Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by mmm....shiney!, Jul 21, 2015.
Capitalism has been gobbled up by the Corporations.
Regards Errol 43
I found this quite interesting. I haven't come across this fellow before.
Ever heard about Irian Jaya ?
Irian Jaya? I have but the last six or seven Australian PM's havn't. PNG should be twice as big.
Regards Errol 43
The 1% are not capitalists, they are socialists.
Are you sure that the 1% are not Corporalists?
Regards Errol 43
That's like in the Soviet Union someone saying "without communists we have no jobs and no opportunities".
That's both obvious and misleading.
It's obvious because, if you are in a country whose system is Capitalism, capitalists are an essencial part of the system. Without them, the system is broken and consequently there are no jobs and no opportunities. Same thing for Communism and communists.
It's misleading because it is assumed no other system could take place and provide jobs and opportunities for the people.
Quoting the signature phrase of someone in this forum "if everyone is thinking the same, we aren't thinking very much ...". I think that's what has happened with most of capitalists. They are not thinking anymore. They are born in a society and they think things can't change, the system can't evolve and everything we have that is good would not exist (and nothing else would exist) if that specific system (or part of it) disappeared.
Assignment time again phransisku?
As usual, your analogies are piss poor.
Who provides the capital in a communist country? Who takes the risk? Who reaps the reward? In a communist country what is the incentive to provide capital? To take risks?
Go back to the original post in this thread - give concrete examples of how a similar project would occur under a communist system.
What's your alternative? Your standard argument - redistributing wealth? Taking from the productive and giving to the non-productive? Or is it to just increase sales and everyone will be better off? Where did our increasing wealth come from if not from capital investments?
Capitalism is disappearing because people like you want to steal from others.
The world is changing
Changing Education Paradigms
All the above well worth a watch.
Noam Chomsky's economic credentials and his understanding of market forces are clouded by his anti-US convictions, surprisingly, for someone who is opposed to the march of US imperialism across the world, he is a supporter of Statist interventionist policies.
What is your point with regards to the second video? I agree with it's focus, that is, central planning is flawed, we've been raised on a diet of believing that the success of our economies is a product of good government etc but you haven't made the link to capitalism. Surely you're not suggesting capitalism is an outdated system, one that is responsible for the travesties of the world we now face?
@ phransisku, it's timely that I point you to this thread: http://forums.silverstackers.com/topic-74041-the-dangers-of-folk-economists.html In particular Paul Rubin's article entitled Folk Economics.
Lol, a quote from the 3rd video better linked to:
Actually, outside of schools it's illegal and is enforcable through legislation such as copyrights and patents.
Who manages community in a capitalist country?
Capitalism is more focused on the capital. So, naturally, it deals best with issues related with capital. Yet, there must be (there are) communities in capitalist societies. For example, democracy and the right to vote is "communist" (it has everything to do with the community and nothing to do with capital). The air we breathe is also "communist". No one pays for it and everybody uses it.
Communism is more focused on the community. So, naturally, it deals best with issues related with the community. Yet, there must be (there are/were) capital, investments and risk taking in communist societies. Those are mostly managed by the state (the people as a whole) rather than individually.
Your questions just prove my point. You (and many capitalists) can't think deep anymore about socio-economic systems. You can't take your own arguments and think (really think) about their counterpart in the communist mind (or any other mind, for that matter).
Are those questions the admission that you can't think outside of the box (the capitalist paradigm)? I think they are.
My alternative is neither Capitalism nor Communism. Perhaps the distance I have to both systems is the reason why I can see them clearly as they are. And your capitalist bias is the reason for you to see me as communist (while communists, with their communist bias, tend to see me as capitalist). Those 2 systems suffer from the same problem. Paraphrasing you, if I may, they "take from the productive and give to the non-productive". That is the main reason for them not to be efficient. When you give to the non-productive, they have little incentive to produce. And if you have less / poorer production, you have less wealth generation.
An efficient socio-economic system must incentivize people to work with effort and talent.
Communism does not properly incentivize work, once it takes from workers and gives to non-workers (simply because the latter also need wealth). It also does not properly incentivize effort and talent among workers, since everyone tends to get the same remuneration.
