Why Capitalists are Capitalists...

[GePap]

Maybe you should make it an independent thread question. Gets more attention that way.

[Kidicious]

I'll probably miss the rest of the debate, but I must say that the AECCs have made a very poor showing in this one.

[Velociryx]

Yep...we only won 800-0 this time....tough game....

-=Vel=-

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
Thank you MtG for an answer Vel was not comming up with.

What about other "inefficiencies", and hoiw do you calculate them?

or example, is $500 a bottle hand lotion an "inefficiency", or just "an irrational choice"?

If it's your production cost, it's an inefficiency unless you're certain of a market for $600 a bottle hand lotion.

It someone's paying that, then it's an irrational choice, unless it delivers some benefit besides an ego stroke that's worth the money.

It's like the fashion thing for Ferragamo jeans and Prada purses - there just isn't the money in the materials and functionality of the object, so it's about ego.

Then you get into a question of tradeoffs in efficiencies - is it better to have some fluff products for people with money to burn, but otherwise have a wide range of functionally related products that consumers can choose from, or is it better to have something like East German auto industry, where the Trabant was the market leader?

Imagine if the Ford Pinto was still made in the same style, and the only competition was the AMC Gremlin, and the Rambler American station wagon.

There is no such thing as totally efficient marketplaces, so you really have a tradeoff between lesser degress of inefficiency.

[GePap]

What hoops were you aiming for Vel?

[GePap]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
There is no such thing as totally efficient marketplaces, so you really have a tradeoff between lesser degress of inefficiency.

And what kind of inefficiency is letting large number of people get sick from minor bugs that some preventive medical care could have solved? And are charities an efficeint use of money? What kind of inefficiency are the poor if any? And how would one go about measuring that?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'll probably miss the rest of the debate, but I must say that the AECCs have made a very poor showing in this one.

[Velociryx]

GePap: I wasn't aiming for any hoops, actually. As is the case with all the threads in this vein, I'm arguing the side that has working models up, running, and in place. The burden of proof lies with the folks that desire to tear down the existing system and replace it with their kinder, gentler form of Communism.

To win, they've got to:

* explain specifically how and why it will work, given that all previous attempts at a communist society have failed.

* convince we diehard defenders of the current system to join their cause

* explain what will happen to those who resist their gentle teachings.

On the first point, we were told by your fellow Comrades that it'll just "work." No specifics given, really, so we should just accept it on faith. It's magic, I guess.

On the second, not a single one of us was convinced to the other side.

And on the third, we were told that those who resist will be killed or moved to the gulag (which is the classic party line, put into practice by everybody who's made the effort so far).

-=Vel=-

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
And what kind of inefficiency is letting large number of people get sick from minor bugs that some preventive medical care could have solved?

If it's that simple, then (in terms of market utility) letting future producers and consumers die off needlessly isn't a good outcome. The problem, outside of immediate acute epidemics, is that you have a whole range of associated problems - birthrates, malnutrition, water supply, basic infrastructure on the tangible side, then cultural, conflict-related issues on the intangible side.

Simply giving everyone cholera vaccines helps a bit, but not if you ingore all those other problems, including the usual mix of anarchy, thugocracy and endemic corruption in whatever local "government" or power structures are in place.

Shock, gasp and surprise, I actually believe a modified form of socialism is an essential transitional phase of government/society in cases where you are trying to achieve a transition from undeveloped or low-end mixed development nations to functioning, developed nations. There's a precursor stage to capitalism in which the establishment of stability, functional infrastructure, basic services (including basic health and education) and the rule of law need to be established before you can have a functional market economy that involves more than resource extraction for export.

And are charities an efficeint use of money?

Like anything else, it depends on the people who make up the organization from top to bottom. In theory (and I know some charities like this), the services efficiency compared to funding is very good, because you have people who work there by choice and out of dedication to the cause they address. My best impressions have been of smaller, more locally focused charities, because what I've seen on a larger scale is that more bureaucratization sets in, as does a sense of distance from the end goal of the charity.

What kind of inefficiency are the poor if any? And how would one go about measuring that?

