crackerville, Mi |
| ||||||
|
****well, a purely capitalistic society would have no limitations on the way business pursues its goals****
Living in a purely capitalistic society does not negate the fact that there are laws....afterall we're not talking anarchy ****so patent laws would be in direct violation of a purely capitalist society as they are in direct conflict with a system that has no government interference. ask innvertigo for an explanation on this, hes the libertatian. **** You must really like me to not be able to keep me out of this discussion. I believe you're confusing capitalism with anarchy...they aren't even close -------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |||||||
|
Innvertigo Vote Libertarian!! Registered: 02/08/01 Posts: 16,296 Loc: Crackerville, Mi |
| ||||||
|
****Socialism isn't bad. Many great countries (Sweden, Iceland, not to mention Norway, the 1st best place on earth to live acording to the UN) have what Americans would call a socialist economy. ****
Great??? I'm sure the people are nice but what do you use to determin greatness? The ability to make kick ass hot cocoa? I never trust anything the U.N. says -------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |||||||
|
krispyfi lumber tyrant Registered: 10/03/01 Posts: 320 Loc: se usa Last seen: 19 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
as i was reading thru this thread i was gonna ask about patents (or intellectual property in general), but it seems i got to this thread to late. innvertigo says that patents laws are necesarry (its not anarchy, guys! :-)) but patents are an example of the law putting its hands into the economy, which is a no-no if you want pure capitalism (at least according to my superficial understanding of pure capitalsim). so its okay to mess with the economy some ways, but not others. where is the line drawn? also, would lobbying be disallowed? libertarians say that entities should be able to spend as much as they want on campaigns, politicians etc. if a company was prevented from getting the government to make a monopoly for it, then wouldn't it use its money to get politicians to change the laws that disallow the government from creating monopolies? then pure capitalism would degenerate into what we have today, no?
--------------------  If i get into some trouble TURBO BOOST will set me free. Michael Knight you watch the bass with the K I T T.
| |||||||
|
krispyfi lumber tyrant Registered: 10/03/01 Posts: 320 Loc: se usa Last seen: 19 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
isnt pure capitalism economic anarchy?
-------------------- If i get into some trouble TURBO BOOST will set me free. Michael Knight you watch the bass with the K I T T.
| |||||||
|
Innvertigo Vote Libertarian!! Registered: 02/08/01 Posts: 16,296 Loc: Crackerville, Mi |
| ||||||
|
****isnt pure capitalism economic anarchy? ****
No because we live in a society of laws, ie: economic laws..anarchy is the absence of laws. Ofcourse this only makes sense if you believe that pure capitalism means no rules and kill to get to the top. Remember without the consumer capitalism doesn't work....we could all switch to Mac's if we wanted and still get by...but man..would that suck..  -------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |||||||
|
krispyfi lumber tyrant Registered: 10/03/01 Posts: 320 Loc: se usa Last seen: 19 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
so what is pure capitalism, if not lack of government interference (i.e. laws) in the economy?
-------------------- If i get into some trouble TURBO BOOST will set me free. Michael Knight you watch the bass with the K I T T.
| |||||||
|
krispyfi lumber tyrant Registered: 10/03/01 Posts: 320 Loc: se usa Last seen: 19 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
and you didnt read my first post. the second was only testing a tautology.
-------------------- If i get into some trouble TURBO BOOST will set me free. Michael Knight you watch the bass with the K I T T.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
jihead writes:
"no shit, thats because we live in a mixed market. if it were pure capitalism, one company would eventually come to own all rights to lumber in the world." Impossible. No company has the time, money, or NEED to corner the market on any single resource, whether operating under a Capitalist economy or a Mixed Economy. "mixed market again. they may not have received grants, but because of our patent laws, it is possible for them to copy ibm's designs and use them in their computers after 5? years. again, if your going to argue about a speculative scenario, dont use real life examples :)" First, patent laws last FAR longer than 5 years. Not 100% sure, but I think it is AT LEAST 15 years, maybe 25. And, Apple did not even use IBM's patents. They used Motorola chips, which were based on a different design than the chips IBM developed. Wozniak designed a brand new floppy drive controller that was (and still is) widely admired and copied. I repeat, Apple's success had NOTHING to do with government regulations. Second, I am aware that this took place in a mixed economy, BUT I have been scrupulously careful to always use real-life examples of companies that are operating in an area that is still essentially free from government interference... a little "pocket" of pure Capitalism in the otherwise mixed economy. In the case of Apple, for example, there were no anti-trust suits, no lobbying, no "fair competition" subsidies, no development grants, no import tariffs, etc. etc. In other words, the development of the Apple II computer took place with essentially the same freedom from government interference (or assistance) as did Edison's invention of the lightbulb. "read up on amerikan patent laws, in our MIXED economy, we make sure competition exists and patents expire after a certain time." Again, patent laws are emphatically NOT an invention of a mixed economy. They are, however, an ESSENTIAL feature of Capitalism. Patent laws existed LONG before the virtually pure Capitalism of the early US Republic began its slide into its current incarnation as a quasi-Socialist Welfare State. "learn your history, our government put huge amounts of money into the development of the computer. same with the internet, funded almost entirely by the military." I mis-spoke. I meant to type "personal computers". And, to all intents and purposes, government involvement in the invention of electronic computers ceased with the production of Univac. Private industry took it from there. Same with the Internet. Saying that the military was responsible for anything more than the initial limited and crude Arpanet is an exaggeration. The military HARDLY "funded almost entirely" the Internet. "good point. but advertising effects way more people than moral or conscienscious decisions and people are way more willing to buy what they see on tv and what is cheapest as opposed to what is the most moral choice." I fail to see the moral dilemma involved in choosing one soft drink over another. "nope, cant do it, its like citing alice in wonderland for examples in our society." I disagree. If the companies cited are carefully selected contextually (as I hope I have done so far) then I believe they can be used TO ILLUSTRATE THE POINT, to make it more clear and instantly understandable. I do not use them to PROVE my point -- I do that through abstracts and fundamental concepts -- but it helps people to concretize the concepts. And, I use WalMart from the twentieth century rather than Morgan's Notions and Dry Goods from the early nineteenth century (when the US was closest to pure Capitalism) simply because people are familiar with WalMart. "well, a purely capitalistic society would have no limitations on the way business pursues its goals..." Untrue. A company could not, for example, use slave labor, or vent chlorine gas into residential neighborhoods. Companies would be subject to the same "do no harm" restrictions as apply to individuals. "... so patent laws would be in direct violation of a purely capitalist society as they are in direct conflict with a system that has no government interference." Quite the reverse. Capitalism cannot exist without laws, ESPECIALLY patent laws. This was recognized by England early in the Industrial Revolution. "i saw in some of your other responses that you site a lot of examples in our current system, but as ive said before, these are completely irrelevant as we live in a mixed market with regulations out the asshole, which make all current examples void as they cannot be applied to the purely capitalist society you propose." Again, not all are irrelevant. They simply must be chosen carefully to fit the context of the debate. Note that I do NOT refer to TRW or Northrupp or other military contractors, nor do I use airlines or agricultural companies or power companies. I submit that it is untrue that "ALL current examples" are devoid of value as pure illustration. "btw, this is a great thread, no flames and bickering, only intelligent debate on a great topic. my hats off to you pinkshark, youve made this a solid debate and im glad such quality discussions exist on this board. peace." Thanks. I think it's easier to keep one's emotional distance on the more abstract topics. You'll note most of the flaming and bickering occurs in posts regarding religion or politics. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
krispyfi writes:
"but patents are an example of the law putting its hands into the economy..." Not at all. Patents protect property rights: intellectual property. Just as there are laws preventing a thief from stealing your physical property (your stereo system), so laws must exist to prevent a thief from stealing your intellectual property (your invention). It has nothing to do with the "economy" per se, and everything to do with individual rights. "...which is a no-no if you want pure capitalism (at least according to my superficial understanding of pure capitalsim). so its okay to mess with the economy some ways, but not others. where is the line drawn?" Whenever the rights of an individual are violated, whether it be by another individual or by a corporation, then the government has the obligation to intervene. Just because the violation took place under the guise of economic activity it cannot exempt the perpetrator from legal retribution. "also, would lobbying be disallowed?" Lobbying as we know it would not be disallowed, but it would be a pretty ridiculous waste of time. Since the government has no power to enact an import tariff or grant a subsidy to a failing industry, there would be nothing for a lobbyist to do. There would undoubtedly still be pressure groups trying to persuade Congress to increase (or decrease) defense spending. "if a company was prevented from getting the government to make a monopoly for it..." The point is, the government wouldn't have the POWER to assist the company. The economy is completely outside the scope of its mandate. "... then wouldn't it use its money to get politicians to change the laws that disallow the government from creating monopolies?" Not possible. The government would be operating under a Constitution that ties its hands in that area. Just as today, even if 99% of the populace wanted to reinstitute slavery, Congress could not do so. It doesn't have the authority to do so. "then pure capitalism would degenerate into what we have today, no?" This is exactly what happened. The Founding Fathers were an incredibly intelligent group of men, and the framework they produced is unmatched in human history. They were not perfect, however. They didn't foresee the ultimate consequences of a few tiny loopholes in their work. They THOUGHT they were producing a bulletproof blueprint for the ideal Capitalist Republic, but those seemingly tiny cracks widened under the assault of the greedy. Probably the two most significant flaws were giving the government the authority to produce currency, and giving the government authority over interstate commerce. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
krispyfi writes:
"so what is pure capitalism, if not lack of government interference (i.e. laws) in the economy?" In a nutshell, pure capitalism (or 'laissez-faire capitalism', which I shall henceforth abbreviate to 'Capitalism') is a system in which the sole function of government is the protection of the individual rights of its constituents. Since the only way the rights of an individual can be violated is through the initiation of physical force, a Capitalist government is restricted purely to the role of policeman. This can be subdivided into three broad areas: The military: to protect the society from force initiated by external agents, i.e. an invasion by a foreign country. The police: to protect society from force initiated by internal agents, i.e. murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. The courts: to encode, interpret, and enforce a body of law that adheres to the fundamental principle -- that the initiation of physical force is forbidden -- and all of its corollaries: fraud, breach of contract, inadvertent error or misinterpration or just plain disagreement between parties, etc. That's it. A Capitalist government has no authority to involve itself in any, repeat, ANY other area. Not education, transportation, energy development, welfare, unemployment insurance, health care, broadcasting standards, prohibition of drug use, space exploration, standards for toothbrushes... not even the minting of currency. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
krispyfi lumber tyrant Registered: 10/03/01 Posts: 320 Loc: se usa Last seen: 19 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
this is a great thread! pinksharkmark answered all of my questions in a very satisfying way.
