Why Capitalists are Capitalists...

[GePap]

And what if anything does that have to do with capitalism?

All that you say was true in 1450, centuries before capitalism: hell, it has been true in all of human history: in any single of the "Communist" states, who got to the top? The ambitious ones. Does anyone here think Stalin was a slouch? or Mao? lets see your average CEO take part in the Long March.....

All this parising of huamn ambition is all fine and dandy, but it no more proves the validity of capitalism than the glory of the great Mongol Empire.

[Sava]

Capitalism isn't necessarily working. A few are succeeding, but a great many others are languising in poverty... even in America. For a system to work, the poverty level should be low, or non-existent. There should be equal opprotunity for all. People should have equal political clout. So far, capitalism isn't succeeding in being a very humane system. A better system would ensure public health and safety as well as providing independent business with an opprotunity to succeed. American capitalism favors the large corporation, and the rich white male CEO.

As with anything in life, Capitalism needs rules and they need to be enforced.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
And what if anything does that have to do with capitalism?

All that you say was true in 1450, centuries before capitalism: hell, it has been true in all of human history: in any single of the "Communist" states, who got to the top? The ambitious ones. Does anyone here think Stalin was a slouch? or Mao? lets see your average CEO take part in the Long March.....

All this parising of huamn ambition is all fine and dandy, but it no more proves the validity of capitalism than the glory of the great Mongol Empire.

All the "capitalism is evil, there's downtrodden poor people so it can't work" whiner crowd ignore any individual factors that cause some people to fail in the capitalist system. All performance failure has to be attributed to some external injustice inherent to the system, not to any cause within the individual.

[Velociryx]

Sava....I would say that is incorrect. There should be opportunity for advancement for all, but that is NOT the same as equal opportunity as has been described here by some of the folks arguing for the commie side.

In ANY situation where there are disparities of income (which is every situation, btw...even in Soviet Russia, don't kid yourself into thinking that the party bosses had to stand in the bread lines too), there WILL BE, by default, differences in opportunity.

The equality part comes into play by virtue of the fact that there should be (and are) opportunities for all to advance.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
All the "capitalism is evil, there's downtrodden poor people so it can't work" whiner crowd ignore any individual factors that cause some people to fail in the capitalist system. All performance failure has to be attributed to some external injustice inherent to the system, not to any cause within the individual.

The market does not give a rats ass about any individual, nor how ambitious or hard workind they are. You suceed based on whether what you bring to the table is wanted by the market or not. That is it. Lets take some poor farmer boy in mexico, who works ungodly hours in terrible conditiuon to feed his family. He then decides to risk his life to cross the border and get a job a bit less hazardous picking produce. His likelyhood of beaing wealthy are extremely low, no matter how much he struggles, how much he works, if only becuase he never picked up the skills the market values. If everyone studied fiannce, then finance majors would get paid **** after college.

The point I am tryin to make is that I think that maximizing the creation of capital and maximizing the abilities (or creativity, or excellence, whatever) of man ARE NOT THE SAME. Capitalism is about maximizing wealth production. That is it. It does not teach us any morals, life lessons, nothing, becase that is not what its purpose is. People fail in the capitalist system based on how worthwhile they are to the maximizing of wealth. Someone whos life ambition is to be a great poet might (but most likely won;t) be a great sucess in the capitalist system, but only if what he writes also is popular. If it isn;t, he won;t be a great success, no matter how much he worked. Is that wrong? I don't know. But to say that it is only hard work and personal ambition is wrong. Every system rewards certain actions and punishes others, becuase that is the nature of systems.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
People don't necessarily fit into one or another simplistic label 100% of the time. Generally rational people do irrational things, and rationality doesn't in the least address ignorance.

You have to decide whether people are rational or not before you begin with your model. It has to be an assumption. The whole right-wing capitalist model is based on the assumption that people behave rationally. And there's a good reason for it. Why do you think the creator (nature or whatever) added pleasure and pain to the world? Obviously to get us to behave a certain way, to pursue pleasure and avoid pain.

You can say that poor people do not behave rationally but you will be cutting against your very own theories, which leaves you with no intellectual foundation whatsoever.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
No, Kid, opportunities are not equal for everyone. Nor should they be.

Originally posted by Velociryx
Everybody HAS opportunities, but the fervor with which you persue them determines your results.

