Why Capitalists are Capitalists... - Page 11

Velociryx · June 16, 2003, 13:11

Yes, let's look at the Japanese. Their economy has been in the toilet for longer than I can remember, while the US economy has blazed to new heights.

Society owes it's existence to the individual, not the other way around.

Perhaps in time you will come to see that, and in the meantime, don't be shocked when you get a strong negative reaction when trying to impose your Borg-like collective on me.

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · June 16, 2003, 13:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
What do you do?

I tried teaching, but I realized that it was ruining my life so I'm going back to school. I"m set to start on a business degree, probably Accounting or Finance. I already have a degree in Economics.

Velociryx · June 16, 2003, 13:16

Thank you, ajbera...

And you're quite right...if there's an immediate need, I have (frequently), shared breakfast at the local waffle house. That fixes the immediate need (and didn't take half my paycheck, which Kid seems to think I should fork over....you know, so everything's "even."), and then, having dealt with the immediate problem, the next step is to help this person see that he does not fall into such desperate straits again.

How? NOT by giving him half of my next paycheck, but by finding something he enjoys or has an interest in, and helping him get a job so he can WORK for his own money.

-=Vel=-

MichaeltheGreat · June 16, 2003, 13:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
There aren't enough jobs for everyone right now, but that's only because of capitalism.

Overpopulation in developing nations has nothing to do with it, of course.

Quote:

So people will be given an income who don't qualifiy for work.

Nice, let's create a permanent underclass of dependency rather than focus on ways of growing the economy so those people can be productive and earn livings.

MichaeltheGreat · June 16, 2003, 13:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
Group effort has proven the more efficient way. Individualism is a failure. Look at the Japanese. Everyone is following their example now. You don't want to argue with progress do you?

And what would you know about Japanese economics, politics, finance, or work practices?

Velociryx · June 16, 2003, 13:20

kid, people are rational, yes?

That has been one of the centerpieces of your entire argument, right?

Question for you.....what is the rational choice:

1) Go out and work hard for your money

or

2) Stay home, party all night, play computer games, and post on 'poly and make the same (or nearly so) money as the person who goes out and works hard all day.

What would the rational person do? (I know what I'd do if presented with those two choices!)

-=Vel=-

DAVOUT · June 16, 2003, 13:20

Now it is clear that the goulag is not enough for controlling guys like Vel. They will never shut up.

All individualists-greedy-selfish-capitalists must be PHYSICALLY ELIMINATED for the communist revolution to succeed.

MichaeltheGreat · June 16, 2003, 13:20

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Are they out of that recession yet?

It's far beyond "recession."

Kidicious · June 16, 2003, 13:21

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Overpopulation in developing nations has nothing to do with it, of course.

Ok, tell me why it should.

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Nice, let's create a permanent underclass of dependency rather than focus on ways of growing the economy so those people can be productive and earn livings.

Dependency is the way of the current system. The rich depend on the working people. In the future it will only be different in that the working people will make a little more money that the people who don't work. The only other solution would be to shorten the work week, but I don't think that would be as efficient.

Velociryx · June 16, 2003, 13:22

And they are certainly welcome to come try, Master Dave!

-=Vel=-

DinoDoc · June 16, 2003, 13:22

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
And what would you know about Japanese economics, politics, finance, or work practices?

Nothing but when has that stopped him before.

Quote:

It's far beyond "recession."

I had not realized it had gotten that bad.

Kidicious · June 16, 2003, 13:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Yes, let's look at the Japanese. Their economy has been in the toilet for longer than I can remember, while the US economy has blazed to new heights.

Society owes it's existence to the individual, not the other way around.

Perhaps in time you will come to see that, and in the meantime, don't be shocked when you get a strong negative reaction when trying to impose your Borg-like collective on me.

-=Vel=-

Their recession has nothing to do with their efficiency. They have a lot of trouble in their banking sector.

Velociryx · June 16, 2003, 13:25

How, exactly, do the rich "depend" on the poor? I'm very curious to hear this!

-=Vel=-

Ned · June 16, 2003, 13:25

I haven't read this entire thread, but I must applaud you Vel for putting up a very fine argument in favor of capitalism and against socialism. The argument always boils down to values. The socialist aims for equality of outcomes regardless of effort or talent. The capitalist aims for outcomes porportional to effort and talent. If one considers this for only a short time, it seems clear which system is the moral system.

