Capitalism is good

Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by mmm....shiney!, Jul 21, 2015.

  1. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,085
    Likes Received:
    1,513
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    Socialism cannot exist without there first being a system that recognises some form of private property, whether that be a monarchist system or a constitutional democracy. Once in power, socialists will then set about redistributing that property away from the owners, giving it to others.

    It is a philosophy with a foundation built upon theft, for there must be something to redistribute in the first place for a socialist system to operate. It's like a virus, it needs a host for it can't exist on its own merits. The modern Scandinavian countries are living examples of how socialism rises and feeds on the wealth created by capitalism.

    Edit to add: unlike capitalism, socialism is not a creative philosophy.
     
  2. SteveS

    SteveS New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Messages:
    940
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Capitalism: America.
    Socialism: Venezuela.
     
  3. Peter

    Peter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,656
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    sydney
    The earth is being devoured by capitalism.
     
  4. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,085
    Likes Received:
    1,513
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    ^ a completely meaningless statement that has no basis in fact.

    Despite the fact that it is meaningless, it is dangerous - ignorant statements are always dangerous.
     
  5. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,085
    Likes Received:
    1,513
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    I think we always need to keep in mind that capitalism is an economic system and that is all it is, it is not a moral code or set of laws. It is a system under which the means of production are privately owned. Any perceived negative consequences associated with capitalism eg selfishness, greed, theft etc are not actually attributable to capitalist theory, rather, they are human vices and will be present under any system which society is organised upon. Some systems reduce the impact of human vices upon others and I am of the opinion that capitalism is one of he best ways to overcome these vices because it can only function properly when people's property rights are protected by law, other systems do not do this.
     
  6. errol43

    errol43 New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    Bundaberg
    ^^^^Maybe not the world but Louisinia sure is.. The oil industry has done a good job there...RT has a doc on shortly that would make you cry.. A bloody disaster is what it is.

    It is surely only a small part of the world you say , well except for the Chinese in the South China Sea, no one is making any more land!

    Is Capitalism and Corporaltism the same? :)

    Regards Errol43
     
  7. Ipv6Ready

    Ipv6Ready Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Messages:
    3,476
    Likes Received:
    525
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    North Sydney
    And communist or socialism is environmentally friendly?
     
  8. Ipv6Ready

    Ipv6Ready Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Messages:
    3,476
    Likes Received:
    525
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    North Sydney
    Is there any socialist or communist country that the anti capitalist can name, so I can look it up and research it, before I make comments.

    Any that you can call a success or even workable?
     
  9. CriticalSilver

    CriticalSilver New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Messages:
    2,725
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Australia
    Indeed. How easy is it for often repeated, unsubstantiated and baseless claims to inform one's beliefs? They can take on the form of religious dogma that needs protection from alternate or opposing views.

    I believe that historically the communist regimes of the USSR and China have been responsible for more than their share of Earth devouring, just as I belive that government sponsored corporate monopolies around the world are responsible for the lion's share of pollution. Pick a situation and see if it isn't so. With Big Government cronyism and monopolies being the problem, calls for Bigger Government with more "powers" seems completely illogical to me.

    Greed is a universal human condition, yet the socialist prescribes it only for the capitalist, wishfully ignoring the trait in their political "leaders" and the derivative vice of Envy in themselves. The truth is that only the wisest Sage is incorruptible by Greed and does not Envy. For that reason, one can only trust what they can prove to themselves through critical analysis and the easiest thing to prove is that socialism is immoral.
     
  10. SteveS

    SteveS New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Messages:
    940
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Brisbane
    I hope you have a Facebook page, because that is just the sort of amazing, prophetic and virtuous statement that Lefty social media warriors love to bits. You might think about adding a picture of a dead polar bear.

    They will share it with all their friends, using their iPhone 7, then book a two-week overseas holiday (don't forget to pay the carbon credits for a guilt-free trip comrades!) while sipping a soy latte in a cafe.

    :D
     
  11. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,085
    Likes Received:
    1,513
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    @Phransisku, broaden your definition of "worker" to include anyone that gets paid to meet consumer demand, regardless of whether they actually produce something or break into a sweat. They may not make anything but they are being productive eg a salesperson in a fashion store, a check out chick or a landlord.

    A worker is someone who labours to meet demand, a capitalist is someone who forgoes the immediate consumption of the rewards of their labour in order to provide capital to produce something or provide a service that meets the demand of others. The landlord is both a worker in that he is getting paid to meet a demand, and a capitalist in that he both reinvests his earnings into his properties and delays any gratification that he would receive if he sold those properties. Even the miserly landlord who reinvests as little as possible is still a worker and a capitalist, he's just a tightarsed bastard of one and his returns would reflect his commitment in the main.
     
  12. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    "Efficiency" for me is "Service Level" over "Costs". If I can provide quantity and quality to my clients at a low cost, I'm being efficient. And, overall, they are as (or more) efficient than us. Analysing in detail, they waste more than us (as I already explained) but we don't manage to be more efficient because we have 2 strong handicaps: lack of dimension (each of them are twice our size) and lack of capital (while they have plenty). And I already explained too how they use both to be efficient. Talent and effort as we have is just a detail they don't even need to take into consideration.


    And you wait until now to tell me that? I've been talking about economies of scale since the beginning and you didn't challenge it back then.
    Well, it has everything to do with Capitalism. Capital is scalable, work is not. You only have 1 body, 1 mind and at most 24 hours per day. Economies of scale play a very important role in a system that has capital at the center, whereas in a system with work at the center it would be less relevant and definitely less rewarding.