Fix this contradiction first.

edit: Maybe its not a contradiction. Maybe you believe that results don't have anything to do with initial conditions. You have to have opportunities to think like that and even then you would be full of ****.

[MichaeltheGreat]

"rational" people occasionally do irrational things.

"irrational" people occasionally do rational things.

Human behavior doesn't fit into the black box over here, or the white box over there.

[chequita guevara]

It's very easy to bash capitalism for being "evil," so a lot of socialists and communists fall into that trap. One merely need point to the rather vicious and violent measures to which both legal and illegal capitalists will go to protet their wealth and means of generating that wealth. The most naked examples, are criminal enterprises, such as the mob, drug gangs, etc. On the legal end, we have Coke hiring death squads to murder union activists in Columbia and Guatemala, Nike hiring children for a dollar a day to make $200 a pair shoes, Exxon cutting back on safety equipment and spill containment equipment and overworking their employees than taking the clean up expenses and damages as a tax writeoff, etc.

Injustice isn't inherent to the system, but the powerful are able to get away with it because of their ability to control the means of communication and politics. Sometimes they go to far, do something so egregious to common decency that they must be punished, even if it's only a slap on the wrist. At other times, they threaten the entire system with their greed, and the system must intervene.

Speaking about the injustice of the system as it is fires people'e sense of righteousness and indignity. In other words, it's a hook. This is only part of the reason that socialists and their ilk want to bring the system down, an overdeveloped sense of unfairness.

Marxists, i.e. scientific socialists, however, "oppose" the system for three other reasons. Reason #1 is the inherent instability of the system. It is precisely when the system is at it's most productive that it falls down. When it is producing more than can be consumed, the economy falters, people lose their jobs, their homes, and their lives for being too prodctive. This is the capitalist paradox. Only so long as their is room to grow is it "efficient." Too much production means capital is allocated "inefficiently" and excess capital must be cleared away, generally by a crisis (aka depression, aka recession, aka slowdown).

Reason #2 stems from #1, the magnitude of these "slowdowns" has a tendency to increase, or rather, they did until after the Great Depression. Keynesian economics has mitigated this tendency greatly, at the expense of growth. We don't fall down as far as we used to do, but we do it more frequently (though not in the last twenty years, as Keynesian policies have been dismantled). Sometimes, even a crisis cannot clear away enough capital and labor for the system to become productive again. In these cases, war is necessary to phsycially destroy competitors. Both World Wars were examples of this.

Reason #3 flows from the previous reason. These crises are inefficient. Labor and capital become unproductive, people's livelihoods are destroyed, sometimes even their very lives. The ultimate expression of these crises, war, is even more wasteful. On top of this, much human productivity is wasted in such things as advertizing (necessary from a capitalist standpoint), the military, prison systems, various stock and financial schemes, etc. All of this could be put to better use. Add again unemployment, underemployment, and the waste of many potentially productive human beings because of poor education, crime, etc., and there is a vast army of capital and labor that serves very little productive purpose. It's inefficient. We could use this energy to lower the amount of time we have to work and maximize the amount of time we have to be with friends, family, and increasing our human potential.

To this I could add the problems of human alienation, human spacial organization, racism, heterosexism, agism, pollution, overuse of resources, etc. The world could be managed much more efficiently by direct, democratic oversight, rather than the anarchic "take what you can grab" system we have now.

As much as people claim that corporations have resource management in their best interests, the fishing industry is great example of how this is false. Each individual company knows that the resources need to be better managed. If they wipe out tuna stocks, they can't sell anymore tuna. That's why we don't have Atlantic halibut anymore. Unless they are coerced by an outside force, however, they cannot voluntarily stop, because their competitors won't stop. So fish stocks have collapsed in the oceans around the world . . . with the exception of the Pacific Halibut which is managed very strictly because the government go involved (many, many decades ago, when it was nearly fished out of existence) Today the Pacific Halibut stock is abundent and quotas are strictly managed.

In this case, a democratically managed system of resource allocation has saved the resource, provides jobs, and profit. We Marxists argue that the entire world could be run similarly.