-------------------- If i get into some trouble TURBO BOOST will set me free. Michael Knight you watch the bass with the K I T T.
| |||||||
|
jihead addict Registered: 06/08/00 Posts: 399 Last seen: 16 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
"Living in a purely capitalistic society does not negate the fact that there are laws....afterall we're not talking anarchy "
read pinksharks post a few lines down, he does a good job of explaning this. although i dont totally agree with this either, as in any system of capitalism, when capital is put in power, capital calls the tune to which the government dances. in pure capitalism, the government would NOT be allowed to interfer with business as long as no initiation of force or coercion is used. hope this clears things up. "You must really like me to not be able to keep me out of this discussion. I believe you're confusing capitalism with anarchy...they aren't even close " you know i love you ;). i just figured since pure capitalism is basically the libertarian philosophy and you are always proud to proclaim you allegiance to the party, that you should answer some of the questions we have. and again, your wrong, pure capitalism are actually the closest neighbors. the only difference is that there is a minimal government and corporations own the individual instead of the state. they couldnt be closer. -------------------- kill white noise
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
jihead writes:
"in any system of capitalism, when capital is put in power, capital calls the tune to which the government dances." What tune? What dance? Under Capitalism, the only "plums" the government CAN hand out is to award a contract to the company who builds the courthouse or the one who builds the aircraft carrier or the one who produces police uniforms. "... {anarchy and} pure capitalism are actually the closest neighbors." Possibly correct. In the spectrum from the least government regulation to the most, it goes like this: Anarchy, Capitalism, Libertarianism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Dictatorship. Since Capitalism lies between Anarchy and Libertarianism, it is a matter of opinion as to which of the two is "closer" to it. "the only difference is that there is a minimal government and corporations own the individual instead of the state." Sigh. In a Capitalist society corporations emphatically DO NOT "own" the individual. Individuals are sovereign entities who remain free at any time to deal with any given corporation or not. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Innvertigo Vote Libertarian!! Registered: 02/08/01 Posts: 16,296 Loc: Crackerville, Mi |
| ||||||
|
****i just figured since pure capitalism is basically the libertarian philosophy and you are always proud to proclaim you allegiance to the party,****
just to clear it up (and i know this is off topic so bare with me) I proclaim my allegiance to the philosophy... not the party. The party couldn't win an election because they're too busy trying to proclaim which leader of the party is more american than the other rather then playing the game of politics and the issues at hand...they will never win until this is taken out of the party. Continue with your discussion -------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |||||||
|
jihead addict Registered: 06/08/00 Posts: 399 Last seen: 16 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
"What tune? What dance? Under Capitalism, the only "plums" the government CAN hand out is to award a contract to the company who builds the courthouse or the one who builds the aircraft carrier or the one who produces police uniforms."
they may not hand out "plums", but (yes im using current examples) look at our current political system. large corporations basically run the country through their power and influence. politicians are much more willing to listen to the CEO putting millions in his pocket than the people proclaiming injustice. the drug war is the best example there is. "Possibly correct. In the spectrum from the least government regulation to the most, it goes like this: Anarchy, Capitalism, Libertarianism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Dictatorship. Since Capitalism lies between Anarchy and Libertarianism, it is a matter of opinion as to which of the two is "closer" to it. " i always saw it as a circle, starting on the left with anarchy, socialism, liberals, moderate, conservative, facism, libertarianism, with the libertarian and anarchy curving around to almost meet each other at the back side. an ascii drawing would prob help but im lazy. "Sigh. In a Capitalist society corporations emphatically DO NOT "own" the individual. Individuals are sovereign entities who remain free at any time to deal with any given corporation or not. " HA! while im not saying that corporations would officially own people, it is as good as slavery. you would be at the total mercy of the few corporations that would exist, forced to rely on them for your minimal wages only to buy back the products from them that you yourself have produced. wouldnt it me a much nicer place if we could all own whatever we make??? peace. -------------------- kill white noise
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
jihead writes:
"they may not hand out "plums", but (yes im using current examples) look at our current political system. large corporations basically run the country through their power and influence. politicians are much more willing to listen to the CEO putting millions in his pocket than the people proclaiming injustice. the drug war is the best example there is." It has already been established that our current political system is NOT pure Capitalism. This thread is about pure Capitalism, not about the quasi-Socialist Welfare State into which the United States of America has degenerated. Let's stay on topic, shall we? "i always saw it as a circle, starting on the left with anarchy, socialism, liberals, moderate, conservative, facism, libertarianism, with the libertarian and anarchy curving around to almost meet each other at the back side. an ascii drawing would prob help but im lazy." Excuse me? I don't know how you define left and right, then. I prefer my linear explanation, since the criterium for arranging the various political philosophies along the spectrum is easy to understand: least amount of government power = Anarchy. Most amount of government power = Dictatorship. "HA! while im not saying that corporations would officially own people, it is as good as slavery." How so? Under pure Capitalism, no one enslaves anyone. Everyone is free to deal with others or not to deal with others as they see fit, on a purely voluntary basis. This is the complete antithesis of slavery. Please elaborate on how possessing total and complete freedom from coercion is "as good as slavery". "you would be at the total mercy of the few corporations that would exist..." Why do you keep insisting that only a few corporations would exist? You have never explained why this would happen, never outlined even the minimum logical basis to support your statement, merely asserted baldly that this WILL happen. I call you on it. In actual practice, the exact REVERSE would be the case... there would be even MORE companies in existence under pure Capitalism (hence broader choice for the consumer) than there are today. The main reason why so many people in today's political system choose to work for others rather than run their own business is the literally CRUSHING amount of government-created paperwork, absurd regulations that must be met, bizarre restrictions that must be adhered to, and just plain bureaucratic BULLSHIT that is involved in starting and running a business. I know this from personal experience. I used to run my own business, and never will again. It just ain't worth it. It is a sad fact that once your business gets to the size where three people are involved, a fourth person becomes necessary whose sole function is dealing with government-generated CRAP! That's a mighty big chunk of overhead (25%) to deal with if you are a small businessman. Think I'm exaggerating? Ask any small businessman if I speak truly. ANY one you care to pick, doesn't matter to me. Go ahead. I dare you. Sixty or seventy years ago this was not true at all -- America was much more a nation of enterpreneurs and small businessmen. It was government that put a stop to that, not Capitalism. "...forced to rely on them for your minimal wages only to buy back the products from them that you yourself have produced." AGAIN, for the umpteenth time, under pure Capitalism, no one can be FORCED to buy anything from anyone. Why is that so hard to grasp? If you don't want to buy a pair of Nikes, DON'T BUY THEM! Buy some leather and make your own shoes. If you don't want to buy a crackerbox house in the burbs, DON'T BUY IT! Buy a plot of land in the country and build your own. If you don't want to clog your arteries with Big Macs, DON'T BUY THEM! Grill up your own burgers. No one can force you to buy ANYTHING you don't want to buy. "wouldnt it me a much nicer place if we could all own whatever we make???" You can do that anytime you want, even in today's Welfare State environment. The problem is, very few people have either the time or the skills to manufacture from scratch everything they want. This is why the concept of "Division of Labor" was discovered. And division of labor is a hallmark of ALL human societies, from prehistoric villages in the Tigris-Euphrates valley to hippy communes to modern Communist China. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
Capitalism is not a political system any more than farming
is a political system. Different political systems allow capitalism to be practiced to varying degrees by various entities. Communism involves monopoly collective/state ownership of everything and the state/collective is the only entity allowed to practice capitalism. Socialism and fascism allow a mix of government and private "ownership" but with government control of what the private sector can do with their property, the result being that the government is the de facto owner of property while the legal owner is allowed to get whatever remaining benefits that ownership entails. Monarchy/dictatorship can be whatever those in charge decide, pure capitalism may be allowed, pure communism may be demanded or any varying degree of capitalism. Democracy is a means of decision making whereby the majority of voters decides, a pure democracy would simply be dictatorship of the majority. Anarchy is the absence of government and hence will allow pure capitalism to exist, but that doesn't mean that everyone would be use capitalism, it also MIGHT entail an absence of a peaceful means of settling disputes and protecting property rights. As to what political system is the best... "freedom puts my faith in none of the above." A purely free society would allow voluntary capitalist segments to co-exist with voluntary communal segments without either of them being allowed to force their way of life on each other. Problems arise when either the capitalists buy favors from the government with money or the populace or political factions buy favors with votes. Either way individual freedom is taken from some to pay for the favors to others (freedom of property ownership is one type freedom that can be taken away). I know, this really doesn't answer the original question, but no society in history ever has been a pure capitalist society nor will there ever be a pure capitalist society. It is one system humans use which serves as a means for people to get the things they need or want and provide others with the things they need or want. Some things just can't be provided for through capitalism and people use various other ways to satisfy their desires/needs for these things. What I think would be best would be a truly free society where communists, socialists, capitalist, religious groups, atheists, homosexuals, heterosexuals, white supremacists, black supremacists, anti-drug people, pro-drug people, Amway sales people and all others aren't allowed to force their ideas of utopia on anyone else. "Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert A. Heinlein, "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long"
