The hidden ugliness of Capitalism

Are they?

China's socialist market economy[17] is the world's second largest economy by nominal GDP,[1][18] and the world's largest economy by purchasing power parity according to the IMF,[19] although China's National Bureau of Statistics rejects this claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_China

Most capitalist here fight tooth and nail about becoming socialist.

 

No I am not making anything up I am statinv fact which you willfully ignore.

If the minimum cost is too high you move.

No one owes you the minimum of what you WISH for.

It is still your choice to live within your means

 

Building a machine is a contribution, taking money for rent is not. It's a moot point anyway, as Capitalists are not inventors, they're just owners. Generally Capitalists own machines that they didn't design or build, rather they secure patents or deeds through business practises. We can do without that; a more rational system would be one where the tailor has free access to your machine, and you in turn have free access to his goods.

 

No they were not they were made in the private sector.

Wright brothers, bill gates, Ford , Edison ,bell.

The public sector which means government only interferes

 

Yes it does mean that. It depends on how you to chose to live.

People qualify for food stamps strictly because the government arbitrarily sets the qualification standard. Not because they need them

 

Your machine is helping him, but he's the one contributing to society. He's the one doing the work.

 

I think it was John Lennon who sang, regarding revolution, that, "we all want to see the plan." I want to see the plan, too. But this has always been the problem with anti-capitalism. There is no plan beyond "the Workers will decide!" What does that even mean?

If we "abolish capitalism," we either get anarchy, which in reality means "Road Warrior," or we end up under a neurotic mass murderer with massive statues of themselves in their own time and starvation in the countryside. I'll pass on both, but thanks.

 

Because freedom is just too difficult for some.

 

The employer wishes for a particular task to be done. He values this task being done more than he values the $100. So he exchanges his $100 with the employee in return for the employee performing the task.

Meanwhile, the employee values the $100, more than doing other things with his body for the specified time. So he forgoes doing other activities and does the task requested by the employer, and in return he receives the $100.

Both the employer and the employee receive something they value more highly in the arrangement.

Yes, the finished bread requires more than merely the flour, just as many finished products require more than bodies performing actions. Try making a tractor with nothing other than your body.

 

Society would be worse off if the machine didn't exist. People would only get one shirt per week rather than the ten per week possible with the existence of the machine.

 

http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/how-china-became-capitalist

Yes, they are going through a fundamental transformation from communism, to socialism, to capitalism.

Their economy is growing by leaps and bounds. Coincidence?

When you consider that our economic productivity has suffered in direct correlation to our move towards more social programming, I think not.

Europe the same.

Its simple human nature. When a person is rewarded with unlimited possibilities, they tend to take actions in a free market system which ends up benefiting everybody.

- - - Updated - - -

You still won't answer my question.

Do you think that a laborer/employee should be paid a wage directly related to the profitability of a company? If the company makes 50% on the employees labor, should that money go to the employee?

Why do you keep avoiding this question?

 

I suppose we'll see if the marxists will be right in their predictions this time around. THeir track record isn't impressive though. On marxism in general, while it is, in my eyes, fundamentally wrong, there are some things about it I agree with, or atleast find interesting. The idea that the mode of production determines social values, the organisation of society and so on, and that when the mode changes, a new societal order is empowered and clashes with the old order, i.e. class struggle.. That idea is interesting, and has much truth to it. I'm actually very interested by socialism and marxism, and I know much of it, but I am not a believer in it. All those theories, though mostly wrong, are still interesting.

Yes, sure, but what does that have to do with what I said? Do you seriously believe that workers can never take advantage of employers and customers?

They are socialists, but they are also pragmatists and democrats. They do not want to enforce socialism on the people. Their goal is socialism, but they are content to wait until the masses demand socialism, if they ever do. Basically, socdems want socialism only as far as the people want socialism, and the people generally don't want to go any further than a welfare state.

You sure are keen to making unfair comparisons aren't you? What preceded the gilded age? An agricultural society in which poverty was widespread. You can not blame capitalism for the poverty, because poverty was already there. Poverty is the default state of mankind. Instead, look at how society changed under capitalism. Poverty decreased continually under capitalism. Nobody has ever claimed that capitalism is an instant cure to all problems. It takes time. If a poor country goes capitalist, it's still going to stay poor for a while, and that wouldn't be the fault of capitalism. But eventually, it would prosper, and that is because of capitalism.

Besides, regarding the problems of rent controls, you do not need to look back to the 19th century for examples. There are plenty of examples within the USA and throughout the west which deomstrates the bad effects of rent control.

No, of course it's not a force like i.e. gravity. Let's not be silly. What I mean is that prices are a reflections of the desires of the masses on average, and that without restrictions, prices allocate resources to where they are most needed. A sudden spkie in prices in on area will lead to a greater flow of resources to that place from other places, until it reaches a balance. Think of it like ripples of on water. But when prices are not free, that doesn't work as well as it could.

Rent controls and building restrictions, as I've already said. And, any "poverty" in first world countries isn't real poverty. Poor people can have a car and a cellphone. Real poverty, like the kind in africa, with starvation and so on, does not exist in the west. Sure, poor people in the west aren't as rich as some other people in the west, but they are certainly not poor by any absolute standard. The definition for poor in the USA would be middle class in many other countries. It's ridiculous.

We don't really have anything to compare Cuba to, have we?