Course, it hasn't ever worked out that way, because every place socialism has appeared it has been under seige from day one. It is amusing that those who are the biggest proponents of the Israelis acting as despotic as necessary to protect themselves from terrorism always claim the opposite when it regards socialist countries. More than thirty thousand Palestinians have been killed since 1948, 1% of their total population today. That's a huge number, more than were killed by the "dictatorships" of Cuba, Nicaragua, etc. But we're the murderous bad guys and they are the set upon heroes.

This isn't to bash Israel. They have to do what they have to do (we can argue about efficacy elsewhere). So did/do the socialist states. Protecting yourself from invasion, terrorism, and subversion causes massive inefficiencies. The USSR was invaded twice, and suffered from terrorism from 1917 to 1991. Cuba was invaded, bombed, and still suffers from terroist attacks. Nicaragua was invaded and terrorism. Vietnam, the same, China got off with just terrorism. Eastern Europe got off with just terrorism. And so on. Peasant countries all, which had to industrialize and defend themselves at the same time. Yeah, it's pretty inefficent, but it's an external inefficiency forced upon them.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by GePap
If everyone studied fiannce, then finance majors would get paid **** after college.

I'm just going to use your point here Gepap...

And how would you know if the major that you are studying in college is not one where too many people are studying? You don't that's where luck comes in. With the market you always have luck, because no one has the information the need to make the right decision all the time. In general wealthy people do have more information though.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


"rational" people occasionally do irrational things.

Occasionally? How do you expalin all the people who don't have as much as Bill Gates then. Saying that people behave that way sometimes is completely different from saying that all poor people are irrational.

[ajbera]

An economic system, be it capitalist or socialist, is not meant to teach moral values. Moral instruction is the domain of religion (Christianity, Islam, et al) or moral philosophy (secular humanism, etc.) For the proper functioning of a society, moral instruction will provide a defense against the excesses of the economic system. This is why it's necessary to have a strong moral religion/philosophy in a capitalist State, and for the most part, it works.

One (possible) reason why USSR and other communist States were also atheist, other than the power wielded by the church and the focus on God rather than on Man, was that, with an economic system that (purported) to engender social brother/sisterhood, the need for an external system to encourage such social responsibility was lessened (in theory - it didn't work, probably because the natural human drive to believe in the transcendental was smothered.) Although I'm a capitalist, I would be interested in seeing if a socialist state with a very strong religious component could thrive. Just not the U.S., please - we are better off with "struggle for improvement" system we have.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Calitalism tends more to reward 'winners'

Socialism tends more to rewards 'losers'

Guess which one will tend to attracts more winners and less loser, and thus be more likely to work closer to intent.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Calitalism tends more to reward 'winners'

Socialism tends more to rewards 'losers'

Guess which one will tend to attracts more winners and less loser, and thus be more likely to work closer to intent.

So I guess the best system of all had to be the Roman system: losers became slaves with no rights (they were really losers, I mean, they could not beat the Romans, so slavery was just what they deserved, the weak and spineless bastards!) while the most ambitious and intelligent men would float to the top and lead, make great conquests, have great arches that stand the test of time built for them! Yeah, that a winner. What the hell did Bill Gates do comapred to Octavan? Lets see any of the puny mamas boys that run Wall street try to win a civl war and then rule and empire! they would fold like that!

ROME! ROME! ROME! ROME!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by ajbera
An economic system, be it capitalist or socialist, is not meant to teach moral values.

Economic systems will find the ideology which best justifies their existence. There is a reason why capitalist countries all have individualist ideologies and moralities. An economic system that clashes with its ideology either gets a new ideology or falls.

The reason why socialist countries are officially atheist is because Marxism is an atheist philosophy. Humans are responsible for their own salvation.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by GePap
What the hell did Bill Gates do comapred to Octavan? Lets see any of the puny mamas boys that run Wall street try to win a civl war and then rule and empire! they would fold like that!

ROME! ROME! ROME! ROME!

[GePap]

People keep talking here about risk: what risks? What si the most someone risk in investing? loosing that money..wow, given the range of options someone with little or no money has, that is not that huge a risk, comapred to what people took before.