    Of course, that's obvious. If we race with each other and I have a Ferrari while you go in a Fiat, I would say I have a clear advantage over you. You can say I have an advantage only if I know how to drive a car (which is obvious) but even that doesn't make the Fiat a faster car than the Ferrari. I'm only saying the Ferrari is faster. You're the one bringing the red herring.
    My company's competitors know how to run a business, they're not that dumb. They are not used to need talent and effort (as we need and are most dependent on) but they know pretty well what cash is for and how they can use it to get great results in our industry.


    I'm not talking about breaking into larger businesses's consumer base, I'm talking about maintaining the market share. If all competitors in an industry have the same talent and effort, the largest will naturally gain market share (improve what is already the largest percentage) while the smaller will lose and the smallest will disappear. You know why? Of course you know. Capital itself will do the trick.


    So, you're saying on the one hand we have the best car and on the other the best driver? Well, you're just proving my point: capital itself and economies of scale provide an important advantage that may override some eventual differences in talent and effort.
    I assure you that a races between small cars, supercars and trucks will not motivate the drivers to make great performances.


    You need to re-read what I said. If I lend you an oven and you produce bread with it, I'm not being productive, you are. And part of your production is going to me. My point is not about whether this is fair. My point is not about the balance between consuming now or delaying it and get an interest on it. My point is just this: wealth is flowing from the productive to the non-productive. And that's it. It's that simple. Once you accept it, we can move to other interesting discussions about balance and fairness. But if you can't assimilate something so simple as this, there's no point in discussing anything else.
    So far, you weren't able to present one single argument to challenge my reasoning (my reasoning, not some other topic you pretend I'm exploring).


    A salesperson is there all the time contacting with clients, explaining the products, advising based on what he knows. That is work, no doubt.
    A landlord is meeting consumer demand but he isn't really working. His house is wealth and it's serving somebody. The owner isn't adding by himself any value to the process.
    Without the owner, the house would still be there unchanged. Without the salesperson, the client couldn't even make a payment.
    Worker is the one who works. An owner isn't a worker. To own is not an operative verb. It doesn't tanslate itself into any action.
     
  13. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    How does anything you've just said contradict what I had said and that you quoted?

    Regarding the 100 flats thing, when you came up with that I showed you it just works against people's motivation to work and be productive to society. You haven't challenged that either. Are you finally accepting that it's not just Communism that takes from the productive an gives to the non-productive?
     
  14. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    That's nice. Let me try too...
    Capitalism: Somalia.
    Socialism: Norway.
    Outch!
     
  15. CriticalSilver

    CriticalSilver New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Messages:
    2,725
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Australia
    That's just plain ridiculous.
    A violent revolution and religious law have nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with human nature and why Greed and Envy in others defines why the power one provides to others to wield over themselves, their families and their property is completely misplaced. "Power corrupts" is a common warning for good reason and it is ignorant socialists who promote the "benevolent" power of an altruistic State over the protection of individual liberty that are as culpable as the "revolutionary" dictators that deliver the ultimate horrors. Zimbabwe and Iran come to mind as a comparison.

    While ever humanity does not learn to protect the priceless gift of sovereignty and liberty of the individual, the failures of socialists/collectivists in abrogating responsibility for themselves will continue to plague humanity.
     
  16. Ipv6Ready

    Ipv6Ready Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Messages:
    3,476
    Likes Received:
    525
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    North Sydney
    The Nordic nations have the "highest inequality" where the top 10% hold 60-70% of the country's wealth, much more than aus, with the general population envy driven ie cant stand next door neighbour succeeding

    What we see in popular culture are people having idyllic fun, ask a working Norwegian how they feel about taxes and 25% VAT.
    But if we followed Norway social policy, I am sure the dole bludgers in Australia will love the idea, for everyone else less so.
     
  17. precious roar

    precious roar Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Nobody is going to love paying high tax but how many Norwegians would rather live in another country?
     
  18. Ipv6Ready

    Ipv6Ready Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Messages:
    3,476
    Likes Received:
    525
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    North Sydney
    Many who prefer working hard and getting ahead. Those that are net receivers of government tax dollars not so much
     
  19. BBQ

    BBQ New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Messages:
    934
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Politicians and corporations are the biggest welfare recipients.
    Dole bludgers don't hold a candle to the filthy political & corporate recipients of your tax dollars.
     
  20. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,085
    Likes Received:
    1,513
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    @Phransisku, I'm not going to respond to most of your post. We've covered much of that ground many times and your argument is descending into semantics and an over-reliance on poor analogies. Suffice to say, the problem with your position is your premise: that capital is at the centre of capitalism and community at the centre of communism.

    As sanchez pointed out, capital is just assets. They are the assets used in order to supply consumer demand, they include funds and equipment saved and purchased by delaying the gratification of current consumption in the hope of greater profit in the future. That point is absolutely critical to understand, and it's a point you dismiss too lightly.

    A capitalist society uses these assets to produce goods as does a communist society. The distinguishing characteristic between the two is not "capital" or "community" but who owns the capital, privately owned v communally owned, and the incentive to work and produce in the vast majority of rational people is always greater when the means of production are privately owned as the reward is theirs.

    And your point has nothing to do with capitalism being better than every other system which is what I maintain. As long as the flow of wealth from one person to another is voluntary, then there is no problem with that occurring.
     

Share This Page