Capitalism does not properly incentivize work, once it takes from workers and gives to owners (through rents, interests rates and dividends, not to mention bequests). Owners do not produce wealth, only workers do. But Capitalism does not have work (the source of wealth generation) at the center. It has capital at the center. So capital itself is remunerated just as work is. Capitalism also does not properly incentivize effort and talent among workers and enterprises, since capital itself and economies of scale can do the trick. The result is some tiny companies with very scarce resources having more innovative products than major corporations with endless resources and yet those innovative products from those tiny companies get nowhere. The result is also the colossal difference between the tremendous effort needed to start up a new company and the little effort needed to maintain some big corporation that is making 100x more. That crushes competition. For some reason, who is really interested in competition tends to adopt "communist" practices. For example, in UEFA, countries are ranked by the points their teams gather divided by the number of teams they have participating. If UEFA leaned to "capitalist" policies, countries would be ranked by the simple summation of the points their teams gather. Major countries, once on top, would hardly drop, since they would have much more opportunities to gather more points than countries at the bottom, which is exactly what happens in capitalist societies.
You shouldn't answer questions by posing other questions. Answer the questions I posed firstly and then we may be able to move on to examining alternatives to capitalism.
Actually, you haven't outlined an alternative, you've just posted a whole heap of cliches and perpetuated folk economic myths eg
It's called meeting demand phransisku. Clearly the innovative product wasn't so innovative after all because no one wanted it.
As I said, a whole heap of cliches and folk economic myths, with the exception of this little gem:
You are correct, but not entirely.
Owners alone do not produce wealth, they require workers to achieve that. Owners provide the wealth (whether it is using their savings or by borrowing the savings of others) and risk that by investing in capital goods in order to produce other goods that they perceive will meet consumer demand. They take this risk because profit (both material and aesthetic gains) is their incentive. The desire to profit through mutually beneficial economic relationships is a basic trait in humans just like sex, eating, friendship etc are and it is present in both the psyche of owners of capital and the workers. Without workers a capitalist system cannot operate and wealth cannot be generated. Therefore, the workers are at the centre of a capitalist system this is evidenced because they receive remuneration for their efforts before the capitalist does ie the workers get paid first, so in order to compensate the owner for any delay in gaining any profit, their commensurate profits are usually larger (ignoring the reality of many small businesses ). Both communist and capitalist societies have workers at the centre of their systems, but it is only a capitalist system that will be successful. And this is because the means of production are owned privately, meaning the incentives to both labour (workers) and to risk wealth (the owners of capital) are returned to the workers and the capitalists ie the profits for both are kept by them and not forcefully taken as they are say under a state owned system such as communism. Capitalists provide the opportunity for the average worker, who possess mostly an unremarkable ability, to lift their lives above that which they would ordinarily live if they were to rely solely on their own skills.
I'll tell you of an alternative to capitalism seeing as you could not come up with one. Let's call it Creativism, a system where all our needs and desires are met by "willing goods into existence", doing away with any need to engage in mutually beneficial economic behaviour with each other. So until we possess the ability to do that (which may be achievable one day), capitalism ie the private ownership of the means of production is the most efficient and effective method we have in meeting our needs.
Easy. The people in the community (just like they also manage the allocation of wealth in a capitalist country).
The blessed miracle of political interventions into the free market were demonstrated well by the New Deal (and Venezuela currently).
The productive enterprises that were still functioning were burdened with higher taxes for the purpose of subsidising select farmers (typically large not small farmers) at the same time as other farmers were paid to destroy their crops. These payments had the effect of reduce production and drive up food prices at a time that many people across the country were starving (population control?).
Famously at the time, the heinous capitalist tailor, Jacob Maged, was arrested, convicted, and imprisoned by the code police for the "crime" of pressing a suit of clothes for 35 cents when the Tailors' Code fixed the price at 40 cents. The Judge let the capitalist pig out after 3 days after he apologised for daring to press suits so cheaply and promised to increase his fees to the legislated minimum price and be a good little citizen.
Here's a useful question - What is capital?
Is a hammer on the shelf at Bunnings capital?
Is a hammer in the hands of a tradie capital?
Is a hammer in the hands of a home handyman capital?
(Answers - Yes, Yes, No)
Addendum - Does a hammer in the hands of a home handyman become capital if they decide to become a tradie?
(Answer - Yes)
Any tool in the hands of a home handyman has the potential to reallocate wealth.
.. and/or digits.
Separate names with a comma.