Yes indeed, there is no price system under socialism. And that's the biggest problem with it. With an economy with millions and billions of resources, goods, services, providers and customers, how do you keep track of it all, how do you put each thing where it is the most valuable? Capitalism's solution is very simple and elegant. Simply let each actor bargain freely with all other actors, and the resulting price system will incentivise all actors to send resources to where they get the most profit from it, which is also where those resources are best used. Such a system requires no central planning. The problem with socialism is that it requires central planning, and that central planning is, simply due to the huge numbers of goods and people involved, impossible. Look up "the socialist calculation debate". I believe Ludwig von Mises put forward this as a reason for why socialism was unworkable in the late 19th or early 20th century, and socialists have still not come up with a solution.

How are they exploited?

Never said that. THe pen was an example of capitalist cooperation only.

Not really, because under capitalism, superior goods are out-competing inferior goods. You know, this is really silly, because you are just explaining some imaginary system where everything is perfect and comparing it an actual system, namely capitalism. Your system has never been tried, and all attempts to achieve it has failed. It's just a lala theory. It's a ridiculous manner of arguing in my view, comparing a silly imaginary system to a real one.
With capitalism, we have real examples to point to of how it works in practice, we have theories that are explaining this reality. With socialism all we have is failed attempts and discredited theories.

No, it's not that argument. Things could be worse, that we know for certain, but could things be better? That we don't know for certain, and that's my point. What we have right now is the system which is by far the best we've ever tried. Of course, we could all imagine some system which is superior, but as we all know (or should know atleast) what works in our minds doesn't always work in practice. When you throw out capitalism there is no guarantee that whatever comes after will be better, that's what I'm saying. You don't understand history, because you want to throw out what we have now and replace it with something untried. You are not prudent, you do not tread cautiously, you do not realise that misery is the default state of mankind, you take our current prosperity for granted. And thus, you do not really care for the well being of people, or maybe you do but you haven't thought through what you are saying.

Congratulations to socialism for doing a better job than feudalism and tribalism. Woohoo. But the thing is, they didn't do a better job than capitalism. It is capitalism they are competing with, not feudalism and tribalism.

Removing MW laws would mean more jobs is what I'm saying.

Yes, but it depends on what you are comparing them on of course. Here, I meant culture as in theatre, arts, music.. that sort of thing. In that regard, the west was superior to the USSR, in both quality and quantity. Cultures in the sense of a people's customs and manner of doing things, can also be superior and inferior to another. It's quite ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

What you should be concerned with is not wheter the good done by socialist states outwieghs the bad they did. You should be concerned with wheter the net good of socialists states is better than the net good of capitalist states. I see a pattern here of you basing your thinking on flawed comparisons.

I'm very sceptical to that, because it was competition which was the reason why the west was so successful. The west did just fine, and they had much more competition. By your logic, the capitalist countries would be horribly dysfuncational. But what we see is that the more competitive an economy is, the better it performs. That goes completely against what you are saying. I believe that the USSR was already heading towards disaster, and that krushchevs reforms were a step in the right direction, but was too little too late.

And you know that how? As I've said above, your idea that more competion leads to worse economic results simply doesn't fit reality.

You might as well have said that under socialism, tools fall from the sky, it would make as much sense.

Yes, but the west was the ones who pioneered industrialisation, who invented all the machines that go into factories. It's not fair to compare the west to socialist countries as you did.

Funniest stuff I've read in a while. "Commies didn't mass murder the poor! except that one time, and that other time, and that time... " And that the gulags weren't terrible because some were freed and some of them were actually guilty! Hilarious!

There's no doubt about it. A command economy can be effective when you simply want to spew out tanks and steel. The problem is with innovation and consumer goods.

 

I just (*)(*)(*)(*)ing listed the initiatives responsib... oh nevermind.

 

You listed initiatives which accomoplished......................................................................nothing

 

I do realize that and it is irrelevant.

Anyone who wishes to live WILL work for a wage which provide those basic needs. ANyone paying less will not have employees.

This is why every wage is a living wage.

The problem is that the opposite of your example is also true which you ignore.

The opposite is that no one can consume more than they create. Which is why they attempt to rob others either directly or through force of government. They wish for more than they can make.

 

No, I am not at all talking about anything called "exchange value", since value isn't a intrinsic trait of things. Things don't have an intrinsic exchange value. They are valued by people.

What each of us prefers is entirely subjective. Each person prefers different things, and these preferences change over time and circumstance.

For example, under normal circumstances, I would prefer a one ounce gold coin over a gallon of clean, drinkable water. However, under differenct circumstances (I am stranded in the desert) I would prefer the gallon of water to the gold coin.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Let's say a worker performs a particular task. Say he bolts a widget to a dongle. He hasn't produced "value", because value isn't an objective thing. He has simply assembled a dongle-widget-assembly. Might someone want this dongle-widget? Maybe. Might this person prefer it to $200 of their dollars? To $300 of their dollars? Nobody really knows.

Utility Value can't be created because it's not a thing in the physical world. Preference only exists in the minds of individual actors, each of whom have unique preferences and express their preferences by the choices they make.

Right now, I think I'd prefer a cold glass of beer to a glass of iced tea, which is to say that right now I value the former more than the latter. However, someone else, a Mormon perhaps, might right now prefer the glass of ice tea to a cold glass of beer. So how can you say that either the beer or the tea have any trait called "value"?

They don't, because value is subjective. The fact that Marx fails to see that value is subjective is the basis for his flawed labor theory of value.

 

Such as?