Look at Gengis Khan: he first gains leadership of his tribes (somehting that took political skill and ruthlessness, military daring) and then he engges in some of the most spectacular conquests EVER. In fact, od any of today's "great men" hold eve the most miserable candle to the great achievemets of men like Khan, or Alexander, Napoleon or Ceaser? But the fact that these men ahcieved incredible things mean that if they came to the modern world, they would all of a sudden be able to transmit their skills to achieve in this modern world? They cretainly have ambition: but that is not enough. As I said, each system has winners and loosers, it reenforces a certain set of behaviors most beneficial to it.

And on the question of capitalism and morals: should the tax exemption for charitable donations be ended? I mean, money that goes to some soup kitchen is wasted: it buys some cheap subsidized grain, but then is just given for free to one of the "losers" as Lefty so "accurately" stated. Should good capital that could go into investments, IRA's and other economically worthwhile measures be wasted like that? If a consumer wants to waste his money thus, let them, its their choice, but should the government encourage such a wholesale waste of valuable capita for no economic good at all?

[Velociryx]

Results don't really have a lot to do with initial conditions. Initial conditions are the defining parameters of what your choices are, but that's about the extent of their involvement (ie - I don't get invited to the same dinner parties as Bill Gates...AT these dinner parties, he has opportunities I do not have to structure new business deals. That doesn't mean I don't have just as many opportunities....it's just that mine are on a smaller scale....as they should be. I don't have Gates' resource pool).

But....in looking at the options I DO have available to me, no....my current position has little to do with whether or not I will succeed or fail. That is largely determined by effort and timing on my part.

You seem to think that everybody should have the EXACT SAME opportunities....let me ask you then...what have you ever done to even be considered for an invite to a Bill Gates dinner party? What have I?

The answer should be painfully obvious....nothing.

That doesn't make it unfair....not in the least!

The best thing commies can do is stop whining about how the man is exploiting and out to get them, and go make some opportunities for themselves, rather than sitting around pining for the revolution that's not coming....

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Results don't really have a lot to do with initial conditions.

Actually they do. 90% of all wealthy people were born to wealthy families. Bill Gates started out rich. He was able to get IBM to buy an OS from him because his mother sat on a board of directors with the CEO of IBM. The best determinate of results are actually inituil conditions.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap




So I guess the best system of all had to be the Roman system: losers became slaves with no rights (they were really losers, I mean, they could not beat the Romans, so slavery was just what they deserved, the weak and spineless bastards!) while the most ambitious and intelligent men would float to the top and lead, make great conquests, have great arches that stand the test of time built for them! Yeah, that a winner. What the hell did Bill Gates do comapred to Octavan? Lets see any of the puny mamas boys that run Wall street try to win a civl war and then rule and empire! they would fold like that!

ROME! ROME! ROME! ROME!

Bill Gates would hire Mad Mike Hoare, and a few other types, and do just fine, thank you. Do you think Octavian Rambo'd it with his gladius and left a trail of chopped liver in his path?

[Velociryx]

If that's true, Che, then I should not be where I am. Am I just that damned good? Are all the people around me whom I have WATCHED bootstrap themselves from the gutter to something significantly better?

We must just be an amazingly talented lot to have been able to buck the system that is largely influenced by starting parameters then, eh?

But that's not how it is.

I'm just an average guy who was single-mindedly determined to do better.

As are all my friends.

And we are, starting conditions be damned! And I'm not even talking about people who are born to affluence, I'm talking about the rank and file being able to use the existing system which you guys swear till you're blue in the face is broken beyond repair to better themselves significantly.

Of course, that's not what you guys want to hear....cos if it works (and I'm a living example that it does), then membership for the glorious revolution might dry up....

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

You mean lilke going out and formenting revolution to overthrow bloodily the "dinner crowd" set?

Don't worry, I am sure that as such a crackerjack businessman, you would have the skills to survive the bloody purge. After all, you are a Winner!......

Actually Vel, we had a thread here a hwile back about economics (the wage gap), and one of the sites I dug up showed that income mobility has decreased with time sicne the mid 60's. Someone in the bottom 20% of incomes has a 68% chance of staying there, as opposed to somehting like 40-50% in the 70's. So innitial condition do have a good deal to do with things. Would you say that a race in which someone starts 10 feet from the finnish and were someone starts 30 feet away is a fair race? Someone who in increadibly fast could in theory win such a race even if he begun 30 and not 10 feet back. But the likelyhood is small.

[Velociryx]

And Che...by your own words, you have defined exactly what I'm talking about.