A few poor (i.e. unemployed) aren't a bad thing (or avoidable), as long as there is some sort of social safety net, and the poor you have aren't stuck there forever, or even chronically. Neither oversupply nor undersupply of labor is good from a macro perspective. Achieving full employment isn't possible without incredible ineffiency, because labor costs go up sharply as unemployment drops, and there's a constant evolution of not only the number of jobs and workers in the economy (at all levels from unskilled to CEO), there's also a very fast change in the numbers required in different distinct skills and the matching number of prospective employees. Imposing full employment in a modern economy is an exercise in futility.

Personally, and I don't know if this is a real economic theory coincidental to my just making it up now, I'd measure excess poverty and unemployment in terms of the reasonably expected purchasing power they'd have if they were productively employed.

edit- weird brainfart/typo

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
To win, they've got to:

I'm satisfied to bring up valid points while the otherside continually brings up 'evidence' that isn't evidence at all and makes crazy absurd statements that don't have any logic to them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

When's the last time you ever made a valid point, Kid?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
When's the last time you ever made a valid point, Kid?

Greed is what created capitalism, but it is also what will make it fail. You notice that the rich keep getting richer while the poor just keep hanging on? Sooner or later that's going to break again. And the next time will be the last. The rich never want to let go of their greedy blood money to save their own economy.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Marx meets Oliver Twist, as presented by an American version of Mohammad Saeed al-Sahaf?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You notice that the rich keep getting richer while the poor just keep hanging on?

No, I don't. I notice the poor getting richer as well. And the majority of Americans are middle class, so even if the poor were getting poorer, I don't see how the system would end. The middle class would still be loving life.

[Velociryx]

::gasp!:: Oh no! Now it's not just me who's noticing the poor getting richer too! Where will it stop?!

Yes, capitalism plays on human greed. It is therefore, a system which takes human nature into account, and succeeds.

The anthill collective subverts the self to be entirely subordinate to the state, if the self is allowed to exist at all. Thus, it denies human nature and (predictably) fails.

Capitalism sets up endless cycles of competiton, which pits players against each other. With proper controls in place, nobody ever truly comes out "on top" (at least not in the long run).

Communism relies on central control, but insists that no one is "really" in charge. What happens, however, is that in the power vacuum it creates, dictatorial powers quickly rise to the surface and grab the reins of power for themselves.

Do you really think that the majority of the party powerful live the same lives as the rank and file?

Do you really believe that they wait in the bread line hoping for a few crumbs too?

Or do they keep on preaching the gospel to keep the masses in line, while they order their servants about and drive their limos to their palatial homes?

-=Vel=-

[MichaeltheGreat]

Don't forget all the dachas on the lake and the mistresses.

Or the Swiss bank accounts - add those three in, and you've got your real version of the New Soviet Man.

[Sirotnikov]

I think I got some of the issue figured out.

Commies, what you have been constantly saying is that people like Bush Jr. or Bill G. have not actually made opportunities for themselves but have recieved opportunities that they were inherited by their rich family line. They were "born rich". Other people, have sadly not, and thus what is unfair is that some people get more opportunities that others don't, simply for being lucky enough to be born rich.

I think the point is mute, since if Bush Jr. (or lets say, Bush 3 or 4, when both leading Bushes fade out) will be total slackers, their opportunities will waste away and doors will slowly close for them. A person who is born rich has more opportunities but if he doesn't exploit any of them, he might die poor.

But let's assume you don't accept that and think that Bush Sr. will awlays be in the picture, and then Bush Jr. since even a no good slacker like him gets more privelages since he did get to be president.

Let's cancel privelages that go with family name. You can think about that, but then you would have to legally and morally deal with inheritance. How can you prevent Bush Sr. from inheriting his properties and name to Bush Jr.? You can't really. That's the whole point of inheritance and that's the point of life. We better ourselves in an attempt to create better starting ground for our children and to allow OUR genes to succeed better in the evolution struggle.

Our whole life goes by the way of accumulating wealth in hope to create better starting position for your kin. That goes not only for us as individuals, but also as a race. If we would stop accumulating things like wealth, knowledge and status, and would stop becoming more successfull, we will die out as a species. So we do have to accumulate 'stuff'.