One caveat: Even the more diehard capitalists will agree that there needs to be a social safety net.

MichaeltheGreat · June 16, 2003, 13:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Because the fact that you bargained for it in a free market system is not identical with, nor does it obviously entail a right to keep it.

Don't confuse economic results with moral entitlements.

So who defines that the state has the right to arbitrarily seize property of it's subjects, and why should anyone not forcibly overthrow such a state?

Kidicious · June 16, 2003, 13:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
kid, people are rational, yes?

That has been one of the centerpieces of your entire argument, right?

Question for you.....what is the rational choice:

1) Go out and work hard for your money

or

2) Stay home, party all night, play computer games, and post on 'poly and make the same (or nearly so) money as the person who goes out and works hard all day.

What would the rational person do? (I know what I'd do if presented with those two choices!)

-=Vel=-

Duh! Should I really anticipate a better argument than you last arguments from this. Ok, rational people make a compromise between the two, leisure and work.

Agathon · June 16, 2003, 13:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
The Communist Credo, boiled down to it's bare bones:

You have more stuff than me. I want more stuff! I'm not sure if I can duplicate your hard work and success, but I shouldn't have to. The stuff exists, and because it does, I am entitled to my "fair share." If you disagree, me and my friends will put you in a cold, miserable place and take what's yours. Give it up....it's in the interest of the party (er...the "whole group.")

The "stuff" one obtains in a capitalist economy is not logically connected to how much work one does, or how hard one works to obtain it. Many people work back-breakingly hard for little reward and many other people do no work at all and live through investments. Calling capitalism a "hard work" ethic is to severely misrepresent it - it's as much a "luck" ethic and a "swindler's" ethic as anything else.

If you want to complain about people who do nothing, then complain about the people who live off inherited wealth or trust funds. They contribute no labour to the economy and create no wealth at all - in short they do nothng productive. Worse, people who work (both business owners and wage and salary earners) end up paying for the lot of it.

Az · June 16, 2003, 13:35

Quote:

The socialist aims for equality of outcomes regardless of effort or talent.

Yep, just keep saying this to yourselves.

Kidicious · June 16, 2003, 13:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
How, exactly, do the rich "depend" on the poor? I'm very curious to hear this!

-=Vel=-

Very simple. They get paid for not working. Work is the basis of all value.

MichaeltheGreat · June 16, 2003, 13:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

Ok, tell me why it should.

Average birthrates and population growth outstripping economic growth by a factor of 2 or 3 or more to 1, inability of those countries to ever sustain their populations, political instability, tribal, ethnic and religious war (maybe you commies could all go and fix the Congo for starters), etc. But just keep your head up and locked, that's ok. Or we'll plunder the developed world to support an ever growing, ever non-self-sustaining developed world.

Quote:

Dependency is the way of the current system.

Interdependency of all sectors of the economy, you mean. Permanent dependency is not a hardwired feature capitalist systems.

Quote:

The only other solution would be to shorten the work week, but I don't think that would be as efficient.

It's done wonders in France and Germany,

MichaeltheGreat · June 16, 2003, 13:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

Very simple. They get paid for not working. Work is the basis of all value.

Now you're the one regurgitating used (and refuted) arguments.

(a) the rich work;

(b) resources have value in themselves independent of the quantity of work required. (remember that inconvenient little mineral rights example you punted on)

You can repeat it all you want, reality ain't gonna conform to your desire for it to be a certain way.

You're still spouting century and a half old cant, when capitalism has evolved way beyond the days of Marx. All you guys are doing is leaving yourselves further in the dust.

Velociryx · June 16, 2003, 13:45

Kid: Remember now, in your utopia, incomes will be close to the same for everyone. That means there is very little incentive to go work hard, cos you can stay at home and make almost the same money.

Given that, what would the rationality be to work at all? Hell, if I can make the same (or nearly the same) money I'm making right now by staying home in my slippers and posting on 'poly, it would not be a tough decision to make.

And that is perfectly acceptable behavior in your system.