Gates' starting position defined his choices. Mom served on the board of IBM....that gave him his opportunity, but HE still had to do the work....he still had to pull together (purchase) the initial OS and make the pitch.

Had he flubbed the meeting, IBM would not have bought.

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Results don't really have a lot to do with initial conditions. Initial conditions are the defining parameters of what your choices are, but that's about the extent of their involvement (ie - I don't get invited to the same dinner parties as Bill Gates...AT these dinner parties, he has opportunities I do not have to structure new business deals. That doesn't mean I don't have just as many opportunities....it's just that mine are on a smaller scale....as they should be. I don't have Gates' resource pool).

So let me put 2 and 2 together. You don't believe that initial conditions 'really' matters, and you agree that opportunity is not equal. That still adds up to the rich having an unfair advantage. Then you just say that the system is fair? Is there something you aren't telling us?

Oh, and it doesn't matter what accomplishments I have made. You have to be rich to eat with Bill Gates. If you're not rich you will make dinner conversation very ackward.

[Velociryx]

Gepap: The race analogy is generally a good one, but is not accurate here.

The reason: We're not all aiming for the same "finish line."

Each person has their own individual goals and desires, and they seldom interact in that way (ie - if your goal is to "beat" Gates to being worth ten trillion dollars, your anaolgy is apt....he's closer to that goal than you are, and will likely "win." But if your goal is to become as wealthy as Gates, then your accomplishing that goal in no way interacts with the bank balance of Mister Gates (unless your plan involves clandestinely transfering his balance to your bank account).

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Were you poor as a child Vel? live in a broken home? Perhaps suffered malnutrition? Does not seem so, since

And we are, starting conditions be damned! And I'm not even talking about people who are born to affluence, I'm talking about the rank and file being able to use the existing system which you guys swear till you're blue in the face is broken beyond repair to better themselves significantly.

Anyone in the middle class enjoys a level of affleunce that most human beings do not, and many American dont. I have never faced real hadship in my life, I came from a good background, and I have built upon it: but I am very well aware that I am building upon a solid structure. Other aren't.Your 'life experience" is not an arguemnt, neither is mine, or Che's. So please get a real argument Vel. Becuase all incan say to what you are saying is:

Good for you...

[Velociryx]

*sigh* Kid....I don't get you, man.

No! You do not have the same opportunities as Bill Gates. You are your own person, in your own unique life situation, and just because you don't have 100% of the same opportunities that Gates has, does NOT mean you do not have opportunities of your own.

I wrote two novels, and I daresay, I wrote them far better than Gates ever could have. That was my opportunitiy, and I ran with it.

People ARE individuals, not ants in part of a great socialist colony.

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
If that's true, Che, then I should not be where I am. Am I just that damned good? Are all the people around me whom I have WATCHED bootstrap themselves from the gutter to something significantly better?

By your own interpretation you could be digging ditches any day now. A bunch of poor people will start competing with you and put you out of business.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
He was able to get IBM to buy an OS from him because his mother sat on a board of directors with the CEO of IBM.

Bullshit.

Gates having a corporate lawyer daddy didn't get him off the ground. Gates and Allen's earliest products (language and compiler products) did.

Microsoft didn't have an exclusive on developing an OS for IBM, and in fact, they wanted to sell the rights to IBM, and IBM refused (lucky for Microsoft) because according to IBM's corporate mantra of the time (I worked there) "There's no money in software"

Gates and Allen succeeded for reasons that had nothing to do with their parent's initial financial condition.

The entire point of the debate is also not for everyone to get to where Gates and Allen are financially - if someone from a crap background raises himself from virtually nothing to a 50-60k a year job and a good pattern of savings and investment so he can retire, is that a "bad" outcome? How about a 100k job and decent retirement?

The leftist whining that's prevelent throughout these threads is that unless you're born with a silver spoon in hand, you're stuck in shitsville, unless the heroic party comes in and plays Marx meets Robin Hood. Oh, and nobody is actually responsible for their choices or results.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
*sigh* Kid....I don't get you, man.

No! You do not have the same opportunities as Bill Gates. You are your own person, in your own unique life situation, and just because you don't have 100% of the same opportunities that Gates has, does NOT mean you do not have opportunities of your own.

You have to tell me why this is fair now. What you are explaining is not fair.