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
evolving writes:
"Capitalism is not a political system..." Not so. Every dictionary, every encyclopedia, every Poly-Sci 101 textbook, every politician -- even Karl Marx for crying out loud! -- defines capitalism as a political system. "Different political systems allow capitalism to be practiced to varying degrees by various entities. Communism involves monopoly collective/state ownership of everything and the state/collective is the only entity allowed to practice capitalism." You seem to be defining Capitalism as "the act of doing business", or "producing and selling stuff" or some similar concept. That is a subset of Capitalism, not Capitalism qua Capitalism. "Democracy is a means of decision making whereby the majority of voters decides, a pure democracy would simply be dictatorship of the majority." Correct. What so many people fail to realize is that the United States of America is not a Democracy, it is a constitutionally limited Republic. "Anarchy is the absence of government and... also MIGHT entail an absence of a peaceful means of settling disputes and protecting property rights." No "might" about it. That is the fatal flaw of anarchy. There is no way to settle disputes, as there is no universally-recognized authority to decide, "Jones is right. Smith is wrong. Smith, give Jones back his money." "A purely free society would allow voluntary capitalist segments to co-exist with voluntary communal segments without either of them being allowed to force their way of life on each other." Sounds like pure Capitalism to me. Under pure Capitalism, any group that chose to voluntarily pool their resources and "share and share alike" would be allowed to do so. "Problems arise when either the capitalists buy favors from the government with money or the populace or political factions buy favors with votes." That's the beauty of pure Capitalism. There are no favors to be bought, either with money or with votes, since the government is limited to the protection of its constituents, not the practice of doling out favors. It has no ABILITY to hand out favors. The government fills the role of cop, not Santa Claus. "Either way individual freedom is taken from some to pay for the favors to others (freedom of property ownership is one type freedom that can be taken away)." Under pure Capitalism, property ownership is guaranteed, and no freedom is taken from anyone. "I know, this really doesn't answer the original question, but no society in history ever has been a pure capitalist society nor will there ever be a pure capitalist society." There has yet to be a purely Capitalist society, but the United States in its first century of existence was within a hair's-breadth of being so, and its non-Capitalist aspects (the big kicker was slavery in the rogue states) were so non-influential at the beginning that for practical purposes it can be considered pure Capitalism (at least in the slave-free northern states). "Some things just can't be provided for through capitalism..." Such as? "I think would be best would be a truly free society where communists, socialists, capitalist, religious groups, atheists, homosexuals, heterosexuals, white supremacists, black supremacists, anti-drug people, pro-drug people, Amway sales people and all others aren't allowed to force their ideas of utopia on anyone else." Sounds like pure Capitalism to me. Under pure Capitalism, the initiation of force is strictly forbidden. "(from Robert A. Heinlein) The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." Exactly. Capitalism is the political system which has no desire to control any aspect of its constituents' existence, but rather to protect its constituents from those who would. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
jihead addict Registered: 06/08/00 Posts: 399 Last seen: 16 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
"It has already been established that our current political system is NOT pure Capitalism. This thread is about pure Capitalism, not about the quasi-Socialist Welfare State into which the United States of America has degenerated. Let's stay on topic, shall we? "
my point was that even in our socialist state, the powerful are the only ones in control so what makes you think that it would be any better under a system of nearly unlimited wealth and power? "Excuse me? I don't know how you define left and right, then. I prefer my linear explanation, since the criterium for arranging the various political philosophies along the spectrum is easy to understand: least amount of government power = Anarchy. Most amount of government power = Dictatorship. " ok, you got the linear part, now just imagine the ends curving towards each other to create almost a circle, youll see what i mean :) and by the way, dictatorship isnt a form of government, its the form of a single person in power over a different form of governance (facism, communism). "How so? Under pure Capitalism, no one enslaves anyone. Everyone is free to deal with others or not to deal with others as they see fit, on a purely voluntary basis. This is the complete antithesis of slavery. Please elaborate on how possessing total and complete freedom from coercion is "as good as slavery"." its known as wage slavery. if you dont work everyday, you dont eat and neither does your family. you want that new electronic gizmo coming out? work harder. wage slavery is probably the worse than regular slavery, in fact if you look at political cartoons from 1840's/50's america, youll see a ton comparing england and the norths wage slavery to that of the south. at least slaves always had food and shelter, you loose your job at the factory, your family starves. "Why do you keep insisting that only a few corporations would exist? You have never explained why this would happen, never outlined even the minimum logical basis to support your statement, merely asserted baldly that this WILL happen. I call you on it." one simple fucking reason, scarcity of resources. natural, human, and financial. its what drives our present day economy, the fact that people control resources that others dont and therefore depend on them to continue their lives. you keep refering to 18th century america as the utopia of capitalism, so ill use the example of standard oil again. because of their sheer size, they could control the transportation RESOURCES (trains) to undercut smaller opponents and buy them out, therby gaining more and more control over amerika's oil. when standard oil was broken up by our government, they controlled 90% of amerika;s oil supply. if he was left to continue unabated, why wouldnt he just take more and steadily raise prices until he maximized profit and product sold? and who would spring up to stop him?? with enough money to own a VAST amount of oil resources (land, drilling equipment, men to hire, transportation of the oil, places to sell it, etc.) ?? and even if they did in theory, what's stopping standard oil from cutting their prices enough to still maintain profit but undercut the competitor until he is bankrupt? its called scarcity and until we as humans stop being so wasteful and dependent on scarce resources, we are at the whim of the people who control them. "ANY one you care to pick, doesn't matter to me. Go ahead. I dare you. " well i just got back from work with my uncle who installs floors for a living and yes, owns his own business. does he complain aboot the paperwork? no, most trade jobs have nothing of the sort to deal with on a small scale. and if you think that is the reason why most people dont start their own business than you are really oblivious to reality. most businesses fail after the first 3 years, its a risky adventure and you can loose a lot, most people dont have the skills or the resources to start and succeed. its tough to compete against the big guys ;) btw, what type of business do you own? "It was government that put a stop to that, not Capitalism. " uhmmm, no. ever heard of the industrial revolution? as close to pure capitalism as america ever got and what did we get out of it?? the worst living conditions in american history. seriously, if you think that time period was so great, id like to see you survive a week in the life of a poor immigrant living in a tenament house and working 80 hours a week for 3 dollars a day. "No one can force you to buy ANYTHING you don't want to buy. " right, until the whole scarcity theory comes back into play. so you say your 2 month old son is sick? well shit, the only company that makes the drugs he needs is charging 200 dollars a dose and you, working in the factory for a living wage cant afford that. why, oh why must my son die when another company could make the drug for half the price? because capitalism says the ideas and knowledge can be copyrighted and patented, that they are property and their use and dissmination can be restricted. same with the other examples you use, if you cant afford a plot of land close to your job, can you build your own house? you seem to think that pure capitalism would mean prosperity for all when ever time period where capitalism has been strongest has seen the greatest disparity between the rich and poor. "And division of labor is a hallmark of ALL human societies, from prehistoric villages in the Tigris-Euphrates valley to hippy communes to modern Communist China. " the difference being is that in all systems up until feudal times, the workers and producers (artisans) owned what they produced and sold it for their own profit. now workers produce for a boss who, by the very nature of capitalism, must exploit their labor and pay them less than it is worth to make a profit for himself. basic marx there. the workers owning what they produce is the basis of socialism/communism/anarchy instead of being exploited. peace. -------------------- kill white noise
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
jihead writes:
"my point was that even in our socialist state, the powerful are the only ones in control..." You are correct to say that under any form of Statism (socialism, fascism, communism, totalitarianism, etc.) the powerful are the only ones in control. They don't even need to be wealthy... they just need to occupy a powerful political office. "...so what makes you think that it would be any better under a system of nearly unlimited wealth and power?" Your logical flaw is that you insist on equating wealth with power. People can be wealthy without being powerful, and powerful without being wealthy. Under Capitalism, the wealthy have no political power whatsoever. They cannot force anyone to do anything. If they are the IDLE wealthy (living off an inheritance, for example), they swill champagne and sail yachts, neither contributing anything to humanity nor asking anything of it. They are essentially irrelevant economically. On the other hand, the PRODUCTIVE wealthy (such as factory owners) provide both goods and the means to obtain those goods (jobs). This does NOT mean they are powerful... far from it! The lowest-level bureaucrat in a Statist society has infinitely greater power. If no one cares to accept the jobs the productive wealthy provide, they cannot produce goods. If they have no goods to sell, they have no wealth. The fact that they are wealthy does not give them the POWER to force people to accept the jobs they offer... they must PERSUADE workers to work for them. "dictatorship isnt a form of government, its the form of a single person in power over a different form of governance (facism, communism)." Point taken. Substitute "Absolute Monarchy" for "Dictatorship", then. "if you dont work everyday, you dont eat and neither does your family." Well, duh! Welcome to reality. Even Anarchists must work. Even a castaway completely alone (hence free from ANY coercion from ANY other humans) must work. Work is not necessitated by any political system, it is necessitated by the laws of the universe. The easiest way to prove that work is a METAPHYSICAL necessity is to simply lie on the ground hoping for food and water to drop into your gullet. "you want that new electronic gizmo coming out? work harder." Or do without. People who lived half a century ago did just fine without any electronic gizmos. "wage