So you might suggest, that to give a fair chance to all newborns, you can't inherit things directly to them. Rather the money goes to a govt. which will use it for public good, and will distribute equal money to all newborns, from which they can have a fresh clean start. But the universal knowledge and wealth are still acumulated.

However, one can't look at life as an issue of personal achievements. It's rather a string of achievements passed on through generations, as it's intended to be. One tries to improve his life in order to leave a better world first and foremost for HIS children. His kin are seen as a natural continuation of his life process. In many ways breaking family inheritance and taking away what someone's fathers have earned, is just as logical as taking away everything you own at the age of 40, saying that you have to start all over, to give a fair chance to those who did not do so well until the age of 40. Wealth and status is meant to be given to the next generation.

Inheritance being taken away, is against evolution in many ways. To an extent, it's down right impossible. No one can take away for instance, talent, mind and beauty. Suppose some people are born pretty and talented while others are not. Is this 'fair'? They did nothing active to gain the opportunities that their genes give them. Should we also forcefully randomize genes? That OBVIOUSLY goes against evolution and against natural processes.


Therefore, you can't possible eliminate inheritance, and claim that having everyone start from point blank, without extra, inherited opportunities, is in any way more productive (as seen before) or just (since the father has to see his fruits of hard labour go down the drain).


So capitalism can't fight inheritance, which does create a situation in which not everyone start from point blank. However capitalism is still fair enough, to let anyone, given he is talented and willing enough, be the started of a new 'thread' of successfull genes and wealth, by rewarding those with enough motivation and effort and proper reading of the market.

If you start a bussiness, and inherit it to your son, he can find a way to improve it and broaden it, and after 3 generations you can possibly be the next Bush.

Why is it promised that you will not 'run out of space'? Because the human species keeps growing in size and new products and gain opportunity will appears. 150 years ago it looked like people who owned horses and railways would rule transportation forever, until a couple of silly brothers invented flight.

Why are you assured that the same families won't keep winning, pushing you aside? Because sometime there will always be a f*ckup who will be a total loser and a slacker.

Think of Rome. It had everything. All the opportunities, all the money, all the military, all the culture. And it accumulated it too. It technically should have ruled the world forever. But then came a few bad, incompetent rules, and then arrived, fairly weak and burtal raiders from other places, who took advantage of that.


So yes, you, personally probably don't have a chance to become bill gates. But you have a chance to be a start of a process that might produce someone bigger.

[Velociryx]

Ahhh, but I can almost hear the drum beats now....watch for responses like these, coming to a thread near you:

* What gives your kids the right to lord your wealth over my kids?

* We should confiscate the wealth you pass on to your kids and disperse it equally to everyone (and even better, periodically take accumulated wealth from everyone as you sugessted and make them start over! Good plan!)

* You should not worry about providing for your kids. Your kids aren't important. The group is important. Sacrifice yourself and your posessions to the group, even though they did nothing to help you earn them.

Good stuff, huh? Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated, or you will be sent to the new Gulag.

-=Vel=-
(Hey! I'm getting better at this! I musta missed my calling!)

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Velociryx
.......

If BECAUSE he has more, these others have less, of course, but economics is not a zero-sum game. In short, it doesn't work that way. Bill Gates' wealth did NOTHING to deny you wealth. Thus, the fact of his obvious affluence should do an equal amount (ie - NOTHING) to afford you more.

-=Vel=-

You could even make the argument that because Bill Gates managed somehow to improve productivity by offering his products in the marketplace, and thus created some wealth, a percentage of which he has managed to retain, that the pie is bigger, and thus Bill Gates (and anyone who adds something to the economy) actually increases your chances of achieving a given level of wealth by growing the "pie".

[JohnT]

You could make that argument. Problem is, nobody on the other side will buy it because, well, it doesn't fit in with their theology.

[Tuberski]

I'm suprised that this went to 500 posts, more suprised that I posted here before this.

Doesn't more people getting wealthy also mean that the wealth they have is worth less?

Beat ya to it skywalker!

ACK!

[Kuciwalker]

Wow.... 500 posts.

I've never personally witnessed this.

[DinoDoc]

Speer's got to be happy.

[MichaeltheGreat]

time to sent this thread off to count trees.