What's NOT perfectly acceptable behavior, however, is to go out and work hard and "get more" than you. Cos if I do that....I could then do all sorts of evil, exploitive things, right?

Ned...Thanks bud! Keep chiming in!

One can never have too many people helping fight the good fight!

Agathon: That there are disparities in incomes, and that some types of work are valued less than others (say, ditch digging as opposed to developing a new open heart surgical technique) in no way proves your point.

Yes, ditch digging is hard. You likely will have sore muscles at the end of a day. You probably won't have sore muscles at the end of the day working to develop a new open heart surgical technique. Fortunately, the amount of muscle-ache does not determine what we pay for the two services mentioned above.

Azazel, we don't HAVE to keep saying it to ourselves when your Comrades are saying it for us....

Kid: Incorrect. Do you think Bill Gates does not work? And you claim to have a degree in economics?!

-=Vel=-

JohnT · June 16, 2003, 13:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

No, he would be thrown in the Gulag for that.

Comments like this shows that even you can't admit that Communism doesn't work without force and coercion. And yet you still claim that it is possible to work in a "free" society?

Don't make us laugh.

Az · June 16, 2003, 13:47

Quote:

Azazel, we don't HAVE to keep saying it to ourselves when your Comrades are saying it for us....

How about a true response?

Since socialism is just a tool for me, I can always compromise, but the changes that I'll demand from capitalism are way too far fetched for you pigdogs to ponder.

Kidicious · June 16, 2003, 13:48

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Average birthrates and population growth outstripping economic growth by a factor of 2 or 3 or more to 1, inability of those countries to ever sustain their populations, political instability, tribal, ethnic and religious war (maybe you commies could all go and fix the Congo for starters), etc. But just keep your head up and locked, that's ok. Or we'll plunder the developed world to support an ever growing, ever non-self-sustaining developed world.

Forget about ethnic and religious wars. In fact forget about war. Not a problem in a communist world. Now get those people some damn birth control. Then give them an income to buy things. Unemployment problem solved.

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Interdependency of all sectors of the economy, you mean. Permanent dependency is not a hardwired feature capitalist systems.

Is

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It's done wonders in France and Germany,

They have the best labor laws in the world. Too bad the US and others are so exploitive. If the world worked together on the problem of technological unemployment the results would be positive.

MichaeltheGreat · June 16, 2003, 13:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

Their recession has nothing to do with their efficiency. They have a lot of trouble in their banking sector.

Nihon e itta koto ga arimashita ka? Nanjikan ni?

JohnT · June 16, 2003, 13:49

"Group effort has proven the more efficient way. Individualism is a failure. Look at the Japanese. Everyone is following their example now. You don't want to argue with progress do you?"

Cite?

What everyone is "following" are Japanese improvements in production techniques and inventory control. There was a fad back in the late '80s/early 90's to import some of the more appealing (to Westerners) Japanese corporate customs (Executive work camps, that sort of thing), but a lot of that has fallen by the wayside.

What people are not following is the idea that we need to reorganize society in the Japanese mode. Where did you ever get that idea?

Velociryx · June 16, 2003, 13:51

"Is."

I think that's perhaps the most persuasive argument I've seen the Kid use so far!

That's right....there won't be any wars in a communist state, cos all the potential dissenters will already be with me in the Gulag, right? Anybody who doesn't tow the party line vanishes in the night.

And THIS is supposed to be what we give up our worldly goods for? You're not makin' a very good case for it, I fear.

'zazel: Oh, but it IS a true response...read this thread!

-=Vel=-

JohnT · June 16, 2003, 13:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

I tried teaching, but I realized that it was ruining my life so I'm going back to school. I"m set to start on a business degree, probably Accounting or Finance. I already have a degree in Economics.

But that was an individual choice that you made to "benefit yourself at societies expense". Are you morally certain that the world needs more Accountants (such an odd profession for someone of your political leanings) than teachers?

Kidicious · June 16, 2003, 13:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Given that, what would the rationality be to work at all? Hell, if I can make the same (or nearly the same) money I'm making right now by staying home in my slippers and posting on 'poly, it would not be a tough decision to make.

Contrary to your belief, you don't have to pay people a million dollars to work.