slavery is probably the worse than regular slavery..." Nonsense. A free man always has options: change jobs, scrimp and save long enough to start his own business, say "the hell with it all" and live off the land in the Alaskan bush, whatever. A slave does what he is told or is killed. "in fact if you look at political cartoons from 1840's/50's america, youll see a ton comparing england and the norths wage slavery to that of the south" I choose not to base my political philosophy on the dubious intelligence of cartoonists. Cartoonists make their living through exaggeration and satire, not through deep thinking. "at least slaves always had food and shelter..." Unlike many people living in Statist regimes. "you loose your job at the factory, your family starves." How were you feeding your family before the factory opened for business? "one simple fucking reason, scarcity of resources. natural..." Forests are not scarce. Oil is not scarce. Iron is not scarce. "...human..." No lack of humans, either. Sure are a lot of people out there looking for employment. "...and financial..." Financial resources are dependent on the first two. No resources and no workers to create goods from those resources equals no wealth. "its what drives our present day economy, the fact that people control resources that others dont and therefore depend on them to continue their lives." Well, since this thread is about Capitalism vs. Socialism, let's take a look at that, shall we? If a Capitalist controls a tract of land sitting on top of an iron deposit, odds are that he will open an iron mine, and maybe a steel mill as well. The resources are extracted from the land (where they were of no use to anyone, rich or poor) and turned into goods that people need "to continue their lives". Let's examine the other side of the coin, shall we? A government has control over that same tract of land. They turn it into a national park. The only ones who now benefit from that tract of land are those who are sufficiently wealthy to afford a vacation in the park. "ill use the example of standard oil again. because of their sheer size, they could control the transportation RESOURCES (trains) to undercut smaller opponents and buy them out" And how did they gain control over trains and keep competitors out? THROUGH GOVERNMENT GRANTS! Exclusive rights-of-way, subsidies, restrictions on new entrants... all thanks to government legislation. This is a matter of public record, by the way. Several fascinating books have been written about the era of the "Railway Tycoons" and the political corruption associated with them. It was the beginning of the era of the professional lobbyist. "when standard oil was broken up by our government, they controlled 90% of amerika;s oil supply." Not quite true. They perhaps controlled the majority of America's oil PRODUCTION, but they owned only a fraction of the oil deposits in the country. "if he was left to continue unabated, why wouldnt he just take more and steadily raise prices until he maximized profit and product sold? and who would spring up to stop him??" Under Capitalism, he could raise his prices only until the price of oil was high enough to make the oil business attractive enough for other businessmen to jump into the market. "and even if they did in theory, what's stopping standard oil from cutting their prices enough to still maintain profit but undercut the competitor until he is bankrupt?" Under Capitalism... nothing. I guess I don't understand how it is bad for those who need oil being able to buy at it a rock-bottom price. What does it matter if there are ten oil companies or two or even one, if the price is the same? "its called scarcity and until we as humans stop being so wasteful and dependent on scarce resources, we are at the whim of the people who control them." I'd rather deal with a private individual who wants to provide as many of the resources as I care to buy than be at the whim of the governments who comprise OPEC. "well i just got back from work with my uncle who installs floors for a living and yes, owns his own business." You work for a family member who is a businessman? Does that make you a wage slave? Do you feel he is exploiting you? "does he complain aboot the paperwork? no, most trade jobs have nothing of the sort to deal with on a small scale." He doesn't have to fill in Social Security forms for his employees? Workman's Compensation? Medical insurance? Unemployment insurance? Proof of compliance with OSHA regulations? He doesn't withhold union dues? Forward payroll withholding taxes? Renew his contractor's license? Provide proof of compliance with building permits? Does he not have to file annual reports for his company? Fill out tax forms for the company? Does he do all this himself or does he hire an accountant to do some of it? "if you think that is the reason why most people dont start their own business than you are really oblivious to reality. most businesses fail after the first 3 years, its a risky adventure and you can loose a lot, most people dont have the skills or the resources to start and succeed." Yes, it is risky. That's why most people would prefer to be a "wage slave" and let the boss assume all the risk and the seventy hour work weeks. I have seen more than a few businesses where the top employees make more than the owners do. "btw, what type of business do you own?" Past tense. Specialty boutiques (similar to Sunglass Hut) and windsurfing equipment rental and instruction. "ever heard of the industrial revolution?" Yep. "as close to pure capitalism as america ever got and what did we get out of it?? the worst living conditions in american history." Nonsense. Utter tripe. This is the biggest myth of all, that the industrial revolution made things WORSE. In the first 100 years of the industrial revolution, the population of Europe (where the industrial revolution began -- America was still largely an agrarian country for the first half of the industrial revolution) increased by 300%, after centuries of increasing 5 to 10% per century. The industrial revolution was a BENEFIT to humans, not a curse, at least if you go by how many were able to live long enough to reproduce. Before the industrial revolution, those folks died. "seriously, if you think that time period was so great, id like to see you survive a week in the life of a poor immigrant living in a tenament house and working 80 hours a week for 3 dollars a day." And why do you think they WERE immigrants? Because the alternative was helplessly watching their families starve to death in some peat bog in Ireland. Was the life of a factory worker in nineteenth century America a bed of roses? Hell no. But at least it was LIFE. How many farmers back in the old country worked 100 hours a week for maybe 50 cents cash, watched ten of their twelve kids die before age six, then died themselves at age forty? "right, until the whole scarcity theory comes back into play. so you say your 2 month old son is sick? well shit, the only company that makes the drugs he needs is charging 200 dollars a dose and you, working in the factory for a living wage cant afford that." What about those who had sick children before the drug was invented? What did they do? "why, oh why must my son die when another company could make the drug for half the price? because capitalism says the ideas and knowledge can be copyrighted and patented, that they are property and their use and dissmination can be restricted." One cannot patent an IDEA. One cannot patent KNOWLEDGE. One can only patent products. Don't take my word for it, check it out. Maybe another company might have produced the same drug first and chosen to sell it for less. BUT THEY DIDN'T. The inventor of a product sets the price he feels compensates him fairly and hopes that enough people will agree to buy the product at that price to repay his investment in time and materials spent developing the product. Maybe he sets the price too high to properly maximize his return on investment, maybe he sets it too low... but that is HIS prerogative. It is HIS product, after all. He doesn't HAVE to sell it to anyone if he doesn't want to. "same with the other examples you use, if you cant afford a plot of land close to your job, can you build your own house?" So live further out in the country where the land is cheaper, and pay more to commute to work. Many do just that. Or, don't buy a house at all. Rent an apartment. Many do just that. Or take a job closer to where you live. Many do just that. My point was, that under Capitalism, you are not FORCED to buy anything from a giant, soulless, money-grubbing corporation. You can buy from a small businessman, or make your own, or do without. "you seem to think that pure capitalism would mean prosperity for all..." Of course I don't think that. There will always be people who are less well-off than others, no matter what political system is in place. But I am addressing the question that was asked in the beginning of this thread: "Would the US of A be a better place if we were a purely capitalist society? " The key word here is "better", not "perfect". Since humans are fallible, NO social system can be perfect. "when ever time period where capitalism has been strongest has seen the greatest disparity between the rich and poor." Actually, not so. Someone in this forum recently posted that Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Jack Walton had a combined net worth greater than the poorest hundred million Americans. Study after study has shown that decade after decade the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest Americans is widening, at the same time that government power is increasing. Hardly an indictment of pure Capitalism. "in all systems up until feudal times, the workers and producers (artisans) owned what they produced and sold it for their own profit." Why do you think there would be no artisans under Capitalism? There certainly were in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth century. And, under Capitalism, if you choose to go into business for yourself and produce widgets, they are yours to keep. If you agree to work for the owner of a widget factory instead, you don't get to keep the widgets, but you do get to keep the wages. "now workers produce for a boss who, by the very nature of capitalism, must exploit their labor..." Loaded word, "exploit". Let's use a for instance... a large clothing manufacturer sets up a factory in a dirt-poor region where the inhabitants have been eating nuts and roots and pimping their daughters to get cash to pay the rent. The inhabitants can continue their lives as they were, in which case the factory goes bankrupt for lack of workers, or they can work at the factory. Please tell me how offering an alternative that people can accept VOLUNTARILY is exploiting them. After all, if the workers get tired of being exploited, they can always go back to doing what they were doing before the factory opened. "and pay them less than it is worth to make a profit for himself." Everyone who works, whether for himself or for another, must generate profit. In the case of a corporation, most of that profit is re-invested in increasing production. In the case of the one-man business, most of the profit goes into savings against the time when old age prevents him from working any longer. But the eventual disposition of the profits doesn't alter the fact that they ARE profits. "basic marx there. the workers owning what they produce is the basis of socialism/communism/anarchy instead of being exploited." Ah! I see. You don't object to working. You object to voluntarily trading your work for cash. By the way, under Statism, the workers don't own what they produce, the State does. And under Anarchy, since there are no laws (everything is permitted... total freedom... that's what makes it Anarchy after all), there is nothing to stop anyone from agreeing to work for another for cash. pinky --------------------
Edited by pinksharkmark (12/23/01 08:36 AM)
| |||||||
|
jihead addict Registered: 06/08/00 Posts: 399 Last seen: 16 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
ok, there is just way too much there for me to respond to all of, so ill pick out some favorites. lots of good shit though, you make some really solid points.
"Your logical flaw is that you insist on equating wealth with power. People can be wealthy without being powerful, and powerful without being wealthy. Under Capitalism, the wealthy have no political power whatsoever." i dont see how wealth doesnt equal power in a system that is essentially existant upon the premise of making money. lets just simplify this and say that wealth=resources. if someone controls the resources of a certain group (the country say) and everyone in the control lives their lives in pursuit of these limited resources (because you agree that the system would need a limited money supply?), how are those people not more powerful than those who dont have the resources? and maybe im just naive, but eventually those resources are going to be hoarded to the point that a very few control virtually everything. "they must PERSUADE workers to work for them." if its a choice between slave wages and starving, there is very little persuasion needed. "Work is not necessitated by any political system, it is necessitated by the laws of the universe." i see your point, but the concept of "work" is really more modern. i dont really consider hunting/gathering/farming work when you are providing yourself with food, but thats just me. we need to "work" to buy all our luxury items. "A slave does what he is told or is killed. " but by your logic, a slave could run away and live in the alaskan brush too, its all a matter of what people are willing to tolerate and the lifestyle they wish to pursue. just because you have the freedom to escape the system doesnt mean its a viable alternative. "Unlike many people living in Statist regimes." thats exactly my point, almost all statist regimes are capitalist. "Forests are not scarce. Oil is not scarce. Iron is not scarce. " what? are you being serious here? all natural resources are scarce but maybe air.. thats why they can be exploited for profit. you dont see people charging for air do you? well, that stupid oxygen crap they sell at the bars, but thas another story. "No lack of humans, either. Sure are a lot of people out there looking for employment. " but they sure do cost money... "turned into goods that people need "to continue their lives". to use your logic, what were they doing before the steel mill opened up? "A government has control over that same tract of land. They turn it into a national park. The only ones who now benefit from that tract of land are those who are sufficiently wealthy to afford a vacation in the park. " why would this happen? and what if the owner doesnt put up a steel mill, but makes it a vacation resort if the land is beautiful enough to be a national park? now only the very wealthy can afford to see what was once something that belonged to no one, beatiful nature, packaged up, bought and sold to the highest bidder. capitalism cares not for what it destroys. "THROUGH GOVERNMENT GRANTS! Exclusive rights-of-way, subsidies, restrictions on new entrants... all thanks to government legislation." you might be right on this, but i recently watched a movie on this and i remember seeing that the standard oil cut personal deals with the railroads to get discounted rates because of the sheer volume of product that he transported on those lines. "Under Capitalism, he could raise his prices only until the price of oil was high enough to make the oil business attractive enough for other businessmen to jump into the market. " this is still the one thing you havent explained to me. where is he going to be able to get the resources to start a company able to compete with such a giant? "I guess I don't understand how it is bad for those who need oil being able to buy at it a rock-bottom price." do you buy your clothing from sweatshops? own a lot of nikes? do ethics and morals play a role in your consuming? the fact is, things would get dirt cheap until competition is stiffled and profit can be maximized again. how would they get so cheap? exploitation of said resources. "I'd rather deal with a private individual who wants to provide as many of the resources as I care to buy than be at the whim of the governments who comprise OPEC. " whats the difference? and by the way, the existence of OPEC and you being at the whim of them shows that oil is scarce "You work for a family member who is a businessman? Does that make you a wage slave? Do you feel he is exploiting you? " honestly, yes, im a wage slave when i work with him. and yes, by the nature of business, i am being exploited. he doesnt underpay me or anything, but this is a whole different ballgame than factory work. "He doesn't have to fill in Social Security forms for his employees? Workman's Compensation? Medical insurance? Unemployment insurance? Proof of compliance with OSHA regulations? He doesn't withhold union dues? Forward payroll withholding taxes? Renew his contractor's license? Provide proof of compliance with building permits? Does he not have to file annual reports for his company? Fill out tax forms for the company? Does he do all this himself or does he hire an accountant to do some of it?" im not sure, but most of this, no. he works with one other guy most of the time, pays and gets paid in cash, very little government bullshit because of his size. no store either so all of that garbage isnt applicable. "That's why most people would prefer to be a "wage slave" and let the boss assume all the risk and the seventy hour work weeks." exactly, its the basis of capitalism. "Specialty boutiques (similar to Sunglass Hut) and windsurfing equipment rental and instruction. " heh heh, say it with me now, booodeeeega. j/k. "The industrial revolution was a BENEFIT to humans, not a curse, at least if you go by how many were able to live long enough to reproduce. " well im gunna say curse, i think half our current problems are because of overpopulation. again, we feel free to destroy the planet without regard to consequences. "And why do you think they WERE immigrants? Because the alternative was helplessly watching their families starve to death in some peat bog in Ireland. " and what system was in place in ireland at the time? capitalism. and what does the us have that almost every other country in the world doesnt? natural resources out the asshole, thats the real reason we;'re so prosperous, not capitalism. "What about those who had sick children before the drug was invented? What did they do? " how is that relevant? the fact is a treatment exists and is unavaible to dying people because of its cost. "One cannot patent an IDEA. One cannot patent KNOWLEDGE. One can only patent products. Don't take my word for it, check it out. " ok, your right on that, but the fact remains that the idea and knowledge can be restricted and withheld from other competitors who would be able to reproduce complex goods cheaper and thus offer up more competition. "Study after study has shown that decade after decade the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest Americans is widening, at the same time that government power is increasing." less restriction on big business. ever heard of the imf, wto, world bank, ftaa, nafta? less regulation, period. "Loaded word, "exploit". Let's use a for instance... a large clothing manufacturer sets up a factory in a dirt-poor region where the inhabitants have been eating nuts and roots and pimping their daughters to get cash to pay the rent" why wouldnt they just grow food? well it seems like your talking about a third world country, setting up factories in places were people have successfully lived for thousands of years and we have to come in and make sure they wear amerikan clothing and eat at mcdonalds. "Please tell me how offering an alternative that people can accept VOLUNTARILY is exploiting them." well by taking land through the factory itself and all the roads, houses, etc, that would also be needed. all of this land could have food grown on it instead of the inhabitants having to buy food from another place. "Ah! I see. You don't object to working. You object to voluntarily trading your work for cash." no, i dont, i just see two different kinds of work. there is mind numbing service/manufacturing/any wage/salary work and then there is physical labor that can be used to create things for ones self and self sufficience. so yea, i do pretty much object to the whole wage system and relying on the labor of others to provide me with the things i need to live. you are a slave to that person. one of the rothschilds said that. ppppeace. -------------------- kill white noise
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
jihead writes:
"ok, there is just way too much there for me to respond to all of, so ill pick out some favorites." You're right. I guess it's time this was subdivided into separate categories, since it has strayed afield from the original subheading "The Myth of Monopolies". Check the new headings in these next few posts for an indication of which of your points is covered. jihead writes: "i dont see how wealth doesnt equal power in a system that is essentially existant upon the premise of making money." First of all, Capitalism is NOT based on the premise of making money per se, but on the premise that individuals have the right to be free from coercion. It follows that one who is free of coercion is free to try to make money, if that is what he chooses to do. An individual is also free to BEG for money, or to marry another who will provide the necessities of life in return for companionship. But, under Capitalism, an individual only has the power to try to MAKE money, not to STEAL money. He has no right to steal directly from a single individual -- i.e. through mugging an honest citizen -- or indirectly from a group by using an agent -- i.e. having the government steal the money from a whole BUNCH of honest citizens and give it to him so he can swill beer in front of the TV rather than work. Secondly, under Capitalism, wealth does not equal power, it equals time. You seem to be convinced that in a Capitalist society an individual with a lot of money has the power to make anyone do whatever he wants. This is manifestly untrue, and easily demonstrated. For instance, a billionaire has no power to force a faithful woman to betray her husband by sleeping with him. Even if he offers her a million dollars she will refuse out of principle -- the benefits of the money she will receive are not worth the anguish her guilt will cause. A billionaire cannot pay a committed Pacifist enough money to kill a business rival. No amount of money will suffice, even if the Pacifist is starving. Similarly, a billionaire cannot pay the Pacifist enough money to make him accept a job at his arms-manufacturing plant. A billionaire cannot pay an Anarchist enough money to accept a salaried position with his accounting firm, because to an Anarchist this would mean he was being "dominated" and "exploited". A billionaire cannot pay a politician a million dollars to enact legislation to drive a competitor out of business, because the politician doesn't have the power to do so. A billionaire can't pay a retired woman of simple wants enough to persuade her to sell the house she's lived in all her life, because she derives more pleasure from the comfort the house provides than the goods that the money will buy. She has enough for her needs; the money is just not important to her. A billionaire cannot lower the prices of the mink coats his company produces to the point where a member of PETA will buy one. A billionaire who owns a string of MacDonald's franchises can't persuade a vegetarian to buy his Big Macs, even if he sells them for ten cents each. A billionaire who runs a non-union "sweatshop" in a third-world country producing women's sportswear cannot force an indignant labor organizer to buy his products, no matter how much cheaper they may be. A billionaire who sells mahogany furniture will never see a single purchase from a tree hugger. The only real power that his wealth gives him is the power to use his time for pursuits other than providing the necessities of his continued existence. As I said earlier, wealth is not power, it is TIME. A poor person must spend all his time producing food and shelter. A rich person can buy food and shelter by using his accumulated wealth, so he can spend all his time playing computer games and watching tv. pinky --------------------
Edited by pinksharkmark (12/24/01 05:44 AM)
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
jihead writes:
"lets just simplify this and say that wealth=resources." Not correct. Resources are not wealth. They are, at best, the starting point from which potential wealth might eventually be created. A ton of iron ore buried half a mile down equates to exactly zero wealth, especially if no one has yet discovered that it is there in the first place. Even once discovered, it isn't worth squat until it is brought to the surface and refined into iron ingots. This requires an investment of time and money and physical effort and knowledge. Moreover, an iron ingot is still worth squat if no one cares to buy it, and worth LESS than squat if the only one interested in buying it won't agree to pay more than what it cost to produce it in the first place. And we are STILL not done yet. That ingot is not yet wealth, since an ingot as an ingot is useful maybe as a paperweight or a doorstop, but not much else. An ingot will not further a human's existence. People don't need iron, they need products MADE from iron. Until that ingot is turned into horseshoes and nails and kitchen knives, it has about as much value as a chunk of granite. Probably less, since granite at least won't dissolve into rust over time, so it can be used to build the wall of a house. As a final kicker, resources representing a given amount of potential wealth today might represent a lot less tomorrow, as technology advances. For example, copper dropped substantially in value once the technology of working iron was developed (Stone age, Copper Age, Bronze Age, Iron age), and the price of iron took a dive once the technology for working with aluminum was developed. Coal mines that were once profitable were shut down as people switched over to oil. "if someone controls the resources of a certain group (the country say) and everyone in the country lives their lives in pursuit of these limited resources (because you agree that the system would need a limited money supply?), how are those people not more powerful than those who dont have the resources?" First of all, it is extremely unlikely that in a Capitalist country anyone would even attempt to corner the market on raw resources. Under Capitalism, it just doesn't make sense for anyone to spend enormous effort to try to corner any single resource. Any individual (or corporation) who has managed to produce enough wealth to be able to buy up, for example, the mineral rights to every known and undiscovered deposit of iron ore in a given country obviously has enough smarts to understand that his wealth is better invested in diversification of his holdings. Much less risk, much better ROI (return on investment). Besides, even if someone DID manage to control all of a given resource in a Capitalist country, it would do him no good at all. You say let's use a country as an example. Let's even make it a very small country, with all deposits of iron ore already discovered, so that it might actually be possible for a single entity (individual or company) to gain control of all of them. Let's say that some billionaire in Lichtenstein (a Capitalist country) actually does manage to buy the mineral rights to all of those deposits, then immediately bumps the price of the iron ore his mines produce. "Everyone needs iron," he reasons. "I can't lose! This was the best move in the history of finance!" The iron mines of neighboring Switzerland immediately get wind of the fact that they can sell some of their stockpiled ore to Lichtenstein steel mills for less than the billionaire will. Remember that Lichtenstein is a Capitalist country, so the government has no power to prevent its citizens from buying iron ore from whomever they choose. The billionaire is left staring at a mountain of unsold ore. In frustration, he slashes his price to even lower than that of Swiss ore, and decides to buy out the Swiss. He manages to sell off his stockpile at just above cost so he will have enough cash reserves to persuade a bank to loan him enough money to buy out every single Swiss iron mine. He has to get a loan because he spent all his original money buying the Lichtenstein iron mines, and the Swiss moved in so quickly that he was only able to sell a few hundred tons of ore at his higher price.... the rest he sold at cost in order to regain his customers from the Swiss. He manages to get a bank loan, and buys out every Swiss iron mine. He then bumps his price again and waits for the cash to come rolling in. But now those damn Germans decide it makes sense to undercut him, and once again he is staring at unsold ore... by now a pretty substantial pile of it. He cuts his prices yet again, and finally manages to recoup some of his losses, but he doesn't have enough cash to buy out all the German ore producers, for two reasons: 1) So far he has just barely made a profit on the ore he mined, because he had to slash prices to fight off the Swiss and German competitors. That profit hasn't even come close to repaying his original investment in Lichtenstein, let alone the additional vast sums owed to banks for the money he spent in Switzerland. There certainly isn't enough to even BEGIN buying out the vastly larger German iron mining companies. 2) The Germans have figured out what he is up to, and have raised the asking price for their iron mines. The law of supply and demand has kicked in. This is exactly what happened to the Hunt brothers when they tried to corner the world's silver market in the late Seventies. And while all this is going on, the people of Lichtenstein are happy because they are buying iron for less than they ever were. The Swiss are happy because they sold their firms at a fat profit and never have to work again in their lives. So who has been harmed? Whose rights have been violated? Who has been prevented from doing what they chose to do? You asked "how are those people not more powerful than those who dont have the resources?" Let me now ask you just exactly how did this billionaire's "power" damage the lives of the citizens of Lichtenstein? "eventually those resources are going to be hoarded to the point that a very few control virtually everything." Hoarded resources do no good to anyone, especially not to the hoarder. Until those hoarded resources are converted to goods the hoarder can use personally, or to currency, it is no more advantageous to have a mountain of iron ore in a warehouse than it is to have a mountain of buggy whips, especially if industry switches over to aluminum while he is sitting on his iron mountain. Besides, the above example illustrates that even if he hoards all the iron in Lichtenstein, iron consumers will buy their ore from Germany or Canada or Argentina or Uganda. In a Capitalist society, the only way anyone can control the price of iron is to first buy all the iron in the world. Even you have to admit that no one will ever be able to accomplish that. " because you agree that the system would need a limited money supply?" Currency is not wealth. Goods are wealth. Currency is a medium of exchange. This should be handled in detail in another thread, since the question of money supply is relevant not only to Capitalism, but to all forms of society. "all natural resources are scarce but maybe air..." This is simply not true. There is plenty of oil available... so much so that the fuel oil to heat your house and run electrical plants is being sold for pennies a gallon. And more than half the cost of that gallon goes into government taxes. Under Capitalism, the oil would cost even LESS than it does today. It is true that as easily-tapped reserves diminish, it will be necessary to invest more to extract it from shale or marginal fields, or to synthesize it from coal, but that does not mean oil is scarce, just more expensive to get at. By that time alternative energy sources will have become economically more attractive (solar, tidal, geothermal, wind power) and the oil can be used to actually produce hard goods rather than energy. Similarly, there is plenty of wood available (enormous stretches of Canada and Siberia are nothing BUT forest), plenty of sand available (for glass and silicon chips), plenty of iron and copper and nickel and aluminum available. "the existence of OPEC and you being at the whim of them shows that oil is scarce" No it doesn't. It shows that a large portion of known deposits of easily-pumped, high-quality natural "sweet" crude oil is in the hands of authoritarian regimes. When OPEC went nuts in the early Seventies and lineups at gas pumps were common, the immediate reaction of American oil producers was to re-open marginal oil fields that had previously been unprofitable, and to invest in exploration for more deposits. When OPEC came to its senses and dropped the price of its oil again, those marginal fields ceased production. But the oil is still there. "what does the us have that almost every other country in the world doesnt? natural resources out the asshole, thats the real reason we;'re so prosperous, not capitalism." Not so. It doesn't matter how many resources a country has if it doesn't have the ability to convert them into goods. The Soviet Union had FAR more resources in Siberia alone than the USA does in the entire country. The Ukraine has enormous stretches of the most fertile soil on the planet. Yet tens of millions of people died of famine in the Ukraine, and the USSR had to buy wheat every year from the Western countries. People lined up for blocks for the chance to buy safety razors and shoes. The standard of living in the USSR was far below that of the USA. Or compare East Germany to West Germany. Or Communist China to Taiwan. Or Japan to almost anywhere. How many resources does Japan have? Practically zilch. Yet the Japanese are much more prosperous than the Soviets were, despite the enormous resources the Soviets enjoyed. If you think it's unfair to compare a quasi-capitalist country to a Statist country, let's compare a quasi-capitalist country to a quasi-socialist country. Let's take a look at the resource situation in the USA vs. its good neighbor Canada. Canada has tremendous resources: the entire Canadian Shield is one big chunk of nickel and iron ore, there are enormous prairies for growing wheat, vast stretches of forest for wood, thousands of rivers for hydroelectric power to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, big oil deposits in Alberta and the Arctic Ocean, high grade coal out the wazoo in the maritime provinces. Yet Canadians are significantly less prosperous than Americans, and falling further behind all the time. The Canadian dollar is now worth about 63 cents US. When I was in high school it was worth a little bit MORE than the US dollar. And Canadians pay a LOT higher percentage of their income in taxes than Americans do. To make it even more obvious that Capitalism, not resources, is the source of wealth, ask yourself how it was possible for America to piss away truly mind-boggling amounts of tax dollars (money confiscated from productive Americans) rebuilding Europe after WWII, developing sophisticated and hugely expensive weapons of mass destruction (nuclear warheads), sending men to the moon, providing foreign aid to ungrateful third-world countries who default on their loans, and bombing Southeast Asia with trillions of dollars worth of ordnance, and STILL be the most prosperous of all. Canada spent no money on any of those things, yet the per capita net worth of Canada is WAY less than it is in America, despite Canada's enormous resources. How is it that the US can literally throw away such stupefying amounts of money yet still be so wealthy while Canada, who never burned even a tiny fraction as much money, is not? Simple. Because the USA, despite its slide down the slippery slope towards Socialism, is STILL the country that is closest to pure Capitalism, and Canada is a Welfare State. It's a direct connection... the closer to pure Capitalism a society is, the more prosperous its citizens are. The greater the amount of government control, the worse off its citizens are. Resources or no resources. pinky --------------------
Edited by pinksharkmark (12/24/01 06:23 AM)
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
jihead writes:
"almost all statist regimes are capitalist." WHAT??? *Dope-slaps self* You wanna run that by me again? By definition, a Statist society (Socialist, Fascist, Communist, Monarchist) is the antithesis of Capitalism. Capitalism leaves property and the economy in the hands of private individuals. Statism delivers property and the economy into the hands of the State. That's why it's called Statism, after all. Try telling the politburo in Beijing that they are Capitalists. Have a friend take a video of the occasion as a favor to me. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
jihead writes:
"i dont really consider hunting/gathering/farming work when you are providing yourself with food, but thats just me. we need to "work" to buy all our luxury items." You don't just need to work in order to obtain luxury items. You need to work to obtain every single item you need to continue to live. The universe doesn't drop food or clothing or housing into your lap. You have to make a conscious effort to perform the correct series of physical actions, expending energy in the process, to achieve your goals. This requires both mental effort and physical effort, otherwise known as work. The Oxford dictionary of Current English has this to say: work -- application of mental or physical effort to a purpose, use of energy. "i just see two different kinds of work. there is mind numbing service/manufacturing/any wage/salary work..." How mind-numbing do you think it might be to guide a plow behind a water buffalo from dawn till dusk for your entire life? Or stooping to plant thousands of rice shoots in a paddy fertilized by human feces? Or operating a spinning wheel to fashion wool thread and then weaving bolts of cloth on a hand loom? Not exactly intellectually stimulating pastimes, are they? "...and then there is physical labor that can be used to create things for ones self and self sufficience." Unless you are the most competent human the world has ever seen, you will never be able to create on your own all the things you need to live in modern society. Do you know how to make a pencil from scratch? Probably there is no single human being on this planet who could be dumped in the middle of a resource rich area, and make a pencil from scratch. Maybe you yearn for a more pastoral existence where pencils are not necessary. Do you know how to make a hunting bow? Or a plow? I don't. Do you know how to locate iron ore, construct a blast furnace, extract the iron from the slag, convert it to steel, forge it into a blank, anneal it so it will hold an edge, fashion a suitable handle, and end up with a hunting knife or a sickle? Even if you did possess all those skills, would you choose to spend literally years of effort to produce that single knife, or would you rather do a few hour's work reaping grain for a farmer at harvest time and buy a better knife from a blacksmith with the money the farmer paid you? Oh, wait... I forgot that this would mean being exploited by the farmer. Maybe you feel it's too much trouble to make a steel knife from scratch. A flint knife should be good enough for your purposes. Do you know how difficult it is to make a flint knife? It's a lot harder than it looks, trust me. For that matter do you even know how to find and identify the flint to make it from? "so yea, i do pretty much object to the whole wage system and relying on the labor of others to provide me with the things i need to live. you are a slave to that person." So it is okay to produce things to trade for what you need, as long as you do all the work yourself? It is wrong to hire someone to help you with your task because then you would be reliant on the labor of others? After all, if it is wrong to work for a wage, it follows that it is also wrong to provide work to others for a wage. "why wouldnt they just grow food?" Not every inhabited area of the world has enough arable land to support the population. Food must be imported, and is paid for by other goods and services. "well it seems like your talking about a third world country, setting up factories in places were people have successfully lived for thousands of years and we have to come in and make sure they wear amerikan clothing and eat at mcdonalds" We didn't HAVE to come in. American clothing was manufactured domestically for a very long time before Nike set up business in Southeast Asia. And the inhabitants don't HAVE to accept jobs in the factory, nor do they HAVE to buy its products. They are perfectly free to ignore the factory and do whatever they were doing before it existed. If they did in fact live successfully there for thousands of years, what possible motivation could they have for abandoning their traditional way of life to be "exploited" in a mind-numbing environment? Why would they prefer to wear a Tommy Hilfiger shirt instead of their traditional garment, and eat Big Macs rather than their traditional (and healthier) rice and beans? "well by taking land through the factory itself and all the roads, houses, etc, that would also be needed." A factory to produce clothing takes very little space. I live in the Dominican Republic, which is definitely considered a third-world country. A lot of clothes and shoes are produced here for export. I have seen these factories and they are not all that large. The factories were built adjacent to existing roads, because it's just common sense to do so. And the workers live in the same houses they lived in before the factories were built. "all of this land could have food grown on it instead of the inhabitants having to buy food from another place." The land the factories were built on was worthless for food production. Hell, even a goat would be hard-pressed to survive on it. Why on earth would a company spend extra money purchasing farmland to build their factory on when they can buy a piece of scrubland for a fraction of the price? After all, the whole reason the company is setting up in a third-world country rather than in mid-town Manhattan is to lower costs. You explain why people can be persuaded to accept what YOU classify as "slave wages" by saying: "if its a choice between slave wages and starving, there is very little persuasion needed." If the conditions in the area were so bad that people were starving before the factory opened, then it's a damn good thing that the factory opened, isn't it? If providing people with jobs so they can feed themselves is an evil act, then let's only build factories in developed countries. That way shoes and clothing will be more expensive, so people in the developed countries won't be tempted to buy such frivolous items, and the third-worlders can continue to starve to death with no interference from evil Capitalist exploiters. On a personal note, let me say that living in the Dominican Republic for the last decade and a half has been very instructive. There are lengthy waiting lists for the most menial jobs in every one of those "sweatshops", and the opening of each new factory is greeted with genuine elation. These people were selling coconuts to each other to get by before the factories existed. Many of their friends and relatives still do just that. Literally. "but by your logic, a slave could run away and live in the alaskan brush too..." A slave could try. If captured, he would be beaten and put back to work. ...its all a matter of what people are willing to tolerate and the lifestyle they wish to pursue." A slave is not "willing" to tolerate his slavery. He is FORCED to tolerate it. He is not "wishing to pursue" a life of slavery, he is forbidden by force to pursue any other lifestyle. "just because you have the freedom to escape the system doesnt mean its a viable alternative." BINGO! You finally grasp the key concept that invalidates the whole hackneyed myth of "wage slavery". Whatever course of action the inhabitants of a blighted area were following before the factory opened was quite literally not a viable alternative. Oxford Dictionary again: viable -- capable of living or existing or sustaining life. Of course the starving inhabitants are free to continue this course of action. But what rational person would choose to do so? True, factory wages will not enable them to buy a Mercedes Benz for many many years to come, if ever, but those wages WILL enable them and their children to live. I ask again... what would been the future for these starving people you refer to if no businessman ever decided to build a factory that they could work in? "do you buy your clothing from sweatshops? own a lot of nikes?" Not as a rule, but I know that at least some of the T-shirts I own were produced right here in the D.R. No Nikes, but I do own a single pair of Reebok Tennis Classics and a pair of Reef sandals, but the labels say both were made in Taiwan. "do ethics and morals play a role in your consuming?" Yes. I refuse to knowingly buy any product that was manufactured in a totalitarian country. This can be quite difficult in the Dominican Republic because we import a tremendous amount of hardware and such from Communist China. The quality sucks, but the price is low. In the local hardware stores it is almost impossible to buy a kerosene lamp or a padlock that didn't come from China, so I often buy a bunch of non-Communist ones on my infrequent trips to Santiago, or even buy the smaller items in Canada, on my annual vacations to visit my parents. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
jihead addict Registered: 06/08/00 Posts: 399 Last seen: 16 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
"By definition, a Statist society (Socialist, Fascist, Communist, Monarchist) is the antithesis of Capitalism. Capitalism leaves property and the economy in the hands of private individuals. Statism delivers property and the economy into the hands of the State. That's why it's called Statism, after all. "
well, maybe im wrong or confused here, but your telling me nazi germany wasnt capitalist? or facist italy? is not most of the middle east capitalist? i think your confusing the type of government with the social system in place. just because a country isnt a democratic republic doesnt mean that they arent capitalist. -------------------- kill white noise
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
jihead writes (re newly-developed medical treatments):
"the fact is a treatment exists..." The RELEVANT fact is that this treatment DIDN'T exist until someone INVENTED it! Before that inventor developed that product, people died. Period. It wasn't beamed down from the mothership. It took hard work and in many cases true genius to create the products of modern medical technology. "...and is unavaible to dying people because of its cost. " Before the inventor CREATED that treatment, it was unavailable to dying people at ANY cost. Besides, the biggest cost of bringing a new medication to market is not the actual research work, it is the years and years of endless clinical studies required by government regulations. The final cost to the consumer has been enormously inflated thanks to government, not to Capitalists. And, probably for humanitarian reasons, patents on new pharmaceuticals have the shortest duration of all patents: fifteen years. "i think half our current problems are because of overpopulation." If you feel population is such a problem, why are you upset that life-prolonging medication is more expensive for the first fifteen years of its existence than it is after the patent has expired? For that matter, why do you feel that ANY life-prolonging medication is a good idea at all? pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
norwegianwood84 Stranger Registered: 12/24/01 Posts: 1 Last seen: 21 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Hi
Have been reading some of the posts above, and wanted to give you some inside information! I`m a 17 yr guy who lives in Norway. Norway has both capitalism and socialism integrated. In a somewhat good way. My personal opinion is that capitalism sucks. Its the son of the devil. The snake in the garden of eden. BUT I do know a pure communist society wouldn`t work. A working communist society is UTOPIA. It would never work. Most humans are so greedy that they would never bust theire asses of in a top-position job, while the immigrants who washes theire toilets gets the same wage. Anyway, back to norway. Hospitals: Mostly free. If you get really sick, you get treated, no matter what. School: When we get 16 we have to pay for SOME of our school books. Everybody can affort to go to school, because people with lesser money get money from the state to help them pay. Food: The state pays for some items to be less expencive, like milk, and adds a percentage on most food(23% i belive (not sure))to help pay for all the above and MOUCH more. Summary: I live in Norway an I`m very happy to be so lucky. I don`t have a problem with paying high taxes when i grow up. I dont mind paying mouch for my booze, tobacco and stuff like that. The system in norway is good. Ofcourse there are people who take advatage of this. I belive there is to be a minimum wage in Norway soon of about 10.000 dollars per person! This will ofcourse be missused, but for the single mother who has 3 children to support, its a blessing. AND we have rich people here to.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
jihead writes:
"well, maybe im wrong or confused here, but your telling me nazi germany wasnt capitalist? or facist italy?" I just got tired of typing "pure Capitalism" over and over again, when it has already been established that the whole thread is aimed at answering the question "Would America be a better place under pure capitalism?" I just presumed that by now whenever I refer to "Capitalism" people would recognize that I am referring to "laissez-faire Capitalism" or "pure Capitalism". I even said exactly that when I described Capitalism in a nutshell for krispyfi, that I would henceforth abbreviate "pure Capitalism" to just "Capitalism". To avoid further confusion, it might be better if I capitalize the entire phrase. So no, in the context of PURE CAPITALISM, which is after all, what this entire thread is dedicated to discussing, neither Fascist Italy nor Nazi Germany were Capitalist regimes. The very word "Nazi" is actually a contraction of "National SOCIALIST" (in German, of course). "is not most of the middle east capitalist?" Not PURE CAPITALIST, no. Even the United States of America is currently not PURE CAPITALIST. In fact, even the United States of 1776 was technically speaking not PURE CAPITALIST. Under PURE CAPITALISM, the government is authorized only to provide protection for its constituents: i.e. it handles the police, the military, and the courts. It has no power over the economy whatsoever. Feel free to reread my reply to krispyfi for more details. Since Fascist regimes DO control the economies of their countries, they are no more PURE CAPITALIST than Cuba or China or North Korea or the ex-Soviet Union. "i think your confusing the type of government with the social system in place." They are inseparable. Individuals living under any kind of social system are either free of government control or they are not. "Social system" and "government" are synonyms. "just because a country isnt a democratic republic doesnt mean that they arent capitalist. " And just because a country IS a democratic republic doesn't mean that it is a PURE CAPITALIST country, either. The USA, for example is a democratic republic but it is not PURE CAPITALIST. I'm tired. I'm going to sleep now. pinky --------------------
Edited by pinksharkmark (12/24/01 10:54 AM)
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
norwegianwood84 writes:
"I`m a 17 yr guy who lives in Norway. Norway has both capitalism and socialism integrated. In a somewhat good way. My personal opinion is that capitalism sucks. Its the son of the devil. The snake in the garden of eden." Almost everything you describe about Norway sounds pretty much identical to the way things are in Canada. When I was a 17 year old guy living in Canada (which has both capitalist and socialist elements, too) I also thought that PURE CAPITALISM sucked. Of course, I was three decades younger at that time, was still going to school and living at home, had yet to pay taxes since I had no job, and I spent most of my time out of school getting high with my friends and trying to get laid. I also had not yet had the time to think about whether PURE CAPITALISM really WAS evil, or if I just assumed it was because I didn't care for some of the things I saw on the news, such as film footage from the Viet Nam war. I was so naive that I even thought that the USA was actually a PURE CAPITALIST country. I don't mean to say that you are anything like I was, by the way. I am only describing myself, nothing more. Fourteen years ago I quit my job and left Canada to live in the Dominican Republic. At the time I left I had a very high-paying job with the third-largest computer company in Canada. I was a regional manager of retail operations and I was VERY good at what I did. I turned down offers to move to the head office in Toronto several times, and I turned down many offers from "headhunters" trying to recruit me to even higher-paying jobs with other companies. I gave that all up and left Canada because I no longer wanted to live in a Welfare State. I know of many others who left for the same reason, and countless more who wish with all their hearts to leave but feel they can't. I feel very fortunate to have left, and have no desire whatsoever to return. I hope you remain as content in Norway three decades from now as you do today. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
jihead writes:
"the fact remains that the idea and knowledge can be restricted and withheld from other competitors who would be able to reproduce complex goods cheaper and thus offer up more competition." I repeat, ideas and knowledge cannot be patented. There are countless examples of a new gizmo being marketed that embodies a new idea, and within weeks there are reverse-engineered knockoffs on the market that utilize the same idea in a slightly different form. That is because the IDEA can't be patented, only the product. This happens regularly in the pharmaceutical field. One example is the migraine medication developed by Glaxxo-Wellcome called Imitrex (Imigran in Europe). The chemical name is sumatriptan. Sumatriptan is basically sulfonated DMT. Interestingly enough, psilocybin is phosphorylated DMT. This is probably why psilocybin is so effective at stopping migraines. Anyway, there are now at least three other companies marketing triptans that are just slightly different from sumatriptan. There is rizatriptan, zolmitriptan, and a new one whose name escapes me at the moment. All of them work as well as sumatriptan (some work even better), all of them were developed using the same knowledge used to synthesize sumatriptan, none of them violate any patent laws. The relevant concept involved here is one of ownership. The inventor OWNS his new product. No one has the right to take it from him. It is his property, and he has the right to use it or not, lend it or not, sell it or not, destroy it or not. The owner of property, any property, has the right to say who can use it. If you worked for five years to buy a car, then used that car to open your own courier service, would it be right for me to steal that car and use it to deliver packages for half the price? I would then be using YOUR property to provide people with the same benefits that you were, after all, but for half the price that you were. I'm a hero! Hundreds of people would benefit from my lower prices. And who is hurt? Just you... the one who provided the means to deliver the messages in the first place. "what if the owner doesnt put up a steel mill, but makes it a vacation resort if the land is beautiful enough to be a national park?" If he feels that is a better use of his property than a steel mill would be, then what's the problem? It's HIS property. He can let it sit idle or develop it as he sees fit. "now only the very wealthy can afford to see what was once something that belonged to no one, beatiful nature, packaged up, bought and sold to the highest bidder." So it is only okay to build things on land that is ugly? Who decides what is ugly enough? The government? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, after all. Some say there is no such thing as "ugly nature"... that all natural vistas have an inherent beauty. If the only place that new development can take place is on existing developed land, sooner or later we will all be living in gigantic hives stretching miles underground and into the sky. "capitalism cares not for what it destroys." It has yet to be established that Capitalism destroys, but it is a certainty that anti-Capitalists dismiss out of hand all that Capitalism creates. "you might be right on this, but i recently watched a movie on this and i remember seeing that the standard oil cut personal deals with the railroads to get discounted rates because of the sheer volume of product that he transported on those lines." Historical knowledge gleaned from movies is as suspect as that acquired from cartoons, unless the movie you refer to was a documentary (grin). However, I have no doubt that he was able to negotiate lower rates for higher volume. How is that different from you paying less per ounce of weed when you buy a pound at a time rather than a quarter ounce? Or a gallon jug of milk instead of sixteen half-pint cartons? Bulk disounts are not exclusive to Capitalism, you know. Again, the key question is "Who owns the trains?" Do the owners of those trains have the right to charge a higher rate per pound to Joe Littleguy who ships maybe three crates a year (contributing virtually zero revenue to their business) than they do to a company who fills hundreds of their tanker cars daily and guarantees millions of dollars of revenue per quarter? Of course they do. They can carry freight for free, charge ten cents a pound, charge a hundred dollars a pound, let the trains sit empty, or just ride all over the country in them, sticking their heads out the windows and making "Choo-choo" noises like little kids. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
jihead writes: (about Irish immigrants)
"and what system was in place in ireland at the time? capitalism." Hardly. Ireland had been conquered by Imperialist England, who parcelled out enormous chunks of it to noblemen. Some of these Barons and Counts and Viscounts kicked the peasants off the land, others allowed them to stay and try to eke out an existence as best they could. This is why the Irish "Troubles" continue to this day. You will note there are no "noblemen" under PURE CAPITALISM. But hey, if you don't like the example of Irish immigrants, feel free to substitute Italian or Russian or some other nationality if you like. Almost any country you care to name was a source of immigrants. How many Americans emigrated to Russia or Ireland or Italy in the same time period? The point is, these immigrants were not rounded up at the point of a gun and forced into exile in the Evil Capitalist America as some kind of punishment. They hoarded and scrimped and saved to buy their passage, or nearly died stowing away in the hold of a freighter to get to America. Once there, they saved their money and paid for the passage of as many of their relatives as they could. Why do you think they did that? pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
jihead writes: (about the oil business)
"this is still the one thing you havent explained to me. where is he going to be able to get the resources to start a company able to compete with such a giant?" Obviously anyone who wants to build an oil refinery (or manufacture jet airliners or supertankers) will be hard-pressed to do so on the savings from his summer job between junior and senior year. But that is because those businesses by their nature require a large investment up front. This is not the case in every field. Just because I might WANT to go head to head with Esso doesn't mean I CAN. Just because I want to be a major-league pitcher doesn't mean I can, either. For someone who wasn't born rich, they will have to make their seed money in another field before they take a stab at the oil business. But that is not true of other fields. MacDonald's started life as a just another of thousands of burger shacks in post-war America. Steve Jobs started with squat, but he could start an oil company tomorrow if he wanted. So could bill Gates or Jack Walton or Roy Krock or Colonel Sanders or Michael Jackson or Reggie Jackson or Julia Roberts. None of them were born rich. There's a guy I know pretty well who retired to the Dominican Republic a few years back. He was from a Texas family with lots of kids and no money at all. His first job was breaking horses. He was good at it. He eventually became ranch foreman, saved enough to start buying bits of land piece by piece and putting small single family homes on them. He gradually moved up to small subdivisions, then shopping malls, then office buildings, warehouses, etc. This did not happen overnight, of course. The guy is now a multi-millionaire, and even dabbled in the oil business for a while a few decades back. He has a grade nine education, can't write a business letter to save his life, looks and talks like a hick from Oklahoma. But he could turn a profit in the oil business if he chose to. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
| |||||||
Edit 
Reply 
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
The United States is NOT Capitalist... (  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all ) |
 trendal |
16,555 | 133 | 09/28/09 11:34 AM by Phred |
|
|
Capitalism leads to...(for Alcalagon) |  daimyo |
742 | 12 | 10/24/04 12:46 PM by silversoul7 |
|
|
Is worldwide Capitalism impossible? ( 1 2 3 4 5 all ) |
 Phred |
5,674 | 80 | 07/15/03 04:18 AM by hongomon |
|
 |
Is the drug war anti-capitalist? ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all ) |
 Learyfan |
13,329 | 151 | 08/12/04 10:49 AM by CJay |
|
|
Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
 Evolving |
6,859 | 63 | 11/01/02 08:19 AM by Innvertigo |
|
|
... ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 Component |
3,580 | 42 | 12/11/02 10:50 AM by Evolving |
|
|
capitalism ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all ) |
 BrAiN |
16,025 | 149 | 02/24/05 11:50 AM by newuser1492 |
|
|
Capitalism or Communism? Which is better? ( 1 2 3 4 5 all ) |
 HagbardCeline |
6,436 | 95 | 06/27/03 12:28 AM by downforpot |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 10,744 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
